[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous Satellites in a Geostationary Universe
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 11:16:01 -0400
Philip,
The lunar g is only 5.3 ft/s2 at the surface. At a distance R from the moon
?s center, g = 5.3 (Rmoon/R)2
Newton?s G law depends on the product of the masses, not the sum. But the
mass of the satellite, m2, cancels out when you carry out the step between
Eq 2 and 3 in Geosynchronous Satellites in a Geostationary Universe.
Robert
In the formular basically g is taken from 32ft/s/s earth mass/weight. As the
moon is much more than a negligible sputnik, but has its own g of 5.3 ft/s/s
shouldnt g in the formular be derived from the sum of both ... as the moons
g is much more effective than the negligible sputnik..
After I know this one, I'll come back to the consideration of the a moon
period of 1 day versus 28 ..
???.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett <mailto:robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 5:59 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous Satellites in a Geostationary
Universe
The Newtonian orbits of objects are independent of their mass? or density.
See Geosynchronous Satellites in a Geostationary Universe, Eq 3.
Who claims otherwise? That is, that predicted orbits work as expected for
objects of known density?
Robert
??.. Of course it could be objected that the g of the moon a la density is
confirmed by the predicted orbits working quite as expected by objects of
known density being sent to orbit the moon. How would you explain this ?
Philip.
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.11/837 - Release Date: 6/06/2007
2:03 PM
Other related posts:
