[geocentrism] ] Re: Geosynchronous Satellites Paper

From: Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
To: Geocentrism <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 23:21:27 -0400

  From: Paul Deema
  ........
   I think it might be instructive to go back to why Rita was
  firing continuously in the first place. The final stage of the Ariane 5
did not
  deliver the expected impulse. It ceased early. This left Artemis in a
lower
  than expected orbit. To salvage the mission and place the payload in
  geosynchronous orbit, Rita was fired up to complete the task. And you are
you
  suggesting that it was fired in the direction opposite to the direction of
the
  thrust of the already deficient Ariane 5?
The thrust was actually radially outward, as I discovered w/ more research,
but could have been opposite to the motion (antapex) ,  as I indicated, with
the same effect - Artemis would rise.
  I say again -- you can't be serious!
But this acceleration does not make it rise; it doesn?t even change its
height
  !! Who said it did? Certainly not I!
 Once again...
  From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:42:52 +0000 (GMT)
......You can't be serious. Reducing your velocity while in orbit will
reduce your
altitude not raise it. Unless of course you are basing your statement upon
your
own private definition of which direction any given satellite is orbiting.
Are
you so doing?

Paul DPD only states what reducing velocity will do; not what increasing
velocity does.  Technically he's right - he didn't say what would make it
rise.

However, to say that increasing velocity will also reduce altitude (making a
rise in altitude impossible) is a contradiction. But MS and PD ignore
contradictions.
Those realists who hold that contradictions are logical fallacies believe
the premise "reducing velocity  reduces altitude," implies " increasing
velocity increases altitude or keeps it constant" .  Both these options are
false by observation of satellite operations and classical mechanics.
   Yes it does, but does a decrease in speed cause an increase in height? No
of course not! If it did, as I've
  remarked before, the SST etc would go to a higher orbit if they fired
their
  thrusters against the direction of travel (deceleration) instead of the
reality
  -- they decrease their speed and fall towards Earth.
He still doesn't get it.

Using math is of no avail, for he doesn't understand an inverse variation
relationship.
Using tables of measured satellite speeds vs. altitudes,  he either doesn't
understand or ignores.
Using his own MS links to get the answer... he ignores.
He just states what the SST would do based on.... based on what? His
intuition?  His logic of contradictions?

A CHALLENGE:  Show the forum who and where it confirms that
"the SST etc would go to a higher orbit if they fired their
thrusters against the direction of travel (deceleration) instead of the
reality
-- they decrease their speed and fall towards Earth.

 The expected answer is silence, based on past history :  the aether
research, the explanation of spacecraft simultaneously accelerating and not
accelerating,
computing satellite periods in the GS frame,..
or
changing the subject: the Hohman orbit diversion
  Out of sequence I know but I've saved this till last. You don't like the
Wiki
  drawing of Hohmann orbit manouevers I sent you, drawing attention to
certain
  deficiencies and in typical fashion, hinting darkly at the possibility of
  duplicitous intentions. Firstly, it's hardly a correct-to-scale
engineering
  drawing -- it's designed to convey concepts.
It does - the wrong concept.  The rocket burn must be followed by an
immediate drop in altitude and change in direction, not continuing motion on
the original orbit.
  Second, despite your comments
  regarding the deficiencies of the modified orbit at the first acceleration
  point, to my eye, the dashed line does fall inside the circular orbit
though
  perhaps not as far as it should.
Stop hedging. The rocket burn must be followed by an immediate drop in
altitude and change in direction, not continuing motion on the original
orbit
  All this is pointless however as the correct solution
  pivots upon the location of the Earth-satellite barycentre -- it must be
at one
  of the focii of the elliptical orbit and none of
   these drawings are likely to be accurate in that respect.
  Paul D
What relevance has the actual focus to the general issue of an immediate
drop in altitude and change in direction, not continuing motion on the
original orbit ?
Another smoke screen of subject change ...

RB
[geocentrism] ] Re: Geosynchronous Satellites Paper

Other related posts:
