[geocentrism] Re: Pro-HC physical phenomenon?
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:51:15 +0000 (GMT)
Bernie,
Your "child-like reasoning" is perfectly correct if indeed "there is no
gravitational force at 22,236 statute miles above msl." However, according to
"Newtonian" physics, there most definitely is a gravitational field strength at
this altitude (in fact, to the furthest reaches of the universe). Of course, HC
physics assumes that Newton's gravitation formula is universal, and then uses
that "fact" to justify itself. This fallacy is Allen's point, I believe, and
why he states that the "nature of gravity would be important."
I am currently working on the geosynchronous satellite problem and have
already suggested an alternative gravitational field equation to that of
Newton. The fact is, though, that this suggested field still has a non-zero
value at the parking orbit altitude, albeit much less than the inverse-square
relationship we are all taught as "fact."
Best wishes,
Neville.
Bernard Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
---------------------------------
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.
Other related posts:
