Is T Pagano afraid of the consequences of gravity?
A.Carlson
certainly seems like it.
You appear to be avoiding the issue like the plague.
You have repeatedly ignored a number of challenges or gave lame
explanations/cop-out responses to others regarding your defense of the
geocentric model, abandoned centuries ago by the vast majority of the
scientific community:
How do you explain satellites that stay in a geostationary orbit?
How do you explain NASA's own claims that launching satellites in an
eastward trajectory is more economical because it saves fuel by taking
advantage of earth's orbit?
How do the stars and galaxies travel faster than the speed of light if
they must orbit the earth in accord with the geocentric model?
Do you believe that the mass of the Sun is less than that of the
earth? If not then, given Newtonian laws of motion and the forces at
play, what would drive the sun (with a greater mass) to orbit the
earth? And why wouldn't the earth (with a lesser mass) orbit the sun?
Or, in not doing so, what would prevent the earth from being pulled
directly into the sun?
If you believe that the mass of the Sun is less than that of the
earth, why would the Lagrangian points (particularly L1) be located
where they currently are?
What is your take on Occam's razor/law of parsimony in relation to all
of the above issues? I am curious to find out whether or not you need
to rely on special pleading to defend the geocentric model in light of
scientific discoveries of the last several centuries.
I'm betting that you'll just dodge the whole issue again.
A.Carlson
wrote:
<clip>
>
>How do you explain NASA's own claims that launching satellites in an
>eastward trajectory is more economical because it saves fuel by taking
>advantage of earth's orbit?
(Whoops - I was referring to the earth's rotation, not orbit)
Glenn
"A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mdgv87h2s08lhhipl...@4ax.com...
that most satellites are put into geosychronous orbits, and it is cheaper to
start heading that direction than the other and then having to do a u turn.
It seems on first impression that the effective distance from launch and
target altitude would be the same, either westward or eastward, and perhaps
with given lift either way, faster to target altitude going westbound. And
overcoming gravity would be the same, no? Perhaps it is mostly a matter of
what happens when the craft reaches target altitude.
Klaus Hellnick
Very few satellites are in geosynchronous orbits. GPS, recon, and most
scientific satellites aren't. It is mostly communication satellites in
geosync orbits.
Klaus
Glenn
"Klaus Hellnick" <khelSP...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:j6ojih$n8c$1...@news.albasani.net...
Seems to apply to any orbital pattern except the ones going
counterrotational.
A.Carlson
<glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>"A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mdgv87h2s08lhhipl...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:58:55 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <clip>
>> >
>> >How do you explain NASA's own claims that launching satellites in an
>> >eastward trajectory is more economical because it saves fuel by taking
>> >advantage of earth's orbit?
>>
>> (Whoops - I was referring to the earth's rotation, not orbit)
>>
>Well I've sent plenty of claims from NASA that are bunk. But maybe they mean
>that most satellites are put into geosychronous orbits, and it is cheaper to
>start heading that direction than the other and then having to do a u turn.
Actually, although I didn't make it clear here, NASA was specifically
addressing the number of factors to consider when launching craft into
deep space, not geosynchronous orbits.
>It seems on first impression that the effective distance from launch and
>target altitude would be the same, either westward or eastward, and perhaps
>with given lift either way, faster to target altitude going westbound. And
>overcoming gravity would be the same, no? Perhaps it is mostly a matter of
>what happens when the craft reaches target altitude.
The way I figure it the earth is rotating in an easterly direction.
The equator is roughly 24,900 miles long. An object at the equator is
therefore travelling at a speed of around 1,038 miles per hour in an
easterly direction. This relative speed would obviously be less the
farther you move away from the equator.
In order to reach escape velocity in an easterly direction a just
launched rocket would have the benefit of this relative speed. If it
launched in the opposite direction, it would have to not only overcome
this particular speed just to reach a point of zero velocity (relative
to desired direction-velocity) above the earth spinning below it but
it would have to overcome two times this speed to equal the advantage
an eastward launch would have given it.
J. J. Lodder
> With regard to your ridiculous defense of the geocentric model, it
> certainly seems like it.
>
> You appear to be avoiding the issue like the plague.
>
> You have repeatedly ignored a number of challenges or gave lame
> explanations/cop-out responses to others regarding your defense of the
> geocentric model, abandoned centuries ago by the vast majority of the
> scientific community:
Whadayahmean: 'vast majority'?
Jan
T Pagano
wrote:
>With regard to your ridiculous defense of the geocentric model, it
Parsimony is not related to the truth and Quantum Theory is hardly
parsimonious. I've posted 100s of lines and Carlson has not quoted
one to show that I've dodged or made special pleadings. He also
hasn't offered a single scientific discovery that secures Einstein,
Big Bang or heliocentricism.
Since April of this year Dr. Dworetsky (professor of astonomy) and Dr
Carlip (Physcisist, University of California) have failed to produce a
single observation that proves the truth of heliocentricism or that
geoCentricism is false.
I have produced perodic summaries of the evidences produced by them
(and others) so far. The vast majority of the observations produced
are neutral between the two models. Some contradict heliocentricism
and others are nonsense.
>
>I'm betting that you'll just dodge the whole issue again.
Below is the state of the evidence produced so far (since April 2011).
And it's not a pretty picture for atheism. Perhaps you can start with
"A". Dr. Carlip ignored the interferometer results and Dr Dworetsky
attacked the integrity of Dr Dayton Miller who conducted 200,000
experiments.
_________________________________________________________
A. Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
2. Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments
3. George Airy's stellar aberration experiment
_________________________________________________________
B. Evidence of absolute rotation and which CONTRADICTS Einstein's
postulate about the speed of light for all observers and consistent
with a rotating universe
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sagnac's interferometer experiments
2. Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments
3. GPS network of satellites
_________________________________________________________
C. Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Stellar parallax
2. Stellar aberration
3. Annual stellar doppler shift
4. Annistropic dipole of the CMBR
5. doppler shifts in general
6. corriolis effect
7. focault's penduluum
8. Newton's water bucket experiment
9. Lense-Thiring Effect
10. Geostationary Orbits
11. Eotvos Effect
12. Sun's Analemma
13. Earth's Axial Precession
________________________________________________________
D. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
2. GyroCompass theory.
_________________________________________________________
E. Evidence of a rotating Earth which is inconclusive due to the
inability to accurately resolve angular movement smaller than 0.3 arc
sec
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Diurnal stellar aberration
_______________________________________________________
F. Evidence of a rotating Earth for which misleading claims were made
and no evidence was produced
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Orbital launch mechanics; eastward launches
____________________________________________________________
G. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum for which no
experimental evidence was produced
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Claims that earthquakes, sunami's, techtonic movements and similar
Earth events alter the Earth's angular momentum are based solely on
mathematical models which presume that the earth rotates. No
experimental evidence produced.
___________________________________________________________
H. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum which implies
emprical consequences known to be false.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Our moon's rate of recession
___________________________________________________________
I. Evidence which fails because the Ptolemaic and original Tychonian
models have not been held by a geoCentricist for over 100 years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Retrograde motion of the planets.
2. Sun's Analemma
Regards,
T Pagano
Friar Broccoli
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:58:55 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amca...@hotmail.com>
Carlson spent two paragraphs on the ridiculousness of the much larger
mass sun orbiting a tiny earth. Why does Tony continue dealing with
the obvious?
raven1
wrote:
You've managed to dodge every question listed above, Brave Sir Tony.
Mike Dworetsky
Your knowledge and understanding of astronautics verges on nil, or is
actually negative (i.e. you know very little, and what little you know is
actually wrong). You would be well served to stay out of this discussion if
your contributions are on this level. What a list: e.g., many NASA claims
are bunk; most satellites are put into geosynchronous orbits; cheaper to
avoid doing a u-turn; maybe it is faster to reach target altitude going
west; maybe it's mostly a matter of what happens after reaching altitude.
Just sayin'.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
Miller had absolute shitloads of integrity. There--I said it. Yet his
results were still wrong, which was proven by examining his lab notebooks
and doing a modern analysis of the raw data. Over the course of a long
career, I have refereed some papers where it became obvious that the authors
were essentially making remarkable claims based on random errors that they
did not understand, or systematic errors they did not realise were present.
I don't know why you cite "Airy's experiment". The result Airy got was
exactly what would be expected if the Earth orbits the Sun. Even Airy
thought so.
The Michelson-Morley experiment (testing Lorentz Invariance) has been
repeated many times in more recent years with much higher precision
techniques, and the result is always "there is no aether".
> _________________________________________________________
> A. Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
> Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
> 2. Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments
> 3. George Airy's stellar aberration experiment
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> B. Evidence of absolute rotation and which CONTRADICTS Einstein's
> postulate about the speed of light for all observers and consistent
> with a rotating universe
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Sagnac's interferometer experiments
> 2. Michelson-Gale interferometer experiments
> 3. GPS network of satellites
>
Sagnac and Michelson & Gale regarded their experiments as confirmation of
Earth's rotation, so it is a perversion of yours to claim the opposite. GPS
works because our understanding of physics and astronomy is correct.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> C. Evidence that is equally consistent with GeoCentricism and
> Heliocentricism due to identical relative motions in both
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's deal with these by using a ehliocentrist's explanation.
> 1. Stellar parallax
All the stars do little dances in the sky that are in proportion to their
distances and that just happen to mimic the shape of the orbit of the Earth
around the Sun. Not only that, but the apparent size of the dance is
related to the actual luminosity of the stars such that they form a main
sequence when plotted on an HR diagram, with the theoretical HR diagram
based on known nuclear physics, radiation laws, gas physics etc matches
within the errors of observation. Tut, tut, just pure coincidence, says
Pagano.
> 2. Stellar aberration
All the stars do dances or the same size in the sky that are not in
proportion to their distances. Thsi seems to contradict 1 but who cares at
this point?
> 3. Annual stellar doppler shift
All the stars in the sky do little annual dances that are in (elliptical)
orbits of radius 1 Astronomical Unit and speed approximately 30 km/sec.
They do these little dances in exact phase with stars at all sorts of
distances so that stars in a given direction keep the dances in phase when
observed from the Earth.
> 4. Annistropic dipole of the CMBR
I don't see why this precludes a heliocentric solar system.
> 5. doppler shifts in general
Without an explanation this is worse than useless as a back-up to the wilde
Pagano claims.
> 6. corriolis effect
> 7. focault's penduluum
> 8. Newton's water bucket experiment
> 9. Lense-Thiring Effect
> 10. Geostationary Orbits
We still haven't seen any attempt by Pagano to explain how a satellite in a
geostationary orbit can stay above the same point on the surface of a
nonrotating Earth. He always runs away from this specific challenge.
> 11. Eotvos Effect
> 12. Sun's Analemma
> 13. Earth's Axial Precession
So apparently the Earth doesn't move, it's really the universe precessing?
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
> D. Evidence against GeoCentricism which is ignorant nonsense
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Impossibility of the Earth being the barycenter of the universe
> due to Newton'a Law of Gravity
> 2. GyroCompass theory.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> E. Evidence of a rotating Earth which is inconclusive due to the
> inability to accurately resolve angular movement smaller than 0.3 arc
> sec
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Diurnal stellar aberration
>
Actually the measurements can be made to this sort of precision (much better
than 0.3 arc sec) but you can claim this if you wish. Astronomers will
continue to work using the opposite assumotion.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
> F. Evidence of a rotating Earth for which misleading claims were made
> and no evidence was produced
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Orbital launch mechanics; eastward launches
>
You still claim this despite producing no evidence for your claim. Yet I
produced tons of evidence from astronautics textbooks and NASA websites.
Did you write to the director of NASA to ask for the fuel consumption
figures? If not, why not?
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> G. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum for which no
> experimental evidence was produced
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Claims that earthquakes, sunami's, techtonic movements and similar
> Earth events alter the Earth's angular momentum are based solely on
> mathematical models which presume that the earth rotates. No
> experimental evidence produced.
>
>
Despite the fact that you can't spell worth beans, there is certainly
evidence relating changes in the Earth's rotation to seasonal variations in
the movements of air masses.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> H. Evidence of changes in the Earth's angular momentum which implies
> emprical consequences known to be false.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Our moon's rate of recession
>
I have proved you wrong on this one, on so many occasions, yet you persist
in this claim. Let's see your calculations.
> ___________________________________________________________
> I. Evidence which fails because the Ptolemaic and original Tychonian
> models have not been held by a geoCentricist for over 100 years.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1. Retrograde motion of the planets.
> 2. Sun's Analemma
>
Pointless comments by Pagano again.
My forecast is that Pagano will ignore everything I have said here and
sometime in the next few days or weeks will produce essentially the same
list and same baseless claims ad nauseam.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <not....@address.net>:
So post a few more and answer the above questions instead of
making statements such as that one about a single question
while ignoring the five substantive ones above it. Or run
away claiming victory and shouting "Cowardly runner!" over
your shoulder as you run.
And lest you forget:
1) Where did I claim to be an atheist, or post information
showing that I'm an atheist, as you contend I am?
(And no, your opinion of my positions regarding evolution
and the evidence supporting it don't count, unless you're
also declaring the Pope and many Catholic clergy to be
atheists. Ray thinks they are; what about you?)
3) How do multiple geostationary satellites each hang over a
different single point above a non-rotating Earth?
(You'll note that this one, as Carlson noted, has yet to be
addressed; he includes others which are at least as
relevant. I especially like the question about Lagrange
points.)
(You'll also note that I removed question #2, regarding the
historical validity of the story of Noah and his Ark as
described in the Bible, since you've stated that you believe
it to be historically accurate, and thus that the Bible can
be considered a science text since stories in it refute all
other existing scientific knowledge on this subject.)
Waiting...
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>"A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:mdgv87h2s08lhhipl...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:58:55 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> <clip>
>> >
>> >How do you explain NASA's own claims that launching satellites in an
>> >eastward trajectory is more economical because it saves fuel by taking
>> >advantage of earth's orbit?
>>
>> (Whoops - I was referring to the earth's rotation, not orbit)
>>
>Well I've sent plenty of claims from NASA that are bunk. But maybe they mean
>that most satellites are put into geosychronous orbits
Sorry, but the vast majority of satellites are *not* in
geostationary or geosynchronous orbit. Only communications
satellites (excepting the GPS constellation, which can be
considered "communications satellites" in a sense) are
generally so placed, because the increased fuel costs to
reach high orbit can't usually be justified otherwise. And
for Earth-viewing satellites there are significant
disadvantages to high orbits.
>, and it is cheaper to
>start heading that direction than the other and then having to do a u turn.
>It seems on first impression that the effective distance from launch and
>target altitude would be the same, either westward or eastward, and perhaps
>with given lift either way, faster to target altitude going westbound. And
>overcoming gravity would be the same, no? Perhaps it is mostly a matter of
>what happens when the craft reaches target altitude.
No, it's a matter of the "free" velocity boost available to
an eastward launch; a satellite (equatorial launch to
simplify, but it applies anywhere) is traveling at over
1000mph eastward while sitting on the launch pad. That's
1000mph delta-V which doesn't have to be supplied by the
launch vehicle. NASA knows that, and anyone with any
interest in spaceflight knows that, but Tony denies it has
any meaning.
A.Carlson
community* accept the geocentric model over the heliocentric model?
That said, I am aware of the fact that an embarrassingly large
percentage (slightly less than 20% with another 10% claiming not to
know) of Americans still believe that the sun revolves around the
earth - at least there's one area in which we continue to lead the
developed world in ;)
There are still even a few crackpots within the scientific community
who openly support the position that the entire universe revolves
around the earth but I can't imagine that their numbers would be more
than a small hand full.
How far back would we need to go to find even a respectable minority
of scientists who believe as such? ("respectable" both in the sense
of their numbers and their scientific bona fides)
I suppose that, loosely defined, the "scientific community" could
include a lot of individuals who base their beliefs primarily on what
is written in scriptures and not on empirical evidence but I have a
hard time including such people in this definition on technical
grounds.
Glenn
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
news:hf0197he7aj7rofq4...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 20:53:37 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Glenn"
> <glenns...@invalid.invalid>:
>
> >
> >"A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:mdgv87h2s08lhhipl...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:58:55 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> <clip>
> >> >
> >> >How do you explain NASA's own claims that launching satellites in an
> >> >eastward trajectory is more economical because it saves fuel by taking
> >> >advantage of earth's orbit?
> >>
> >> (Whoops - I was referring to the earth's rotation, not orbit)
> >>
> >Well I've sent plenty of claims from NASA that are bunk. But maybe they
mean
> >that most satellites are put into geosychronous orbits
>
> Sorry, but the vast majority of satellites are *not* in
> geostationary or geosynchronous orbit. Only communications
> satellites (excepting the GPS constellation, which can be
> considered "communications satellites" in a sense) are
> generally so placed, because the increased fuel costs to
> reach high orbit can't usually be justified otherwise. And
> for Earth-viewing satellites there are significant
> disadvantages to high orbits.
Well I suppose the veracity of your claims depend on the meaning of
"satellite", but Wiki claims that around 300 operational satellites are
geosynchronous, out of around the 560 operational satellites that are
tracked by SSN.
So you may need to provide some support for your claim before I "know" that.
But what I meant is that the majority of satellite orbital tracks are in the
direction of Earth's rotation as opposed to a retrograde orbit.
How fast does a geostationary satellite travel at 26,000 altitude?
>
> >, and it is cheaper to
> >start heading that direction than the other and then having to do a u
turn.
> >It seems on first impression that the effective distance from launch and
> >target altitude would be the same, either westward or eastward, and
perhaps
> >with given lift either way, faster to target altitude going westbound.
And
> >overcoming gravity would be the same, no? Perhaps it is mostly a matter
of
> >what happens when the craft reaches target altitude.
>
> No, it's a matter of the "free" velocity boost available to
> an eastward launch; a satellite (equatorial launch to
> simplify, but it applies anywhere) is traveling at over
> 1000mph eastward while sitting on the launch pad. That's
> 1000mph delta-V which doesn't have to be supplied by the
> launch vehicle. NASA knows that, and anyone with any
> interest in spaceflight knows that, but Tony denies it has
> any meaning.
> --
Claiming that anyone with any interest would know that is absurd, to any
meaningful or relevant sense of the word "know". Delta-V launch calculations
are undoubtedly quite complex and based on many complicated variables. "Free
velocity boost" may be understandable to some degree and make sense to some
with interest, but doesn't necessarily equate to "knowing", short of "taking
your word for it". I have some background in flight mechanics as an
ex-ground instructor, and frankly I doubt that many have an adequate working
knowledge of orbital launch mechanics that would enable them to say they
"know" what you claim, regardless of how they may justify making sense out
of it, such as boyhood slingshot theory or peeing into the wind experience.
A.Carlson
wrote:
Primarily, I can just respond to your latest dodges by saying "what
Dr. Dworetsky said" but then you just ignore the vast majority of
salient points he makes as well.
Let's have a look at what you continue to gloss over while erroneously
claiming to have (or implying that you have) addressed.
<clip>
>>How do you explain satellites that stay in a geostationary orbit?
So please tell us exactly why these satellites (under your geocentric
model) don't come crashing down to earth. Don't the Newtonian laws of
physics apply here? Why isn't the earth's gravitational force pulling
them down? What specifically is it that you object to here? (other
than it just doesn't jibe with your own beliefs)
The far better heliocentric model, vis-a-vis orbital mechanics,
explains this one very well. Of course this also requires a spinning
earth, an anathema to your own failed model.
>>How do you explain NASA's own claims that launching satellites in an
>>eastward trajectory is more economical because it saves fuel by taking
>>advantage of earth's orbit?
"misleading claims were made and no evidence was produced"
consider "misleading"? Second, do you consider *all* claims relative
to this issue misleading? If not, then why haven't you addressed
those specific claims?
The fact that you leave this hanging is why I still consider this a
blatant dodge. Either make an honest attempt to support your
assertion that a claim is misleading or address the claim where you
cannot support such an assertion. Regardless, it is up to you to do
either one or the other.
For starters we could discuss burden of proof and how it relates to
this issue, particularly given the fact that it is you who are
defending a position that runs contrary to what has already been
established.
I would also like to know on what basis do you consider yourself
better informed than the rocket scientists who work at NASA,
specifically when it comes to orbital mechanics.
>>How do the stars and galaxies travel faster than the speed of light if
>>they must orbit the earth in accord with the geocentric model?
alleviated in any way by the claim/fact that certain types of
observations (such as stellar parallax, etc) are consistent with both
models.
The issue here deals with the conservation of energy, or more to the
point, how the geocentric model is consistent with Newtonian
physics/forces while your own bankrupt geocentric model is so clearly
not.
The energy requirement that your model makes necessary here is what is
at question.
>>Do you believe that the mass of the Sun is less than that of the
>>earth? If not then, given Newtonian laws of motion and the forces at
>>play, what would drive the sun (with a greater mass) to orbit the
>>earth? And why wouldn't the earth (with a lesser mass) orbit the sun?
>>Or, in not doing so, what would prevent the earth from being pulled
>>directly into the sun?
the stars and galaxies as being " ignorant nonsense" doesn't even come
close to being an acceptable response.
Just face it, unless you reject Newtonian physics wholesale, your
defense of the woefully outdated geocentric model just doesn't add up.
>>If you believe that the mass of the Sun is less than that of the
>>earth, why would the Lagrangian points (particularly L1) be located
>>where they currently are?
>>What is your take on Occam's razor/law of parsimony in relation to all
>>of the above issues? I am curious to find out whether or not you need
>>to rely on special pleading to defend the geocentric model in light of
>>scientific discoveries of the last several centuries.
>
>Parsimony is not related to the truth
when both are at least in accordance with natural laws, which your
model is often not.
>and Quantum Theory is hardly parsimonious.
quantum mechanics that is better supportive of the geocentric model?
>I've posted 100s of lines and Carlson has not quoted
>one to show that I've dodged or made special pleadings.
geostationary satellites is an obvious dodge.
I would consider your effective dismissal of evidence relating to
Newtonian physics as being nothing more than "ignorant nonsense" a
form of special pleading, or at least a colossal dodge.
>He also
>hasn't offered a single scientific discovery that secures Einstein,
>Big Bang or heliocentricism.
your defense of the geocentric model here as it relates to gravity.
IOW, Don't change the subject.
As far as evidence for the heliocentric model, how about starting with
all of the issues listed above that relate to Newton's laws of motion,
specifically how they relate to gravity.
Have you already forgotten the geostationary satellite challenge?
How about conservation of energy? Care to come up with an explanation
for your model's requirement that the entire universe rotates around
us at speeds much greater than the speed of light.
>Since April of this year Dr. Dworetsky (professor of astonomy) and Dr
>Carlip (Physcisist, University of California) have failed to produce a
>single observation that proves the truth of heliocentricism or that
>geoCentricism is false.
Care to have an honest discussion on Newtonian physics? Gravity and
its implications on geocentrism vs heliocentrism? Didn't think so.
>I have produced perodic summaries of the evidences produced by them
>(and others) so far. The vast majority of the observations produced
>are neutral between the two models.
>Some contradict heliocentricism and others are nonsense.
simply on your say so. Doesn't count (except for evidence showing
your latest dodging)
>>I'm betting that you'll just dodge the whole issue again.
number of issues that have repeatedly been raised.
>Below is the state of the evidence produced so far (since April 2011).
unwilling or unable to address and defend?
>And it's not a pretty picture for atheism.
clearly bearing false witness.
Except for maybe Missouri Synod Lutherans, I don't see much support
from any established religious institution on the issue of
geocentrism.
<Clip nonsense that have actually been repeatedly addressed by others
whose responses you repeatedly ignore/dodge or just repeat the same
old vacuous bullshit>
Glenn
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bvqdnaryuZyQ6Q3T...@bt.com...
on me without thinking, or does a few comments by an individual somehow
endanger or compromise your worldview?
Is that a white hat on your head or a jock strap?
Do some thinking about how a satellite is able to stay in orbit, perhaps
ponder centripetal and centrifugal forces, and then actually read what I
said, instead of just repeating it back as if that somehow lends support or
credence to your flaming rant. I did use as many small words as possible, so
it shouldn't be too hard for you to understand.
Mike Dworetsky
would be no argument.
> How fast does a geostationary satellite travel at 26,000 altitude?
revolution around the Earth in one sidereal day of Earth's rotation.
>>
>>> , and it is cheaper to
>>> start heading that direction than the other and then having to do a
>>> u turn. It seems on first impression that the effective distance
>>> from launch and target altitude would be the same, either westward
>>> or eastward, and perhaps with given lift either way, faster to
>>> target altitude going westbound. And overcoming gravity would be
>>> the same, no? Perhaps it is mostly a matter of what happens when
>>> the craft reaches target altitude.
>>
>> No, it's a matter of the "free" velocity boost available to
>> an eastward launch; a satellite (equatorial launch to
>> simplify, but it applies anywhere) is traveling at over
>> 1000mph eastward while sitting on the launch pad. That's
>> 1000mph delta-V which doesn't have to be supplied by the
>> launch vehicle. NASA knows that, and anyone with any
>> interest in spaceflight knows that, but Tony denies it has
>> any meaning.
>> --
> Claiming that anyone with any interest would know that is absurd, to
> any meaningful or relevant sense of the word "know". Delta-V launch
> calculations are undoubtedly quite complex and based on many
> complicated variables. "Free velocity boost" may be understandable to
> some degree and make sense to some with interest, but doesn't
> necessarily equate to "knowing", short of "taking your word for it".
"know" about the benefits of eastwards orbital launches.
> I have some background in flight mechanics as an ex-ground
> instructor, and frankly I doubt that many have an adequate working
> knowledge of orbital launch mechanics that would enable them to say
> they "know" what you claim, regardless of how they may justify making
> sense out of it, such as boyhood slingshot theory or peeing into the
> wind experience.
the launches know this, things ought to work out just fine in terms of
putting satellites in the correct orbit. But it is important for the
population as a whole to be scientifically literate, especially if they are
expected to decide political issues that involve scientific information.
Boikat
Re thread title: Pagano is afraid of anything that conflicts with his
version of "reality".
<snip>
Boikat
Bob Casanova
satellites.
>So you may need to provide some support for your claim before I "know" that.
>But what I meant is that the majority of satellite orbital tracks are in the
>direction of Earth's rotation as opposed to a retrograde orbit.
>How fast does a geostationary satellite travel at 26,000 altitude?
of a circle at the altitude in question and divide by 24.
misapprehensions in favor of complaining about a side note?
OK, and not entirely unexpected.
And just FYI, "delta-V" refers only to the required change
in velocity; how it's determined is solely based on the
desired orbital altitude; and requires no esoteric math. As
an example, the relatively simple solution to your question
above regarding the velocity of a geostationary satellite,
minus the Earth's surface velocity at the launch point, is
the tangential delta-V required for the launch and orbital
insertion of that satellite.
Glenn
That is a pretty stupid thing to say, no matter who or what it is directed
at. Most everything said is open to interpretation, and therefore
"argument". Like what Carlson asked Tony above.
>
> > How fast does a geostationary satellite travel at 26,000 altitude?
>
> The orbital velocity is 3.07 km/sec at that altitude. This produces one
> revolution around the Earth in one sidereal day of Earth's rotation.
>
Which is "fast", although schoolkids would probably relate better to miles
per hour. But the question wasn't meant to provide you with an excercise in
basic math, rather it was to get you to consider the speed itself must be
really fast and whether retrograde orbit launches would be more economical
when launched eastward. Or similarly, prograde launches launched westward.
Oh, I feel much more confident in that than in claiming what "many
schoolkids know". Actually it seems you just took yourself down a slippery
slope, regardless of your scaring "know" in the process. Many adults, some
significant time after being schoolkids, "know" the Sun revolves around the
Earth. And were you to interview a few of them and tell them the opposite,
they may all say "Oh, I didn't know that" and just smile at you, going about
their business not knowing any more or any different than what they already
"thought".
The simplist way to understand the question put by Carlson above may indeed
be to interpret "take advantage of Earth's rotation" as a result of the
easiest direction of launch for a prograde orbit. "Slingshot" velocity may
indeed play a part in the economy of some launches, but velocity itself is
not an absolute requirement for multistage rocket launches. And right there
is where this all could get more complicated and for some the embarkation
point from "knowing" to "taking your word for it".
>
> > I have some background in flight mechanics as an ex-ground
> > instructor, and frankly I doubt that many have an adequate working
> > knowledge of orbital launch mechanics that would enable them to say
> > they "know" what you claim, regardless of how they may justify making
> > sense out of it, such as boyhood slingshot theory or peeing into the
> > wind experience.
>
> As long as the scientists and engineers who actually design and carry out
> the launches know this, things ought to work out just fine in terms of
> putting satellites in the correct orbit. But it is important for the
> population as a whole to be scientifically literate, especially if they
are
> expected to decide political issues that involve scientific information.
>
What is scientific literacy? Is that not a slippery slope? When you say "as
long as the scientists know" it sounds like "I'll take your word for it".
No, sorry, I do not share your enthusiasm for "science" dictating policy.
But this gets a little off topic, since the thread is about Tony's challenge
to provide evidence that the Earth rotates. All your arguments assume that
it does, and that at least does not meet Tony's challenge. His position is,
as I understand it, is that the Earth is stationary, and "the ether" moves
around it, which would affect satellite orbits and launches, and that there
is no boost in the direction of Earth rotation and no more or less a boost
in the opposite direction.
It has always been my understanding that you can read all the claims and
reasons for how to ride a bike successfully, but till you jump on one and
get some experience you really don't "know" how to ride a bike. Same goes
for science. If you really want science to inform politics, you must be
willing to adequately educate the policy makers with evidence, not rhetoric.
Glenn
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
Not even close. Make yourself a note that I blew you out of the water, and
you didn't even make any swimming motions in the process.
>
> >So you may need to provide some support for your claim before I "know"
that.
> >But what I meant is that the majority of satellite orbital tracks are in
the
> >direction of Earth's rotation as opposed to a retrograde orbit.
> >How fast does a geostationary satellite travel at 26,000 altitude?
>
> It's a fairly simple calculation; compute the circumference
> of a circle at the altitude in question and divide by 24.
Very good.
Your "correction" is absurd, as I said. As to "it" being a "matter" of "free
velocity boost", I have little understanding of what the hell you are
talking about.
>
> And just FYI, "delta-V" refers only to the required change
> in velocity; how it's determined is solely based on the
> desired orbital altitude; and requires no esoteric math. As
> an example, the relatively simple solution to your question
> above regarding the velocity of a geostationary satellite,
> minus the Earth's surface velocity at the launch point, is
> the tangential delta-V required for the launch and orbital
> insertion of that satellite.
> --
There is no "required" change in velocity, and there are many more variables
that determine the flight characteristics and performance to a particular
orbit or altitude. It seems you think of delta-v as an escape velocity of a
big bullet shot from a rocket on Tuesday afternoon going to tame the women
of the Moon.
Don Cates
470 low earth orbit
64 medium earth orbit
34 elliptical earth orbit
398 geosynchronous earth orbit
<http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/space_weapons/technical_issues/ucs-satellite-database.html>
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Glenn
"Don Cates" <caHOR...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:j6t06f$475$1...@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...
It appears you use this to provide an accurate number of total orbiting
satellites as of Aug31. Was that your intention?
Since posters who did not read the reference might think so, and not be
aware that this is just the number in the "Concerned Scientists" database,
and makes no claim about total satellites.
And even if all but the geosynchronous satellites were considered not
geostationary or geosynchronous, would not support Bob's claim that the
"vast majority" are not.
Don Cates
According to WIKI the large majority of satellites are launched into LEO.
GEOs tend to be large, expensive, and intended to be up there a looong
time. Many LEOs are small, inexpensive, and intended for (relatively)
short term operation.
Don Cates
Yes it does. Read again.
>
> And even if all but the geosynchronous satellites were considered not
> geostationary or geosynchronous, would not support Bob's claim that the
> "vast majority" are not.
>>
"even if"?
Ummm, why *wouldn't* all the non-geosynchronous satellites be considered
non-geosynchronous/geostationary?
"vast majority" does overstate it. The last decade launched about 77
sats/yr of which about 19/yr were GEOs.
[snip]
Glenn
satellites currently in orbit around Earth."
Unless it makes that claim on another page.
> > And even if all but the geosynchronous satellites were considered not
> > geostationary or geosynchronous, would not support Bob's claim that the
> > "vast majority" are not.
> >>
> "even if"?
> Ummm, why *wouldn't* all the non-geosynchronous satellites be considered
> non-geosynchronous/geostationary?
> "vast majority" does overstate it. The last decade launched about 77
> sats/yr of which about 19/yr were GEOs.
> [snip]
>
but with no clear breakdown.
Mike Dworetsky
90% of the world's schoolkids would relate to km/s. Only Americans would
insist on knowing what that was in miles per hour. Many American schoolkids
would be happy working in km.
> excercise in basic math, rather it was to get you to consider the
> speed itself must be really fast and whether retrograde orbit
> launches would be more economical when launched eastward. Or
> similarly, prograde launches launched westward.
The simple answer is they would not; such a procedure would be impossibly
inefficient in either direction. The most obvious reason is that first you
would need to fire a humongous rocket engine to kill all that orbital speed,
burning huge amounts of fuel, then fire it again with even more fuel
consumed in order to get up to orbital speed in the opposite direction.
Dictating policy, no, but informing policy, yes.
> is about Tony's challenge to provide evidence that the Earth rotates.
> All your arguments assume that it does, and that at least does not
> meet Tony's challenge. His position is, as I understand it, is that
> the Earth is stationary, and "the ether" moves around it, which would
> affect satellite orbits and launches, and that there is no boost in
> the direction of Earth rotation and no more or less a boost in the
> opposite direction.
It isn't really possible to know what Tony thinks about these issues,
because he automatically claims that evidence otherwise universally accepted
to prove a rotating earth orbiting the barycentre is false, claiming all
sorts of disproven 19th and early 20th century experiment as his proof.
It's hard to argue with someone who dismisses all reasoned arguments that
contradict his position and who then carries on exactly as if you had said
nothing, and who throws gratuitous kindergarten insults along the way.
> It has always been my understanding that you can read all the claims
> and reasons for how to ride a bike successfully, but till you jump on
> one and get some experience you really don't "know" how to ride a
> bike. Same goes for science. If you really want science to inform
> politics, you must be willing to adequately educate the policy makers
> with evidence, not rhetoric.
Yet when scientists do exactly that, you get those under the thumb of oil
lobbyists, like Imhofe, claiming that they are all involved in some sort of
evil Communist conspiracy.
Bob Casanova
No, you said it was absurd to assume that these things are
common knowledge among the interested. That had nothing to
do with the correction of your errors regarding eastbound
vs. westbound launches, hypothetical "u-turns" and "what
happens when the craft reaches target altitude".
> As to "it" being a "matter" of "free
>velocity boost", I have little understanding of what the hell you are
>talking about.
Let's try again:
A satellite (equatorial launch to simplify, but it applies
anywhere) is traveling at over 1000mph eastward while
sitting on the launch pad. That's 1000mph delta-V which
doesn't have to be supplied by the launch vehicle. If this
is too complex, let me know and I'll try to simplify it for
you.
>> And just FYI, "delta-V" refers only to the required change
>> in velocity; how it's determined is solely based on the
>> desired orbital altitude; and requires no esoteric math. As
>> an example, the relatively simple solution to your question
>> above regarding the velocity of a geostationary satellite,
>> minus the Earth's surface velocity at the launch point, is
>> the tangential delta-V required for the launch and orbital
>> insertion of that satellite.
>> --
>There is no "required" change in velocity
There is a required change in tangential velocity for any
desired orbit. No, there is no universally "required"
delta-V, but I was under the impression that we were
discussing the orbits of satellites.
>, and there are many more variables
>that determine the flight characteristics and performance to a particular
>orbit or altitude.
Could you perhaps discuss these "many more variables"? For a
given desired orbit, generally (but not always) elliptical
with a small eccentricity, the primary determinant is the
tangential delta-V supplied by the launch vehicle.
> It seems you think of delta-v as an escape velocity of a
>big bullet shot from a rocket on Tuesday afternoon going to tame the women
>of the Moon.
It seems that you don't know what the hell you're talking
about, and as usual substitute invective for discussion.
Just FYI, delta-V and escape velocity are related but
separate concepts (unidirectionally; while escape velocity
implies delta-V the converse is not true), neither of which
has anything to do with either the Moody Blues or your
current paramour(s).
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
[Crickets...]
And Tony runs away again...
Glenn
"Bob Casanova" <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in message
David Iain Greig
> With regard to your ridiculous defense of the geocentric model, it
> certainly seems like it.
I restate my dislike of Subject: lines insulting posters.
Do as you will with that fact.
--D.
--
david iain greig gr...@ediacara.org
moderator, talk.origins sp4 kox
http://www.ediacara.org/~greig arbor plena alouattarum
Michael Siemon
David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> A.Carlson <amc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > With regard to your ridiculous defense of the geocentric model, it
> > certainly seems like it.
>
> I restate my dislike of Subject: lines insulting posters.
>
> Do as you will with that fact.
>
> --D.
My apologies, then, for my recent post's title. I will try to
avoid repeat offenses.