RB: Isn’t the Newtonian model being used here to compare with your model?
Yes, okay.
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 ??
The difference is that the explanation of the altitude raising is based upon the satellite going around in a circular orbit (the MS HC model), such that the thrust from RITA would simply be assumed as adding a very small component to ARTEMIS' primarily tangential velocity. If the reporter and/or the project team who answer the question get wind of where we are coming from, then the answer would be geared towards supporting the MS view. If the answer comes back as being in accord with MS physics, then I would be rightly accused of being selective if I reject it. This is a fundamental problem that we face, we do not have the funding to research these things ourselves, but have to rely upon others, who place their own interpretation on the results of experiments that they conduct.
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.
Truth is known only to God. Perhaps I am too sceptical of what I read? Perhaps you are not sceptical enough? But, either way, whatever we arrive at will always be an opinion. I have interpreted the write-up in a way that I believe makes sense in the geostationary model, that's all. I cannot expect that HC physicists will then jump in and support my position, when their whole instinct will be to do the complete opposite. What value we place upon pieces of data and information has to be selective, we cannot blindly believe that everything we are presented with is "gospel truth," nor that people would not be prepared to be misleading. How do we know, for instance, that the person we ask has actually gone to the source and found out, rather than give the answer which makes sense to him? In that case, of what value is their answer? And, from that, of what value was the question?
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.
I will adjust my computer program to see what result your suggestion brings out.
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.
Okay, I'll try it, but after doing the computer simulation first.
If you are not inclined to inquire, I will.
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.
I follow.
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
I would be happy to assist, but how much weight will you place on the deep-space claims of NASA?
Neville.
