[geocentrism] Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>, <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shelton, Gary" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>, "Glover, Rob" <rob.glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike Boyd" <mboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 11:37:45 +1000
Robert I need help here...When I said the rotation of the firmament does not
effect the geostat satellite, I meant it did not cause any rotational force.
When you said, this below, are you agreeing with me? I cannot follow what you
mean by inertial firmament acceleration Af(d). Are you speaking of circular
motion or gravitational radial force?
RB: Indeed , the universal firmament rotation DOES influence the geostat;
anything placed into the firmament is influenced by its rotation. The inertial
firmament acceleration Af(d) increases with distance, d, from Earth's surface
and is radially outward. The acceleartion of Newtonian gravity is radially
down: Ag(d) =GMe/(Re+d)^2. At 22,000 miles altitude the two balance, WITHOUT
ANY VELOCITY DEPENDENCE - TOTALLY STATIC.
Philip
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: Philip ; geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Dr. Neville Jones ; Shelton, Gary ;
Jack Lewis ; Glover, Rob ; Mike Boyd ; Niemann, Nicholas K.
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 1:59 AM
Subject: RE: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.
Philip,
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip [mailto:joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 11:47 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dr. Neville Jones; Robert Bennett; Shelton,
Gary; Jack Lewis; Glover, Rob; Mike Boyd; Niemann, Nicholas K.; Philip
Subject: Re: (geocentrism) geostationary / geosynchrous sat.
For all to consider during the holidays.The interested group may cary on a
side correspondence direct email. Neville I will exclude you if you request it,
as I have no desire to add to your work load. .
It has indeed worried me concerning this stationary satellite. Lets not
bother about orbital inclinations etc, but consider the perfect circular orbit
around a perfect spherical mass. Deviations are just that, accessories to the
fact.
An analysis:
For this geocentric scenario we must initially at least use all the known
basic laws of motion., yet assuming the earth is immobile, and there is no
extraneous galactic motions other than the universal mass around the globe,
which is the centre.
I do not want to have my cake and eat it too. So I have tried to see what
will happen within the parameters above, to a geostationary satellite which IS
NOT MOVING, IF WE DID MOVE IT.
(by the way to kep us on track and prevent us slipping into conventional
ideas, this is not orbiting , but hovering, )
The only possible reason that fits within science that would prevent it
falling is a balanced condition of applied forces from above and below.
Centrifugal force is not happening. The rotation of the cosmos can exert no
influence if it is indeed balanced. to the earth centre, other than variables
similar to those we call irregularities in the Earths grav field due to the
variety of earth densities.
RB: Indeed , the universal firmament rotation DOES influence the geostat;
anything placed into the firmament is influenced by its rotation. The inertial
firmament acceleration Af(d) increases with distance, d, from Earth's surface
and is radially outward. The acceleartion of Newtonian gravity is radially
down: Ag(d) =GMe/(Re+d)^2. At 22,000 miles altitude the two balance, WITHOUT
ANY VELOCITY DEPENDENCE - TOTALLY STATIC.
As I cannot show vectors, and math is a special language not known to all,
I speak in practical physical terms. We may assume that the net force on the
geostat is zero. So we have g down to earth and g outwards. Lets ignore all
the annual gyrations in time, we are dealing with this "moment" in time.
Another has already affirmed that the orbit formula is not affected by the
earths rotation THE UNIVERSE ROTATING, or otherwise. So theoretically we should
be able to give geostat a shov either way to make it become a real orbiter,
rather than a hoverer, and the end result would/should be the same, in either
direction, unless UNLESS earth is indeed rotating, with a moving geostat IN
SYNCHRONISM .
RB:Imparting a velocity to the geostat (giving it a shove) will introduce
the kinematic acceleration, Ak = V^2/(Re+d). The satellite - no longer a
geostat - will move to a new value of d for which the new velocity will satisfy
Ag = Af + Ak.
The hypothetical universal mass attraction will be the same no matter which
direction , east or west we shov the geostat.
So I ask the opponents of the geocentric position especially one who is
knowledgeable in the practical working of satellite positioning. What will
happen to geo if we powered him to move east, which is according to convention
speeding him up. And what wil happen to geo if we powered him to move west,
which is according to convention slowing him down.
RB:The velocity dependence is squared; it makes no difference which way
the change is made. Since the geostat was at rest, any change will be 'speeding
up'.
What do I think?
Here is my unscientific opinion.
In the former if we power it towards the east, it will begn a real orbit
and develop centrifugal force forcing it out to a higher orbit.
In the latter, if it was a geocentric universe, it would also begin
orbiting and would develop centrifugal force and move outwards to a higher
orbit. Identical to the former.
To return a geo in a geostat universe we would have to rocket it vertically
downwards.
RB:If this means to return a satellite to the geostat condition, this is
done by firing a reverse thruster in the horizontal direction of orbit motion ,
which will reduce the velocity to zero, restoring the geostat position. Firing
the rocket vertically, which is intuitive, will change the radial velocity.
But they don't do that. Satellites are accelerated + or - in the tangental
plane , I think .
The reality then , if we did the latter, the satellite will fall to a lower
orbit and increase speed due to g to a have a shorter orbital period, if that
is truly how they bring these birds down.
I don't know. But if we can get an assured answer, and provable, then I am
afraid I would have to admit there is no geocentrism, not if we have to depend
upon universal mass anyway. I'd have to come back with a more fantastic idea.
There are plenty of those.
Philip
Other related posts:
