[geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:42:56 +0100 (BST)
Bernie,
The term "zero gravity" is misleading, because under Newton's inverse-square
relationship (the World's) gravity is never zero. What enables astonauts to
float inside their spacecraft is weightlessness.
If you whirl a stone around on the end of a string, there is a centripetal
force acting to keep the stone going around in a circle. This force acts
through the taut string and towards the centre of the circular orbit (i.e.,
your finger and thumb). When spacecraft are going around in a circular orbit, a
centripetal force is necessary to keep them going around in that circle. This
force is provided by gravity. The astronaut experiences the same force and so
has no weight with respect to (wrt) the spacecraft, and therefore can be seen
to float about inside the craft. Gravity is not zero.
Now, if the craft and astronaut are not going around in a circular orbit, but
are just sitting up there, then no centripetal force is required to keep them
going around the circular path. In this situation the force of gravity still
attracts them towards the centre of the World - hence they fall back down
(being accelerated as they do so).
This is the problem. In the heliocentric scenario, the gravitational pull
just keeps the geosynchronous satellite going around at such a speed (and at a
particular distance - this is where the ~22,300 miles comes from) that it is
always positioned directly above a certain spot on the equator. So it appears
not to move, even though it is (in this model) moving. In fact, it is this
movement which keeps the thing up there in this system and, if the satellite is
going around, but appears to remain stationary, then the World must be
rotating. In the geostationary scenario, the force of gravity still acts upon
the satellite in a direction that is towards the centre of the World - it would
thus fall down. This is why I hold that the geosynchronous satellite is HC's
strongest card.
If you want the actual weights of a 300-kg satellite under Newton's
inverse-square relation and under my exponential decay relation, then I can
give them to you, but perhaps the above has answered your question.
Neville.
Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neville,
You were saying that there was still a gravitational field strength
at 22,236 statute miles above sea level, because I had thought it was zero
gravity.
Zero gravity is what I was told as a child that enabled astronauts to float.
So I thought if the Earth was still creating a gravity pull force at 22,236
then it must be very weak. It would be like playing with a helium balloon
here on Earth - a little tap and it moves up, not much force required.
I wonder if there is a table of completed calculations for the percentage
strength
of gravity at various altitudes above the Earth? What kind of gravity power
are
we dealing with at 22,236 considering there's an inverse distance squared
rule?
So my thoughts are that the so-called geosynchronous satellite
just sits there, no engine, practically zero gravity
and takes decades to fall back towards Earth and burn up in the atmosphere,
by which time it has been replaced with a new satellite.
Or, they are lying about the thrusters being used for lateral drift and they
are really for, or also for, vertical lift and we have another State-sponsered
conspiracy on our hands,
a la Federal Reserve, Apollo, 911, Iraq, etcetera, ad infinitum.
Bernie
---------------------------------
Inbox full of unwanted email? Get leading protection and 1GB storage with All
New Yahoo! Mail.
Other related posts:
