[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?

• From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 09:36:37 +1000

```When I read my own words here, I definitely made a couple of reverse term
mistakes... However everyone seems to have gotten what i meant...
I did not get what you meant Robert, by,

To change the AM, an external torque must be applied, which explains what
stops the motion at the equator.
btw: the satellite planar motion won't stop if the torque continues.....

I admit to being dense on this angular momentum thing. I thought it referred to
changing  the diameter of the rotating mass, as when the dancer throws his
hands in and out. Are you saying this is the same thing if a fixed diameter
rotating mass  has its axis moved? When I played with twisting my electric
drill spinning with a heavy flywheel in the chuck I observed the force on my
wrists as I turned it axially, but I did not observe any change of speed or
load upon the motor.. Perhaps I should do it again and meter it.

I had no clue how I would shift the orbit as I stated, so I was speaking
theoretically. However, am I correct in believing,  that an orbiting satellite
would react in the same way as a spinning flywheel, opposing any axial rotation.

If we took the shaft of a spinning wheel and tipped it 90degrees, we have to
work to do this, but as soon as the work stopped the inertial stability of the
wheel would hold it in this new position.. That by the way, it occurs to me, is
another example of non frictional resistance. Where did that work go?

Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:00 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?

> Three things are possible, that would be observed from such an [polar]
orbit.
>
> 1. In the HC system, it should show the earth moving towards the
> east making one 24 hour rotation for every 24 hour period of its
> own orbit.
>
> or
>
> 2. It would show the earth quite stationary, and its is orbit
> would fly over the same longitude for the full period of its orbit.
>
> The third possibility, is it could show the effect of Roberts
> cosmically rotating Plenum.
>

Continuing from the last post.....
the plenum's effect on the polar orbit depends on altitude:
if > 5 1/2 earth radii, the plenum would push the polesat (weakly) E to W,
like the stars, near the equator
if < 5 1/2 earth radii, the plenum would push the polesat (weakly) W to E,
like the atmosphere, near the equator

> It is this effect that I want to discuss...within the GC
> framework.  We are comparing two identical orbits as regards
> Newtonian rules. One vertical, and one horizontal.
>
> In the vertical we have no problem of a hovering satellite.
> Centrifugal and gravitational forces will balance...
>
> In the horizontal case though we do not.. The satellite is
> stationary and not moving at all. Are we then moving from
> positive centripetal force to a negative centipetal force...
>
> Let me close by posing a mental exercise. Remember the earth is
> not moving here.
>
> Take the stable orbit   I have created around the poles, (imagine
> it as a spinning ring, with a black dot on it, which it is. ) and
> nudge it slowly till it has shifted 90 degrees to an equatorial
> orbit. It now is in the exact same state as regards orbit, as our
> original geosynchronous satellite.
>
> What stopped it moving?

The polesat has a stable orbit in classical physics because angular momentum
is conserved.
To change the AM, an external torque must be applied, which explains what
stops the motion at the equator.
btw: the satellite planar motion won't stop if the torque continues.....
Using the euphemistic term 'nudge' or 'quasi-torque' or 'pseudo torque'
won't avoid the fact that a finite torque must be applied.
Of course, using infinitesimal torques will work, but require an infinite
time to shift the orbit to the equator.
Can we wait that long?      d(8^)>

Pax Christi,

Robert

>
> Philip.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

```