[geocentrism] Re: Supposed geostationary satellites
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:31:02 -0400
Bob,
To resolve this geostat sat issue, check the forum archives for a dialogue
between Philip and Robert.
Keywords: plenum, geostat, washing machine
Resurrexit, sicut Ipse dixit!
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bob Davidson
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 4:11 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Supposed geostationary satellites
>
>
> 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:
