[geocentrism] Re: Supposed geostationary satellites
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 17:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
This is still an assumption about the nature of "forces". Regardless of what
cause it or what name you give it or what you think it is or is not if it is
accounted for then you will be successful. As for NASA and as a consequence
every other Space Agency, for every "success" they had dozens of failures. This
is exactly what you would expect from trail by error. Your point here only
highlight the fact that we know very little about the nature of forces, not
that certain forces do not or cannot exist. Since there is no proof that
Geo-satellites don?t exist other than philosophical assumptions, and all the
evidence that does exist suggest that they are real, I would think that your
approach would be to Id the nature of the "force" not outright dismiss
something for which, by your own admissions you have no proof for. This is not
sound reasoning. If you can prove it fine but the only evidence that does
exist, suggest you are wrong. I am not trying to get you are any one to "buy i
nto" my
or someone else?s models. That is no the point. However, if you are wrong,
which I can at lest offer evidence to show, then you are setting yourselves up
for a great disillusionment that may have a detrimental impact on your and
others faith. Now just because I provide evidence doesn?t mean you will acce.pt
it or make it so, nor does the fact that you consider it impossible exclude the
reality of it regardless of whether or not that reality fits your ideas. In
sciences you work from "Known" to "Unknown". There is no known reason why they
could not exist other than your Ideas. However, it is the reasoning of man that
concluded that a earth center universe was unreasonable in the first place.
There is no Scripture that states Geo satellites cannot be. Therefore all your
conclusions are based on your own assumptions, not facts and actual experiments
or observations. You are just outright dismissing what you can?t understand.
This is Acentric logic. Again I must stress this is n
ot sound
reasoning.
Allen
Bob Davidson <Jesus4me@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: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:
