[geocentrism] Re: rotating mass
- From: Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Me in blue..
Whilst the rotation or otherwise of the worlds mass has no effect on the
orbital calculations, it does have an effect on what and where we see the bird
from our observation point here on the world. Which goes back to what you see
is not necessarily ever what you get. Of course to be technically correct, a
rotating earth, due to its irregular shape will make slight course deviations
to the orbiting bird.
How does what you observe in a orbiting bird not demonstrate...what you
observe..!??? (WYSIWYG) You either see the bird on a given course or not. Even
then the course that the bird takes does not prove why it took that course or
describe the mechanics involved. It only tells you that something(s) caused it
to take that course.........I can't for the life of me see why you have such a
hard time with seeing this most basic of logical errors....you attempt to put a
conclusion before the proof as proof for the conclusion!?
philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
DIV { MARGIN: 0px } Whilst the rotation or otherwise of the
worlds mass has no effect on the orbital calculations, it does have an effect
on what and where we see the bird from our observation point here on the world.
Which goes back to what you see is not necessarily ever what you get. Of course
to be technically correct, a rotating earth, due to its irregular shape will
make slight course deviations to the orbiting bird.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:19 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Question begging
Robert B
Comments interpolated in black.
==================================
Hey ? beautiful plot! and rotten data!
Only the geosync sat and the Moon have the right GC periods. Please indicate
what you think the GPS and LEO orbits to be (or the formula to do the
calculation) and I'll make changes. References to other sources indicating that
your assertion is a generally held belief would add confidence to the exercise.
How hard can it be to compute satellite periods for an immobile Earth?? Not
hard at all -- it is the same as for a rotating Earth. The Earth's rotation is
not a parameter.
Or was the Earth assumed to be both accelerating and not accelerating? When
you made this statement in an earlier post, I assumed it was made unwisely in a
fit of pique and I simply passed over it, but now that you have repeated it, it
would seem you really believe it is a valid point. I have indicated previously
that your comments show a very poor understanding of basic physics (btw -- you
still haven't favoured us with any information about your PhD or the subject of
your doctoral thesis -- is it something of which you are not proud?) and
comments by Philip M bear me out in this specific matter. In any event, and I
guess your weakness in physics shows up here again, the Earth's acceleration
(revolution) does not influence the period of its satellites either.
RB
===================================
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.16/729 - Release Date: 21/03/2007
7:52 AM
Other related posts:
