[geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:44:50 -0500
Philip,
A brief answer to your AM question follows.
Try surfing around this site if you need more:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html#am
Pax Christi,
Robert
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Philip
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 6:37 PM
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> When I read my own words here, I definitely made a couple of
> reverse term mistakes... However everyone seems to have gotten
> what i meant...
> I did not get what you meant Robert, by,
>
> To change the AM, an external torque must be applied, which explains what
> stops the motion at the equator.
> btw: the satellite planar motion won't stop if the torque continues.....
>
> I admit to being dense on this angular momentum thing. I thought
> it referred to changing the diameter of the rotating mass, as
> when the dancer throws his hands in and out. Are you saying this
> is the same thing if a fixed diameter rotating mass has its axis
> moved?
When I played with twisting my electric drill spinning
> with a heavy flywheel in the chuck I observed the force on my
> wrists as I turned it axially, but I did not observe any change
> of speed or load upon the motor.. Perhaps I should do it again
> and meter it.
>
RB: The angular momentum, L, of a solid object with moment of inertia I and
angular frequency w about the center of the object is L= Iw.
Your drill flywheel, a gyro, and the 'spinning' earth are examples of this
type of L.
Mass motion around an external axis is L = mvr, where v is the circular
speed and r the radius of revolution.
Example: all the orbiting masses - planets, satellites, etc. .
L is a (pseudo)vector, whose direction is along the rotation axis. To change
an orbit from polar to equatorial, an external torque is needed on the
satellite, a E-W force perpendicular to the orbit plane which will cause the
plane to precess(rotate) while the force is applied.
Your drill speed shows no effect because the motion is at right angles to
the force, so no work is done. (same is true of motion of a charge in a
magnetic field) . The resistance you feel to moving the drill is rotational
inertia. The drill has more resistance to a torque when spinning than when
not, as though spinning made it heavier!!
>
> I had no clue how I would shift the orbit as I stated, so I was
> speaking theoretically. However, am I correct in believing, that
> an orbiting satellite would react in the same way as a spinning
> flywheel, opposing any axial rotation.
>
RB: Yes, but the formulae are different.
> If we took the shaft of a spinning wheel and tipped it 90degrees,
> we have to work to do this, but as soon as the work stopped the
> inertial stability of the wheel would hold it in this new
> position.. That by the way, it occurs to me, is another example
> of non frictional resistance. Where did that work go?
>
RB: Not do work but apply a torque. If you pushed against a wall until you
broke out into a sweat,
you do no work. No motion, no work.
> Philip.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Bennett
> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 4:00 AM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Moon landings?
>
>
> > Three things are possible, that would be observed from such an [polar]
> orbit.
> >
> > 1. In the HC system, it should show the earth moving towards the
> > east making one 24 hour rotation for every 24 hour period of its
> > own orbit.
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2. It would show the earth quite stationary, and its is orbit
> > would fly over the same longitude for the full period of its orbit.
> >
> > The third possibility, is it could show the effect of Roberts
> > cosmically rotating Plenum.
> >
>
> Continuing from the last post.....
> the plenum's effect on the polar orbit depends on altitude:
> if > 5 1/2 earth radii, the plenum would push the polesat
> (weakly) E to W,
> like the stars, near the equator
> if < 5 1/2 earth radii, the plenum would push the polesat
> (weakly) W to E,
> like the atmosphere, near the equator
>
> > It is this effect that I want to discuss...within the GC
> > framework. We are comparing two identical orbits as regards
> > Newtonian rules. One vertical, and one horizontal.
> >
> > In the vertical we have no problem of a hovering satellite.
> > Centrifugal and gravitational forces will balance...
> >
> > In the horizontal case though we do not.. The satellite is
> > stationary and not moving at all. Are we then moving from
> > positive centripetal force to a negative centipetal force...
> >
> > Let me close by posing a mental exercise. Remember the earth is
> > not moving here.
> >
> > Take the stable orbit I have created around the poles, (imagine
> > it as a spinning ring, with a black dot on it, which it is. ) and
> > nudge it slowly till it has shifted 90 degrees to an equatorial
> > orbit. It now is in the exact same state as regards orbit, as our
> > original geosynchronous satellite.
> >
> > What stopped it moving?
>
> The polesat has a stable orbit in classical physics because
> angular momentum
> is conserved.
> To change the AM, an external torque must be applied, which
> explains what
> stops the motion at the equator.
> btw: the satellite planar motion won't stop if the torque continues.....
> Using the euphemistic term 'nudge' or 'quasi-torque' or 'pseudo torque'
> won't avoid the fact that a finite torque must be applied.
> Of course, using infinitesimal torques will work, but require
> an infinite
> time to shift the orbit to the equator.
> Can we wait that long? d(8^)>
>
> Pax Christi,
>
> Robert
>
>
> >
> > Philip.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
