[geocentrism] Re: Supposed geostationary satellites
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:55:11 +0100 (BST)
Thank you, Bob, nicely worded. If someone asked me to give one "proof" of
heliocentric "correctness," I would say the "geostationary satellite."
(Fortunately, people don't usually ask me this question ! )
Neville.
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
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
