[geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?
- From: Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Because there is no gravitational force at 22,236 satute miles above mean sea
level
to pull on the satellite and cause it to fall back to Earth.
Hence, the satellite "hangs on nothing" just like the Earth
"hangs on nothing".
You put a satellite up, it stays in the same spot. Why make
any assumption that it's orbiting when it's constant position can be explained
by a non-rotating Earth and zero gravity at 22,236 miles high?
Respectfully, somebody please tell me what is wrong with
my child-like reasoning.
Bernie
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sorry, why does the geosynchronous satellite NOT simply "fall down" in a GS
universe?
Allen and Philip,
Gentlemen, I feel that your discussion is drifting. In my opinion, the
essence of your debate is contained within the following:
[P - red] We don't need to talk about frames of reference. keep the
discussion on basic mechanics..
[A - blue] Well gee..if we take that approach we dont even need to talk about
mechanis in order to discover the reasons why and what the mechanics are either
? Frames of refernce are what the whole HC/AC myth is built on to explain why
the sun only looks like it is moving accross the sky but it is realy an
illusion.....Gee wiz what relevant O&E do you want to talk about in this
discovery process?...this is about as basic as it gets in terms of HC/AC V
GC......Lets just There is only one reference point.. Its here. That?s my
point! and if we hold to what you suggest here then H/AC can't appeal to
multiple RF...... if it cannot ................well even they would admit the
whole HC/AC thing would fall apart real quick............If you want to stick
to that great! ....I'll even let Phil Platt and or Einstien himself make the
case........I suggest you read Mach's "The principle of mechanics" and
"Principles of Relativity" the whole point is to define Multiple equivalent RF
so as to, among other things, make light Isotropic in the universe so as to
explain the Sagnac, MM, MG, whcih were and are "real" O&E, away.. .....RFs are
not a side issue they are the issue........ Relative v Absolute.......
Your methodology is damaging to the cause, because it lacks credible thought
processing and smacks of flat earther reasoning. plm
No because you can actually O&E earths roundness......you can't actually O&E
the universes isotropic nature...although you can imagine that ....
You have both made some good points, but is not the core of this the
identification of some physical process that tends to favour the HC/AC model
over the GS (geostationary) model?
I believe that many observations favour the GS model, but I also see one such
physical phenomenon that supports the HC/AC position, and that is the
geosynchronous satellite. For, whatever gravity is caused by and whatever
equation you want to describe its effect with, why does the geosynchronous
satellite simply "fall down" in a GS universe?
Best wishes,
Neville.
---------------------------------
What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your
email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.
---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
Other related posts:
