[geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 08:38:21 +1000
oxymoronic.? is that an over oxygenated moron? and "intuition", is that in
math for women, or math for dummies? I'm safely out of that discussion.
"Newton's laws, says V2 = GMe/R, which is an inverse relation between V and
R1/2 " .is far beyond my abilities of comprehension.. but what is an inverse
relation? and what is R raised to the power of a half? R1/2
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 4:54 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Geosynchronous satellites paper
Robert B
From Robert Bennett Sun Jul 1 23:09:46 2007
Also, according to the citations, the Artemis team decided to slow down the
satellite by ~200 m/s by firing RITA continuously in the opposite direction of
motion for 340 days. Since the velocity is inversely proportional to the square
root of the radius from Eq(3), this operation would cause the satellite to rise
~ 5000 km.
You can't be serious. Reducing your velocity while in orbit will reduce your
altitude not raise it. Unless of course you are basing your statement upon your
own private definition of which direction any given satellite is orbiting. Are
you so doing?
Paul D
Yes, occasionally I'm serious.
The answer to your confusion is in the 2nd sentence. If it had teeth it would
bite you.
Neville's Eq(3), derived from Newton's laws, says V2 = GMe/R, which is an
inverse relation between V and R1/2 .
Guess intuition failed you here, Paul. It does seem oxymoronic.
BTW: GWW shows that when an object is pushed straight ahead, it actually
moves backwards! (OK, now I'm not serious)
Robert B
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/884 - Release Date: 2/07/2007
3:35 PM
Other related posts:
