[geocentrism] Re: New paper
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2007 12:56:37 -0400
Neville said:
Once again, thanks for your criticism. My replies are as follows:
A small g field would be subject to local perturbations just from the Sun and
Moon position changes. EG: The sun's gravity on the geostat sat varies by
about 3% in 12 hours - the difference between the Sun and sat being on the same
side and then on opposite sides of the earth. This would lead to obvious
deviations from the geostat altitude over time.
This assumes that the Sun and Moon have gravitational fields. The arcs we
observe on the Sun can be purely magnetic.
RB: Isn’t the Newtonian model being used here to compare with your model? My
comment referred to the inability of Newton’s gravity with Earth alone to keep
a stable geostat distance when the Sun and Moon perturbations are also
considered. In the MS Newtonian model, the Sun and Moon definitely have
gravitational fields.
Why not replace the term ‘gravity field’ w/aether? We know that the far
firmament rotates westward and the near firmament eastward, so the boundary
must be stagnant - at the geostat distance (as discussed in past posts).
You have lost me here. How do we know this?
RB: The cb’s from the Moon to the galaxies (the far firmanent) all rotate
westward in the GS frame.
The LEO satellites and the general global atmospheric motion(near firmament)
is eastward in the GS frame. Spacecraft are launched eastward to get a boost
from the Earth’s rotation, according to MS Physics, but GC says that’s just the
aether flow boost.
In the N and S hemispheres, the prevailing upper winds 5 miles up are the
eastbound jet streams, with even higher speeds at higher altitudes… all caused
by the aether vortex flow – eastward.
Somewhere between the LEOs and the Moon, the aether flow reverses => at the
geostat distance(GSD). Voila!
Below the GSD, Earth satellites orbit eastward; above, they orbit westward.
This is meant literally (as in the Bible!) – all celestial bodies are
satellites of Earth , either primary, secondary or tertiary.
If Paul D finishes the GS T vs R graph for artificial satellites, the
functional dependence of cosmic period on GS distance, and the reversal
distance will be manifested quantitatively.
Much as we would map an EM field, we need a spatial map of the aether
properties in the GS ref frame near the Earth and make predictions that are
experimentally separable from Newton.
Which 'type' of aether do you prefer?
RB:the GI aether and the firmament
... the radio-frequency ion propulsion system did a remarkable job in raising
such a mass almost 4,800 km against the force of gravity with a nominal thrust
of just 0.015 N. ..... This tends to imply that there could have been no
gravitational force acting on the satellite from an altitude of at most 31,000
km.
Secondly, we note that its increase in altitude was a constant 14 km per day,
but that the thrust was also constant.
This further points to there being zero gravitational field strength at 31,000
km, ==> the law of inertia, being wrong
insofar as it refers to moving objects.
....there can only have been zero acceleration during the 343 days of
continuous firing of the 15 mN ion thruster,
Fourthly, Newton's second law of motion has to be flawed in some way, since the
ion thruster on ARTEMIS
produced force and resultant velocity, but no acceleration.
From the Artemis site: With a thrust of just 0.015 N, RITA raised the orbit of
Artemis by just 15 km per day until operational geostationary orbit was achieved
I believe the 15 km/day refers to an average speed , not continuous. To
increase altitude from 31 Mm requires an acceleration , just as stopping at 36
Mm requires a deceleration. (See the yellow zone in image below).
I interpret the description as pointing RITA earthward for the first half ~ 170
days, and reversing the thrust of .015 N for the last half of the trip. The
average would be the speed at about 85 days into the trip.
I would certainly verify this with an inquiry.
Certainly no mention of thrust reversal or average speed is made and the
trouble with such an enquiry is that the ones who think they are answering the
question place a MS slant on what thet themselves understood went on. This is a
problem in general when it comes to space, the fact that no one is actually
there to see with their own eyes what happened. Everything is simply assumed to
work a la Newton.
RB: The technical details of the Artemis orbit correction that we need may
have been lost in their summarization for the general public.
If the MS response to an inquiry is suspect, then why is the published ESA
description of Artemis/Rita believed at all? Why believe what was published,
but not a followup from the same source?
Isn’t this deja-vu – like picking and choosing Biblical beliefs? Here the
published description of Artemis is accepted as credible, yet a request for
additional information is dismissed pre-emptively as suspect ??
It is this inconsistency in epistemology that makes it difficult to have
reasonable discussions; the sources of truth in both science and Scripture vary
with personal feelings of subjective acceptance or rejection.
Surely the claim that the 2nd law is faulty is a serious charge, and requires
verification that the Artemis description - and your interpretation of it – are
correct. And that my interpretation of average speed is wrong.
All that’s needed is to ask what operational commands were sent to Rita, since
it appears the orbit adjustment at constant thrust would overshoot the GSD of
3.6 Mega-m (not 36 Mm, as I erroneously have above). Don’t mention Newton’s
laws or their violation – just ask for the actual Rita commands.
If you are not inclined to inquire, I will.
The observed speed of cb’s is then the speed of the cb in the
aether plus the aether’s speed with respect to Earth(GS frame).
Agreed - hence the Sun 'losing' 4 minutes per day, for example.
RB: Let me clarify. The Galilean addition law holds for powered space craft,
that can move relative to the aether. The cb’s are passive; their observed
speed IS the aether’s speed. The orbit period of the Sun is 4 mins
slower/longer than the stars because the aether’s speed at the Sun’s location
is 4 mins slower than at the stars.
ESA has partnered with NASA previously; can ESA – or any space agency - be
trusted, as an ally of NASA? Is the Artemis data just a computer simulation?
Why is ESA exempted from these charges - continental chauvinism?
:-)
I should state that it is only with deep space exploration (in which category I
place the Moon) that I distrust NASA. I have no problem with them for LEO, nor
for GTO and geostat sat stuff.
Neville.
RB:I do have a problem with inconsistent choices of truth sources. Also there
is a problem with all the unexpected agreement above re aether ( which I edited
out). There must be a failure to communicate somewhere! :-) :-)
Seriously, it would be good to have help in modeling the aether – which I
intend to explore in the near future.
Just think, Neville – the aether domain is wide-open; hasn’t been researched
in a century!
Robert
Other related posts:
