[geocentrism] peripheral speed...
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 14:43:13 +1000
Gary and all.
Today I had another look at what I proposed as an experiment that should show
whether the earth rotated.. At least in appearances, and ignoring theoretical
plenum effects .. I expanded on it, taking in Nevilles figures.
I know this peripheral speed and momentum can get confusing. So I dreamed up
this word picture to help..
Recall I said that we must deal with it above the atmosphere, as winds in the
atmosphere can cause too many variables. Of course they always try to launch in
windless still air. Let us take 150 km altitude to be above the atmosphere..
Draw a circle for the world, and mark it as having A MEAN EQUATORIAL RADIUS OF
6378 km. giving it a speed towards the east at the surface of 1670 km /hour.
Draw a line from the earth centre to the surface launch pad Now extend this
line out into space for a distance equal to another 300 km. Call this the tower
of Babel.
For a perfect vertical launch we will assume for the sake of simplicity, that
at the height of 150 km the rocket will still have a sideways momentum of 1670
km/hour towards the east, and is thus momentarily still above the launch site.
If we calculate the peripheral speed of Babel tower out there, at the 150km
height it will come to 6378 + 150 = 6528 X 44/7 divided by 24 or 1710km/hour.
Take away 1670 and you can see that if the world is rotating, the rocket will
slip behind and appear to move west at 40km hour.
Now if it continues firing till it reaches the altitude of 300Km where the
peripheral speed of our Babylonian tower will be 1749km hour, it will be
slipping behind at an even greater rate of 79km hour.
Thus I can see no reason why this simple rocket to 300km with a stabilised
vertical thrust will easily show if there is indeed any rotation of the earth
and its babylon tower. More if allowed to run out of thrust and allowed to turn
and fall back, it will fall even further towards the west of the launch pad..
If the world is stationery, which we say it is, then babylon will not move, and
the rocket will return falling the exact same path by which it left. again
neglecting the effects of the wind, which will not be a factor in those
critical 150 km above the atmosphere.
For those pursuing the moon. lets look at it first from NASA's view.
If they they were aiming for the moon, and if they were correct in that the
moons orbit is 28 days, not near 24, then lets see what our rocket needs to be
doing toward the east at say 385000Km. distance.
First the moon s speed 385000X 44/7 over 28 x 24 = 3, 601km hour towards the
east... Our rocket rising straight up will still only have an easterly
momentum of 1,570 km hour. 2000km hour too slow.
However it is feasable to expect that when the moon approaches , before our
rocket gets that high if the timing is right, for it to be captured by the
gravity of the moon either into orbit or a crash landing.
A more favourable result would be achieved if the rocket was aimed slightly
eastwards, which we are told is done, to increase this original "earth speed"
closer to the moons speed.
But and this is the big but. Neville has shown that if the world is stationary,
and I say "if" merely as a conditional factor, not becuse of any doubt; that
the mooons speed would have to be very much higher than 3,600km hour. 385000 x
44/7 over 24 which is of course 28 times the speed or 100, 828 km hour..
I have always concurred and never refuted Nevilles conclusion, that this puts a
verry different exercise in dynamics for achieving a moon landing. I do differ
only in that I have yet to be proved that it is a big lie. I am not forgetting
though, the big millennium hoax lie, and would not be in the least surprised if
this also was a great hoax.. After all the entire world cooperated and
participated in the millennium hoax, which says much about the world conspiracy
power, and its god, the prince of liars. .
That said and assuming they did land on the moon, then I am left with the
dilemma of trying to show how they could have done it. And I have to do that
with due consideration of the power/energy requirements presented by Neville,
and I need to try to do that within normal Newtonian physics without resorting
to any exotic alternative theories. So lets get back to the launch pad, away
with the tower of Babel.
We have mr moon coming over the horizon at over 100,000 km hour. Neville has
shown that it is beyond any current rocket technology to get up to that speed.
But has anyone thought about what would happen if we did it this way. And I am
still on peripheral speed. We launch to the east. The only thing missing in
our geocentric position is we do not have any earth push. But we do have to
factor in something else. For the moon to still have the orbit it does at this
phenomenally increased speed, the gravity between the two bodies must be much
greater. The earth G we know, so the moons Gr would have to be much greater
than the sixth G given it. This being the case, the figures are beyond me,
let others more competent do it, the balance point would be closer to the earth
Does anybody agree that for this orbit period g would have to be greater?
Just for the exercise, let us make them equal, which would place the balance
point say half way, at 190000km. I am ignoring for the moment the pandoras box
this gravity change will open up.
At this distance the rocket would only have to reach a speed of close to
50,000km hour, which would put it parallel to the moon and having the same
angular velocity. The moons gravity would handle the rest... Which then brings
Pandora into the picture... Landing and leaving the moon is not going to be
that one sixth of the energy requirement NASA talked about. Or is it? I cant
help feeling that in the geocentric system, all their calibrations based upon
false assumptions, for g , weights of the heavenly bodies, etc would have to be
re calculated...
Enough food for though for one post...
Philip
Other related posts:
