Because there is no gravitational force at 22,236 satute miles above mean sea level to pull on the satellite and cause it to fall back to Earth. Hence, the satellite "hangs on nothing" just like the Earth "hangs on nothing". You put a satellite up, it stays in the same spot. Why make any assumption that it's orbiting when it's constant position can be explained by a non-rotating Earth and zero gravity at 22,236 miles high? Respectfully, somebody please tell me what is wrong with my child-like reasoning. Bernie "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Sorry, why does the geosynchronous satellite NOT simply "fall down" in a GS universe? Allen and Philip, Gentlemen, I feel that your discussion is drifting. In my opinion, the essence of your debate is contained within the following: [P - red] We don't need to talk about frames of reference. keep the discussion on basic mechanics.. [A - blue] Well gee..if we take that approach we dont even need to talk about mechanis in order to discover the reasons why and what the mechanics are either ? Frames of refernce are what the whole HC/AC myth is built on to explain why the sun only looks like it is moving accross the sky but it is realy an illusion.....Gee wiz what relevant O&E do you want to talk about in this discovery process?...this is about as basic as it gets in terms of HC/AC V GC......Lets just There is only one reference point.. Its here. That?s my point! and if we hold to what you suggest here then H/AC can't appeal to multiple RF...... if it cannot ................well even they would admit the whole HC/AC thing would fall apart real quick............If you want to stick to that great! ....I'll even let Phil Platt and or Einstien himself make the case........I suggest you read Mach's "The principle of mechanics" and "Principles of Relativity" the whole point is to define Multiple equivalent RF so as to, among other things, make light Isotropic in the universe so as to explain the Sagnac, MM, MG, whcih were and are "real" O&E, away.. .....RFs are not a side issue they are the issue........ Relative v Absolute....... Your methodology is damaging to the cause, because it lacks credible thought processing and smacks of flat earther reasoning. plm No because you can actually O&E earths roundness......you can't actually O&E the universes isotropic nature...although you can imagine that .... You have both made some good points, but is not the core of this the identification of some physical process that tends to favour the HC/AC model over the GS (geostationary) model? I believe that many observations favour the GS model, but I also see one such physical phenomenon that supports the HC/AC position, and that is the geosynchronous satellite. For, whatever gravity is caused by and whatever equation you want to describe its effect with, why does the geosynchronous satellite simply "fall down" in a GS universe? Best wishes, Neville. --------------------------------- What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship. --------------------------------- 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.