Neville said to Bernie, . This is why I hold that the geosynchronous satellite is HC's strongest card. Yet Neville it is also their weakest card. They niether know the reason for centripetal force, nor the reason for gravity, nor the reason for inertia in a mass. One has only to insist upon the reinsertion of the aether as a factor, in all of these attributes, and if we then assert that relative motion between any mass and the aether is the cause of what is observed, then it only requires that the aether be rotating with sidereal time to compensate for the illusion that the satellite and the earth is rotating. They say there is no aether, and say we are rotating. We say there has to be an aether and it is rotating. Philip ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Neville Jones To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:42 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon? 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.20/736 - Release Date: 27/03/2007 4:38 PM