[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:47:11 +1000
Robert I really liked yor post. Especiallly the wing analogy of the Plenum,
which of course may be what I call the aether.
Neville, of course the aether is frictionless in the mechanical sense. More to
you later, as I have worked out without NASA's info
your logical conclusions re the easterly launch of appollo, annd accept that in
the Geocentric sense, using their newtonian mechanics of motion, there is a
problem. This is why I posed the alternative effects of the plenum (aether)
simply because I do believe we went there.
Now back to putting a spoke in Robers argument for the geostat Satellite. No
offence meant Robert. , but we must look for the objections before they think
of them. and work out the solutions.
Objection #1.
Given the HC expectations and theory concerning a satellite at the orbital
height of 22,240 miles, being the correct position without any reference to a
plenum, would not their case gain support against the existence of any effect
of a plenum should a satellite be launched from the exact geographical pole,
to the same height, and it proscribed a similar 24 hour period.
Reason: The plenum would have no relative motion to the orbiter as it moved in
this vertical period.
Food for thought here. This launch would impart no rotational force to the
orbit, except if the earth did rotate it would receive a twisting motion upon
itself that would result in a twist period of 24 hours. Other than that , this
orbit would fe fixed and not rotate with the earth . If the earth was
stationary, this orbit would remain covering the same latitude. If the earth
rotated, the path would appear diagonal to the vertex.
Using a stationary earth , then what effect would the plenum have. say at the
equator and the poles. At the equator more lift ? At the poles no effect.
(presuming our plenum is spherical rotating only in the equatorial plane.)
Using your analogy, the "wing windspeed "would be zero at the poles and max at
the equator.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 9:44 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
Gary,
Notice that Mr. Hoge had the last word, which always is an advantage in a
debate.
Here's my comments regarding a possible GC model that explains the geostat
sat.
Pax Christi,
Robert
.........................
Edited transcript of Dialogue on Motionless Satellites
comments by Robert Bennett => RB
How the existence of geostationary satellites proves that the earth rotates
by Gary Hoge
GH: How did the geostat became stationary? they [the launch team] placed
their satellites into an orbit at which they circle the earth once every
day, believing that this would result in a geosynchronous orbit.
.. if they somehow went from 6,856 mph to 0 mph (without anybody noticing),
what stopped them?"
RB: Clarification: 6856 mph is with respect to Earth's center, the center of
rotation.
GH: And my assertion is that a geosynchronous satellite must move at about
6,800 mph whether the earth rotates or not. That's simply the speed it has
to maintain in order to maintain its orbital altitude of 22,240 miles. Any
slower and it would fall into a lower orbit. Any faster and it would rise to
a higher orbit.A satellite orbiting a celestial body follows a very simple
equation of orbital motion, and that equation is independent of the
rotational velocity (if any) of the celestial body itself. Put simply, a
satellite in orbit around the earth doesn't care whether the earth is
rotating beneath it or not. It moves at a velocity proportionate to its
distance from the earth..A satellite will move around the earth according to
the equation v = SQRT (GM / r), where v is the velocity of the satellite, G
is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the earth, and r
is the distance of the satellite from the center of the earth.
RB: Agreed
GH: in order for the Telstar satellite to maintain an orbital distance from
the earth of 22,240 miles, it must travel at a velocity of 6,879 mph. That's
true whether the earth is rotating or not. The fact that such satellites
appear not to move relative to the surface of the earth simply proves that
the earth is rotating.
RB : Invalid logic here. The simplified argument is:
If the satellite appears not to move with respect to to surface, the earth
is rotating at the same speed as the geostat.
But the satellite appears not to move wrt to surface
Thus the earth is rotating
........Invalid conclusion!
The first premise is 'the satellite appears not to move wrt to surface', so
a valid conclusion is 'the earth is rotating at the same speed as the
satellite', not the truncated version, 'the earth is rotating.'..... period?
With the corrected logic the valid conclusion holds for any speed. This
includes the GC case, if the speed of the satellite is zero.
Both HC and GC views are possible, as expected for relative motion.
GH: ..a satellite has to keep moving in its orbit or it will fall (in fact,
an orbit is nothing but a free-fall toward a planet whose surface is always
curving out of the way), and so in order to maintain that geosynchronous
satellites don't actually orbit the earth at all, but just levitate up there
in space, you assert that as luck would have it there just happens to be a
mysterious gravitational force at 22,240 miles from the earth that just
happens to precisely balance the gravitational attraction of the earth at
that altitude.
RB: The force is neither mysterious nor gravitational. It is the well-known
centrifugal inertial force exhibited whenever a body and the plenum are in
relative rotation with respect to each other.
See washing machine model at
http://users.rcn.com/robert.bennett/GeocentrismRJBv1.doc
The plenum's inertial outward force increases with distance from Earth,
while gravity decreases. At 22,240 miles from the Earth, the inward force of
gravity balances the outward force of rotation. The motion of the plenum
vortex around the Earth causes a upward radial force away from the Earth.
A crude model of this would be the lift created on an airplane wing, when
air moves across the wing airfoil. Relative to the local plenum the
satellite is moving at 6,879 mph.
There is no resort to illogical action at a distance here, as both forces,
gravity and centrifugal, are CONTACT effects of the satellite with the local
plenum.
GH: ... The fact that it [the satellite] does keep up with the earth's
rotation at that altitude [22,240 miles ] merely proves that the earth is
rotating, and it confirms that the scientists who chose an orbital altitude
that would give their satellite an orbital period of 24 hours knew what they
were doing.
RB: The first half repeats the prior truncated illogic; the second assumes
that the HC view of the relative motion is the only correct view - which
begs the question and violates relativity .of rotation.
Knowing the properties of the plenum, geocentric engineers would also
successfully insert the geostat into its proper orbit.
GH: You can verify Telstar's velocity yourself simply by applying the
elementary laws of orbital mechanics to the known parameters of the
satellite's orbit (i.e., its distance from the earth).
RB: There's no denial that an HC view of a geostat is valid; what's denied
is that a GC view is not valid.
GH: . let's pretend there's no sun and no stars or planets. Let's pretend
there's just the earth sitting motionless in space with a satellite orbiting
it.
RB: OK, as long as there's a plenum.
GH: At a given altitude, the satellite must go around the earth at a given
speed.
RB: .relative to the local plenum.
GH: It doesn't matter whether the earth itself is rotating or not. However,
if we put a satellite into an equatorial orbit, and if we give it an orbital
period of 24 hours, and if it maintains a fixed position relative to the
surface of the earth, we have our proof that the earth rotates.
RB: ... repeats the prior illogic
GH: But either way, if you want to keep a satellite at an orbital altitude
of 22,240 miles above the earth, it must make a complete circle around the
earth's axis every 24 hours, whether the earth itself makes such a circle or
not.
RB: Proof of the above ?? A helicopter maintains its position above the
ground, as the geostat does. Does it make a difference whether the Earth is
rotating beneath it or not?
GH: The only force acting on a satellite in orbit is the force of the earth'
s gravity.
RB: correction: forces of the plenum's gravity and the universal centrifugal
force.
GH: Both "centrifugal force" and "coriolis force" are fictitious forces that
are the by-product of measuring coordinates with respect to a rotating
coordinate system.
RB: Both are real forces that reflect aspects of the plenum's rotational
effect on bodies immersed in it (which is everything).
GH: a satellite in orbit encounters almost no resistance to its motion, not
from "centrifugal effects," not from "coriolis effects
RB: The centrifugal forces are radial, not tangential. They have no effect
on its forward motion.
There are no coriolis forces if the satellite's motion is parallel to the
plenum vortex streamlines.
GH: Inertia and centripetal acceleration are what keep a satellite in orbit,
not "centrifugal force."
RB: A geocentric view is that inertia is motion relative to the surrounding
plenum
GH: But seriously, I don't see why you have a problem with the idea of
relative motion. We use such ideas all the time. For example, if you want to
design an airplane you don't have to test your wing by moving it through
still air at a hundred miles per hour. Instead, you can treat the airplane
as fixed and use a wind tunnel. The result is the same either way. The wing
will fly if air goes over it at a certain relative speed, and it doesn't
matter whether that's caused by the motion of the airplane or the motion of
the air itself.
RB: Exactly. Now replace the air with the plenum, the wind with the plenum
motion and the plane with the satellite. This is a GC model of satellite
motion.
GH: Planets and satellites move the way they do because of their own inertia
and because of the force of gravity acting upon them. It's really not that
complicated.
RB: Substitute the plenum forces for inertia and gravity
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Gary Shelton
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 2:58 AM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> Cheryl,
>
> I have provided the following link before. But it is a very good
> link to a
> heated discussion between Gary Hoge and Robert Sungenis. Mr. Hoge firmly
> believes that the geo satellites (synchronous and stationary and polar)
> solidly prove the earth is turning. Mr. Sungenis denies that.
>
> You'd have to give Mr. Hoge the prize for this particular debate, but I
> don't think it's by any means the end of the debate.
>
> That link is:
> http://catholicoutlook.com/gps1.php
>
> Read and learn all of this and you'll be very knowledgeable indeed.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary Shelton
>
> Gary Shelton
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 1:41 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> > Philip -- If I need to do more homework, just say so. I don't want you
> all
> > to have to spoonfeed me everything. I sure do appreciate all you're
> > teaching me, pulling me up to speed really fast. Hopefully when you're
> > through filling me in, I can have something good to contribute
> in return.
> >
> > Thanks again. Cheryl
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 2/18/05
>
>
>
Other related posts:
