[geocentrism] Re: Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness and Deception
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 06:45:18 +1000
I now aggree with your last paragraph (since I no longer approach the subject
from a 'Bible-first, science-second' perspective).
Neville
The Bible is the base upon which our perspective of science must be based, even
if only internally. Our science can be external, pure science without any
biblical support in references.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:28 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness and Deception
Philip,
You can get all the figures and calculations in my upcoming paper (God
willing). When the paper is up on the website I will announce it to the forum
(or you could keep checking the "What's New" scrolling list).
I now aggree with your last paragraph (since I no longer approach the subject
from a 'Bible-first, science-second' perspective).
Neville.
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I did not doubt it Paul. And even Nevilles lower figure of a few ounces ,
likewise would take more fuel than was available... Blind freddie.
Neville I would be interested in your method of calculation .. and reasons.
can you direct me to the place?
I must repeat. I think we are wasting time by pursueing the idea that all
the rocket scientists are fabricating lies/formulas to fit a false cosmology.
Independents are also working on rocket research. The basic science is sound.
Its the theoretical assumptions of how and why that we must challenge, and
point to REASONABLE alternatives.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:09 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Proof of Heliocentric Incorrectness and
Deception
Neville J, Bernie B, Philip M -- greetings.
A 3,000-kg satellite at the parking orbit altitude under Newton's formula
for gravitational attraction would weigh 660 N. Under my formula, the same
satellite would weigh 0.0577 N (for the "purists," this is about a quarter of
an ounce).
The 440 N control motor includes an element of orbit raising, but does
not tell us what the designed operational lifetime of this satellite is.
Probably ten years. We would need to know also the rate of burn.
However, most satellites now have an electrical thruster motor for orbit
raising, the power from which is of the correct order of magnitude for my
formula, but not for that of Newton.
I hope this gives some sort of "feel" to the figures Bernie has
presented.
Neville.
============================================
Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Orbit Geostationary (55 deg East longitude)
Dry Mass 1181 kg
Lift-Off Mass 2750 kg
Size Cuboid of dimensions 2.0 m x 1.77 m x 2.8 m with solar arrays
on north and south sides
Length when fully deployed 15.445 m (North-South)
Spacecraft Propulsion and Control 440 N Liquid Apogee Motor with
MON-3 (Mixed Oxides of Nitrogen) and MMH (Mono Methyl Hydrazine) for orbit
raising.
3-axis body stabilised in orbit using sensors, momentum and
reaction wheels, magnetictorquers and eight 10 Newton & eight 22 Newton
Reaction Control Thrusters
Power Solar array generating 2400 W. Two 70 Ah Nickel-Hydrogen
batteries to support full payload operation during eclipse period
Mission life 12 years
http://www.isro.org/insat3e/pg2.htm
====================================================
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How much fuel do you estimate would be needed to keep a 2500kg satellite
from falling for a period of 10-12 years?[1] Paul..
Could you do the sums Paul, remembering of course that the weight of this
2,500kg mass is less than 250kg at that altitude.
Philip.
====================================
http://www.isro.org/gslv.htm
http://www.isro.org/insat3e/pg2.htm
These pages describe the insat3e and its launch vehicle. The illustration
"Mission Sequence" is a bit thin on details, but the press releases at these
addresses, which describe the launch of another insat3e on an Arianne 5 launch
vehicle give sufficient detail to get a feel for what is going on.
http://www.isro.org/recent_events.htm
http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Sep28_2003.htm
http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Sep29_2003.htm
http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Sep30_2003.htm
http://www.isro.org/pressrelease/Oct02_2003.htm
This final release describes the final orbit crafting and most
importantly, gives this information -
The 440 Newton Liquid Apogee Motor (LAM), which was used to conduct
INSAT-3E orbit raising manoeuvres, has performed well. It enabled taking the
satellite from its Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) of 649 km perigee and
36,000 km apogee with an orbital inclination of 7° with respect to the
equatorial plane to its present near GSO orbit with zero degree inclination.
The LAM was fired for a total duration of 121 minutes in three phases on
September 29, September 30 and 1st October. A total velocity of 1460 m/sec was
added by LAM at the Apogee point of the orbit to take the satellite from GTO to
GSO.
INSAT-3E had 1592 kg propellant at the time of its injection into GTO by
Ariane-5 launch vehicle on September 28. After orbit raising operations, it has
510 kg of propellant remaining that is sufficient to arrest the drift and park
it at its orbital slot as well as maintain the satellite in its orbit and
controlling its orientation during its design life of more than 12 years.
Just to repeat, 510kg of fuel for 12 years operation. It uses fuel at the
rate of 8.94kg per minute so with 510kg remaining, that means it has 57 minutes
of firing time to last 12 years. This is approximately one part in 111,000.
I think you can see just how unlikely it is that this amount of fuel
could possibly suspend the weight of this satellite for this length of time
even if its weight were just 25kg. Accordingly, I won't attempt to educate
myself to a level sufficient to calculate weight at 36000km, or thruster
efficiency, or anything else. I think that myth is busted! And best of all,
NASA isn't involved, so you know it isn't lies!
Should anyone suspect that the fuel remaining could be greater than
stated, one must also remember the ratio of launch mass to final mass in orbit.
For this vehicle, it is greater than 150:1 thus if the remaining fuel were just
doubled to 114 minutes of firing time, then the launch mass would go up by more
than 76,000kg. Blind Freddie would notice that.
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.25/743 - Release Date:
2/04/2007 4:24 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more
at the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date: 4/04/2007
1:09 PM
Other related posts:
