[geocentrism] Re: Supposed geostationary satellites
- From: "Bob Davidson" <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:11:08 -0400
In the HC model, there are two primary vectors for describing the motion of
a geostationary satellite: one toward Earth (gravity) and the other
perpendicular to the first (satellite inertia).
In the GC model, and assuming no other "outside" forces such as frame
dragging or an aether wind, there must also be two primary vectors for a
geostationary satellite to exist: one toward Earth (gravity) and the other
equal and opposite to that gravity. We know that satellites do not
continuously generate such an equal and opposite force to gravity.
Therefore, for GC to work there must be an outside force vector acting on
the satellite.
If the outside force is tending to "push" or "pull" objects around the
Earth, a geostationary satellite could not remain in place without
continuously generating a counterforce. However, satellites do not
continuously generate counterforces.
If the outside force is tending to resist Earth's gravity, such that there
is a center of gravity between Earth and rest of the Cosmos, then we would
not accelerate a satellite into orbit but would instead take it up to a
point of balanced gravity and bring it to a standstill. This does not
happen either.
These thoughts lead me to agree with Neville and conclude that either
geostationary satellites do not exist or GC has a serious problem.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dr. Neville Jones
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 3:08 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Supposed geostationary satellites
The time has come, the walrus said, to talk of many
things, like ... "geostationary satellites."
If these things exist, as I've said before, then
geocentrism is finished. And, in particular, Newton's
gravitation formula would be correct and mine would be
wrong.
So, I now want to start a serious thread about these
things and first I would like to hear any "evidence"
that they definitely do exist.
1. IN BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY, THE WORLD DOES NOT ROTATE.
2. IN BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY, THE WORLD DOES NOT ORBIT THE SUN.
3. HENCE, IN BIBLICAL COSMOLOGY, THE MOTIONS WE SEE ARE REAL.
4. IN HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, THE WORLD ROTATES.
5. IN HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, THE WORLD ORBITS THE SUN.
6. HENCE, IN HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, THE MOTIONS WE SEE ARE NOT REAL.
Website www.midclyth.supanet.com
Neville.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
