[geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.
- From: "Neil Robertson" <nroberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- 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: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 03:26:45 +1000
Phillip,
> 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, )
If you could magically transport a satellite or any object up to 37000 km
above the earth and let it go it would simply fall towards the earth due to
the earths gravity. Such an altitude is not a static position.
> 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.
>
As I have already stated above the only appreciable force acting on the
satellite at 37000km is the earths gravity and if the satellite starts out
stationary it will simply fall out of the sky.
> 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 .
You can give it a velocity either way and it will happily orbit the earth as
long as the velocity is adequate for its height. This is around 7000 mph at
the height of 37000 km. The satellite will of course only be in synch with
the earths rotation if it is heading east.
>
>
> 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.
If it was stationary to begin with it would be speeding up regardless of
which direction it was pushed. As I mentioned above the satellite will go
into orbit as long as the speed is adequate for its height above the
surface. It does not make any differece whether it orbits east, west over
the poles or any direction in between it will still orbit the earth. However
only if the satellite orbits in an easterly direction can it be
geostationary.
>
>
> 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.
>
Depends on how much push you gave it. If you gave it none it would simply
fall out of the sky the instant you released it. In other cases its end
velocity would dictate how high an orbit it attained.
>
> 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.
As above.
>
>
> To return a geo in a geostat universe we would have to rocket it
> vertically downwards.
I guess.
> But they don't do that. Satellites are accelerated + or - in the
> tangental plane , I think .
Correct. To deorbit the satellite they would fire the thrusters in the
direction it was travelling.
>
>
> 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.
Yep basically.
>
>
> 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
>
Neil.
Other related posts:
