[geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>, "Shelton, Gary" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>, "Glover, Rob" <rob.glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike Boyd" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>, "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:47:10 +1000
For all to consider during the holidays.The interested group may cary on a side
correspondence direct email. Neville I will exclude you if you request it, as I
have no desire to add to your work load. .
It has indeed worried me concerning this stationary satellite. Lets not bother
about orbital inclinations etc, but consider the perfect circular orbit around
a perfect spherical mass. Deviations are just that, accessories to the fact.
An analysis:
For this geocentric scenario we must initially at least use all the known basic
laws of motion., yet assuming the earth is immobile, and there is no extraneous
galactic motions other than the universal mass around the globe, which is the
centre.
I do not want to have my cake and eat it too. So I have tried to see what will
happen within the parameters above, to a geostationary satellite which IS NOT
MOVING, IF WE DID MOVE IT.
(by the way to kep us on track and prevent us slipping into conventional
ideas, this is not orbiting , but hovering, )
The only possible reason that fits within science that would prevent it falling
is a balanced condition of applied forces from above and below. Centrifugal
force is not happening. The rotation of the cosmos can exert no influence if it
is indeed balanced. to the earth centre, other than variables similar to those
we call irregularities in the Earths grav field due to the variety of earth
densities. As I cannot show vectors, and math is a special language not known
to all, I speak in practical physical terms. We may assume that the net force
on the geostat is zero. So we have g down to earth and g outwards. Lets ignore
all the annual gyrations in time, we are dealing with this "moment" in time.
Another has already affirmed that the orbit formula is not affected by the
earths rotation THE UNIVERSE ROTATING, or otherwise. So theoretically we should
be able to give geostat a shov either way to make it become a real orbiter,
rather than a hoverer, and the end result would/should be the same, in either
direction, unless UNLESS earth is indeed rotating, with a moving geostat IN
SYNCHRONISM .
The hypothetical universal mass attraction will be the same no matter which
direction , east or west we shov the geostat.
So I ask the opponents of the geocentric position especially one who is
knowledgeable in the practical working of satellite positioning. What will
happen to geo if we powered him to move east, which is according to convention
speeding him up. And what wil happen to geo if we powered him to move west,
which is according to convention slowing him down.
What do I think?
Here is my unscientific opinion.
In the former if we power it towards the east, it will begn a real orbit and
develop centrifugal force forcing it out to a higher orbit.
In the latter, if it was a geocentric universe, it would also begin orbiting
and would develop centrifugal force and move outwards to a higher orbit.
Identical to the former.
To return a geo in a geostat universe we would have to rocket it vertically
downwards.
But they don't do that. Satellites are accelerated + or - in the tangental
plane , I think .
The reality then , if we did the latter, the satellite will fall to a lower
orbit and increase speed due to g to a have a shorter orbital period, if that
is truly how they bring these birds down.
I don't know. But if we can get an assured answer, and provable, then I am
afraid I would have to admit there is no geocentrism, not if we have to depend
upon universal mass anyway. I'd have to come back with a more fantastic idea.
There are plenty of those.
Philip
Other related posts:
