Low-Earth orbit

[Earle Jones]

*
Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
low-earth orbiting satellite? If so, I missed it.

Suppose we have an orbiting satellite in a circular orbit over the
poles. Let's say its altitude is about 275 miles, which would make its
orbit time about 90 minutes. If the earth is stationary, the satellite
would pass over point X and 90 minutes later, pass over point X again.

Experiments tell us that this is not true. Either the earth is
rotating, or the satellite orbit precesses about 15 degrees per
revolution. What would cause the satellite orbit to precess? What
force acts on the orbit of the satellite?

Thanks,

earle
*

[John Harshman]

On 3/15/18 6:31 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
> *
> Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
> low-earth orbiting satellite?  If so, I missed it.

Not my question. My question was why people don't get swept up by the
rotating ether.

> Suppose we have an orbiting satellite in a circular orbit over the
> poles.  Let's say its altitude is about 275 miles, which would make its
> orbit time about 90 minutes.  If the earth is stationary, the satellite
> would pass over point X and 90 minutes later, pass over point X again.
>
> Experiments tell us that this is not true.  Either the earth is
> rotating, or the satellite orbit precesses about 15 degrees per
> revolution. What would cause the satellite orbit to precess?  What force
> acts on the orbit of the satellite?

Rotating ether. Duh.

[J. J. Lodder]

Coriolis force,

Jan

[T Pagano]

1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
at the center.

2. Hans Thirring (a contemporary of Einstein) proved (using Einstein's
field equations) that the rotating starfield in a Newton's Sphere
generates both Coriollis Forces and Centrifugal forces on everything
within the sphere.



*********HOW IS THE SATELLITE'S RELATIVE MOTION EXPLAINED?****************

1. The relative motion of the satellite does not prove that the Earth is
rotating on its axis only that there is a relative motion between the two.

2. In the GeoCentric model not only is the whole of space rotating
rotating clockwise at 15 degrees/hour, but the starfield is generating
Coriolis Forces causing the satellite to precess. It is the same reason
that the Focault Pendulum precesses.

3. In the GeoCentric model the Coriolis Force has a real physical
explanation (rotating gravitational field produced by the star field).
In the Standard Model of Modern Cosmology Coriolis forces are explained
as fictitious and caused by the phantasm of "frame dragging."

[Bill Rogers]

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:31:39 -0700, Earle Jones wrote:
>
> > *
> > Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
> > low-earth orbiting satellite? If so, I missed it.
> >
> > Suppose we have an orbiting satellite in a circular orbit over the
> > poles. Let's say its altitude is about 275 miles, which would make its
> > orbit time about 90 minutes. If the earth is stationary, the satellite
> > would pass over point X and 90 minutes later, pass over point X again.
> >
> > Experiments tell us that this is not true. Either the earth is
> > rotating, or the satellite orbit precesses about 15 degrees per
> > revolution. What would cause the satellite orbit to precess? What force
> > acts on the orbit of the satellite?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > earle *
>
>
>
> 1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
> The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
> degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
> at the center.
>
> 2. Hans Thirring (a contemporary of Einstein) proved (using Einstein's
> field equations) that the rotating starfield in a Newton's Sphere
> generates both Coriollis Forces and Centrifugal forces on everything
> within the sphere.

This explanation for Coriolis and contrifugal forces depends on relativity. But you've just posted, in another thread, all the reasons you think relativity is wrong. We all know you don't understand relativity, but you shouldn't need to understand it to see the inconsistency in your own position.

And if you did understand relativity, if you'd read the relevant section in "that classic tome," as you call Misner et al.'s Gravitation, you'd know that that explanation of centrifugal and Coriolis forces would imply a closed geometry to the universe which would make the concept of a center (at which you'd like the earth to sit) meaningless.

[zencycle]

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:

"In Order for Atheists to Criticize the GeoCentric Model they First have to Understand it. They Prefer Instead to Prop Up Strawmen."

Funny, a guy promoting geocentrism accusing everyone else of promoting 'strawmen'

> 1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
> The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
> degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
> at the center.

Suuuure tony, so a celestial body 10 billion miles away is moving a 15 degrees per hour has a linear speed of 4 times the speed of light.....

http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/mechanics/linear_angular

Wow, yer fuckin stupid.....

[John Harshman]

On 3/16/18 7:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:31:39 -0700, Earle Jones wrote:
>
>> *
>> Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
>> low-earth orbiting satellite? If so, I missed it.
>>
>> Suppose we have an orbiting satellite in a circular orbit over the
>> poles. Let's say its altitude is about 275 miles, which would make its
>> orbit time about 90 minutes. If the earth is stationary, the satellite
>> would pass over point X and 90 minutes later, pass over point X again.
>>
>> Experiments tell us that this is not true. Either the earth is
>> rotating, or the satellite orbit precesses about 15 degrees per
>> revolution. What would cause the satellite orbit to precess? What force
>> acts on the orbit of the satellite?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> earle *
>
>
>
> 1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.

That's good evidence that you don't know what "Newton's sphere" means.

> The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
> degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
> at the center.

What do you mean by "the outer shell"? Are you in fact claiming that all
the stars form a thin shell equidistant from the earth?

> 2. Hans Thirring (a contemporary of Einstein) proved (using Einstein's
> field equations) that the rotating starfield in a Newton's Sphere
> generates both Coriollis Forces and Centrifugal forces on everything
> within the sphere.

But you reject the validity of Einstein's equations, which means that
you can't accept that proof.

> *********HOW IS THE SATELLITE'S RELATIVE MOTION EXPLAINED?****************
>
> 1. The relative motion of the satellite does not prove that the Earth is
> rotating on its axis only that there is a relative motion between the two.
>
> 2. In the GeoCentric model not only is the whole of space rotating
> rotating clockwise at 15 degrees/hour, but the starfield is generating
> Coriolis Forces causing the satellite to precess. It is the same reason
> that the Focault Pendulum precesses.
>
> 3. In the GeoCentric model the Coriolis Force has a real physical
> explanation (rotating gravitational field produced by the star field).
> In the Standard Model of Modern Cosmology Coriolis forces are explained
> as fictitious and caused by the phantasm of "frame dragging."

No, Coriolis force has nothing at all to do with frame dragging. More
evidence that you are just parroting (badly) something you have heard
but don't understand.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/16/18 7:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 18:31:39 -0700, Earle Jones wrote:
>
>> *
>> Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
>> low-earth orbiting satellite? If so, I missed it.
>>
>> Suppose we have an orbiting satellite in a circular orbit over the
>> poles. Let's say its altitude is about 275 miles, which would make its
>> orbit time about 90 minutes. If the earth is stationary, the satellite
>> would pass over point X and 90 minutes later, pass over point X again.
>>
>> Experiments tell us that this is not true. Either the earth is
>> rotating, or the satellite orbit precesses about 15 degrees per
>> revolution. What would cause the satellite orbit to precess? What force
>> acts on the orbit of the satellite?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> earle *
>
>
>
> 1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
> The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
> degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
> at the center.
>
> 2. Hans Thirring (a contemporary of Einstein) proved (using Einstein's
> field equations) that the rotating starfield in a Newton's Sphere
> generates both Coriollis Forces and Centrifugal forces on everything
> within the sphere.

You have already admitted that you cannot apply simple high school
algebra, and you have said that the basis of Thirring's work is wrong.

Do you honestly believe that *anybody* will believe a word you write?

You really need to include turtles. They will not detract from your
model's believability, and they will make it more interesting.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

Ummm...there's something wrong there. I plugged in "15
degrees/hour" and "13B ly radius" and got a linear speed of
around 3e13c (and a centrifugal acceleration of 6.6e16g).
Using your 10b ly, I still get a linear speed of 2.3e13c.
Both are a little higher than 4... ;-)

>Wow, yer fuckin stupid.....

Yes, he is.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[zencycle]

On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
> >
> >"In Order for Atheists to Criticize the GeoCentric Model they First have to Understand it. They Prefer Instead to Prop Up Strawmen."
> >
> >Funny, a guy promoting geocentrism accusing everyone else of promoting 'strawmen'
> >
> >
> >> 1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
> >> The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
> >> degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
> >> at the center.
> >
> >Suuuure tony, so a celestial body 10 billion miles away is moving a 15 degrees per hour has a linear speed of 4 times the speed of light.....
> >
> >http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/mechanics/linear_angular
>
> Ummm...there's something wrong there. I plugged in "15
> degrees/hour" and "13B ly radius" and got a linear speed of
> around 3e13c (and a centrifugal acceleration of 6.6e16g).
> Using your 10b ly, I still get a linear speed of 2.3e13c.
> Both are a little higher than 4... ;-)

I used a radius of miles, not light years. 10B miles is a rather small sphere in terms of this newtonian model that tony thinks he understands. Unless tony is disputing the theory of relativity, then simple trigonometry shows that the known universe can have a radius no larger than 2.5B miles (or, less than 1/2 of 1/1000 of a light year across or the celestial bodies at the edges will exceed the speed of light.

Sheer stupidity

[Ernest Major]

On 16/03/2018 19:24, zencycle wrote:
> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>>>
>>> "In Order for Atheists to Criticize the GeoCentric Model they First have to Understand it. They Prefer Instead to Prop Up Strawmen."
>>>
>>> Funny, a guy promoting geocentrism accusing everyone else of promoting 'strawmen'
>>>
>>>
>>>> 1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
>>>> The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
>>>> degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
>>>> at the center.
>>>
>>> Suuuure tony, so a celestial body 10 billion miles away is moving a 15 degrees per hour has a linear speed of 4 times the speed of light.....
>>>
>>> http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/mechanics/linear_angular
>>
>> Ummm...there's something wrong there. I plugged in "15
>> degrees/hour" and "13B ly radius" and got a linear speed of
>> around 3e13c (and a centrifugal acceleration of 6.6e16g).
>> Using your 10b ly, I still get a linear speed of 2.3e13c.
>> Both are a little higher than 4... ;-)
>
> I used a radius of miles, not light years. 10B miles is a rather small sphere in terms of this newtonian model that tony thinks he understands. Unless tony is disputing the theory of relativity, then simple trigonometry shows that the known universe can have a radius no larger than 2.5B miles (or, less than 1/2 of 1/1000 of a light year across or the celestial bodies at the edges will exceed the speed of light.
>
> Sheer stupidity
>

Since Tony doesn't accept relativity he might not be bothered by
superluminal velocities. I'm not sure when he accepts Newton's Laws of
Motion, but if he does he might be concerned about the source of the
extremely strong force required to keep bodies moving at such speeds in
circular(ish) orbits. He might take a position that there is not such
force and that is why the universe is expanding. But the observed
recession velocites are too small for the proposed orbital velocites -
most astronomical bodies would be invisible because they would be
receding at speeds greater than that of life.

Our problem is that Tony shows no sign of understanding the geocentric
model.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Steven Carlip]

On 3/16/18 10:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:

[...]

> 2. Hans Thirring (a contemporary of Einstein) proved (using Einstein's
> field equations) that the rotating starfield in a Newton's Sphere
> generates both Coriollis Forces and Centrifugal forces on everything
> within the sphere.

The first few times you said this, it might have merely been a
misconception coming from reading bad pop sci. But it's been
explained to you that this is not true. Let me repeat:

Thirring's paper, "Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der
Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie," appeared in Phys. Zeit. 19 (1918),
33-39, but there's a good English translation, "On the effect of
rotating distant masses in Einstein’s theory of gravitation," by
D. H. Delphenich, that you can find (free) if you look on Google
Scholar. Read it, and find a place where he says what you claim.
(Hint: you can't.)

What Thirring found was
(1) an effect of the same general form as centrifugal force, but tiny;
(2) an effect of the same general form as Coriolis force, but also tiny;
(3) a third effect, also tiny, that acting like a force pushing objects
toward the equator.

Subsequent work looked at what would happen if you tried to ramp up the
effect to something larger than the incredibly tiny result Thirring
found. (Thirring couldn't do this -- the necessary mathematics wasn't
available in 1918.) You can find a description in, for example, Orwig,
Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 1757-1763. The answer is that you need stronger
and stronger stresses to keep the shell from either flying apart or
collapsing under its own weight. If you try to reproduce the actual,
observed centrifugal and Coriolis forces, you need infinite stresses.

So, no. While Thirring found a very small Coriolois-like effect and a
very small centrifugal-like effect, he certainly did not find anything
close to what we actually observe.

Steve Carlip

[Jonathan]

Are you seriously claiming the Earth doesn't rotate
on it's axis?

The video below is from a satellite remaining
between the Sun and Earth at L1 the entire time
and it shows the Earth rotating. Proof is that
the sunlight side is seen at all times

How could the satellite be orbiting the Earth
while remaining between the Sun and Earth???

Either the Earth is rotating, or the Sun
would become visible each day.


One Year on Earth – Seen From 1 Million Miles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g



--

"To paraphrase the Buddha — Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun; the moon; and the truth. ‬

~ Former FBI Director James Comey (12-1-17)


s

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 12:24:42 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

>On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 08:56:02 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
>> <funkma...@hotmail.com>:
>>
>> >On Friday, March 16, 2018 at 10:40:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>> >
>> >"In Order for Atheists to Criticize the GeoCentric Model they First have to Understand it. They Prefer Instead to Prop Up Strawmen."
>> >
>> >Funny, a guy promoting geocentrism accusing everyone else of promoting 'strawmen'
>> >
>> >
>> >> 1. The Geocentric model can be idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
>> >> The star field is located at or near the outer shell rotating at 15
>> >> degrees per hour along with the whole sphere, while th Earth is immobile
>> >> at the center.
>> >
>> >Suuuure tony, so a celestial body 10 billion miles away is moving a 15 degrees per hour has a linear speed of 4 times the speed of light.....
>> >
>> >http://www.calctool.org/CALC/eng/mechanics/linear_angular
>>
>> Ummm...there's something wrong there. I plugged in "15
>> degrees/hour" and "13B ly radius" and got a linear speed of
>> around 3e13c (and a centrifugal acceleration of 6.6e16g).
>> Using your 10b ly, I still get a linear speed of 2.3e13c.
>> Both are a little higher than 4... ;-)
>
>I used a radius of miles, not light years. 10B miles is a rather small sphere in terms of this newtonian model that tony thinks he understands. Unless tony is disputing the theory of relativity, then simple trigonometry shows that the known universe can have a radius no larger than 2.5B miles (or, less than 1/2 of 1/1000 of a light year across or the celestial bodies at the edges will exceed the speed of light.

OK, you were essentially using a velocity to determine the
max radius, and I used the *actual* radius to determine the
required velocity at the periphery. Apples and oranges, but
the same conclusion from both WRT Tony's "science":

>Sheer stupidity

Yep, that's the conclusion.

[Öö Tiib]

On Friday, 16 March 2018 04:45:02 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/15/18 6:31 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
> > *
> > Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
> > low-earth orbiting satellite?  If so, I missed it.
>
> Not my question. My question was why people don't get swept up by the
> rotating ether.

You mean like 110 km/h constant westwards wind at equator? May be Earth is
sitting in socket of that rotating Ether. In that socket there
is that other thing that fills the room between socket and Earth
about 1.5% of Earth's radius. It was made to hold the Water Canopy up
before Flood and it is quite tricky thing there because it took whole
second day of God to create. Our satellite would be above it in wildly
rotating Ether and that sweeps it westwards.

[John Harshman]

On 3/17/18 11:10 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Friday, 16 March 2018 04:45:02 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
>> On 3/15/18 6:31 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
>>> *
>>> Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
>>> low-earth orbiting satellite?  If so, I missed it.
>>
>> Not my question. My question was why people don't get swept up by the
>> rotating ether.
>
> You mean like 110 km/h constant westwards wind at equator?

More like the 1600 km/h wind, right?

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 17 March 2018 22:50:02 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/17/18 11:10 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> > On Friday, 16 March 2018 04:45:02 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
> >> On 3/15/18 6:31 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
> >>> *
> >>> Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
> >>> low-earth orbiting satellite?  If so, I missed it.
> >>
> >> Not my question. My question was why people don't get swept up by the
> >> rotating ether.
> >
> > You mean like 110 km/h constant westwards wind at equator?
>
> More like the 1600 km/h wind, right?

Yes, mea culpa, since equator is 40,075 km long it has to move 1670 km/h
to make full circle in 24 h.

[jillery]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:17:36 -0400, Steven Carlip
<car...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:

>On 3/16/18 10:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>
>[...]
>> 2. Hans Thirring (a contemporary of Einstein) proved (using Einstein's
>> field equations) that the rotating starfield in a Newton's Sphere
>> generates both Coriollis Forces and Centrifugal forces on everything
>> within the sphere.
>
>The first few times you said this, it might have merely been a
>misconception coming from reading bad pop sci. But it's been
>explained to you that this is not true. Let me repeat:
>

>Thirring's paper, "U?ber die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der

>Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie," appeared in Phys. Zeit. 19 (1918),
>33-39, but there's a good English translation, "On the effect of
>rotating distant masses in Einstein’s theory of gravitation," by
>D. H. Delphenich, that you can find (free) if you look on Google
>Scholar. Read it, and find a place where he says what you claim.
>(Hint: you can't.)
>
>What Thirring found was
>(1) an effect of the same general form as centrifugal force, but tiny;
>(2) an effect of the same general form as Coriolis force, but also tiny;
>(3) a third effect, also tiny, that acting like a force pushing objects
> toward the equator.
>
>Subsequent work looked at what would happen if you tried to ramp up the
>effect to something larger than the incredibly tiny result Thirring
>found. (Thirring couldn't do this -- the necessary mathematics wasn't
>available in 1918.) You can find a description in, for example, Orwig,
>Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 1757-1763. The answer is that you need stronger
>and stronger stresses to keep the shell from either flying apart or
>collapsing under its own weight. If you try to reproduce the actual,
>observed centrifugal and Coriolis forces, you need infinite stresses.
>
>So, no. While Thirring found a very small Coriolois-like effect and a
>very small centrifugal-like effect, he certainly did not find anything
>close to what we actually observe.
>
>Steve Carlip

Just to be clear, will you quantify what you mean by "tiny" above? Or
at least say to what you compare it?

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[zencycle]

On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> OK, you were essentially using a velocity to determine the
> max radius, and I used the *actual* radius to determine the
> required velocity at the periphery. Apples and oranges, but
> the same conclusion from both WRT Tony's "science":

The calculator determine the 3rd factor from two inputs. I used tony's value of 15 degrees per hour, and a radius of 1 light year to start. Since the velocity at that radius was so large, I dropped the radius 3 orders of magnitude. It was after that when I started inputting velocity to determine radius.

FWIW - this isn't comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't matter which variables you assign values to, everything needs to come out the same in the end. Charles Babbage wrote “When the formula to be computed is very complicated, it may be algebraically arranged for computation in two or more totally distinct ways,..... If the same constants are now employed with each [method], and if under these circumstances the results agree, we may then be quite secure of the accuracy of them all.”

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2018 05:12:56 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

>On Saturday, March 17, 2018 at 2:05:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>> OK, you were essentially using a velocity to determine the
>> max radius, and I used the *actual* radius to determine the
>> required velocity at the periphery. Apples and oranges, but
>> the same conclusion from both WRT Tony's "science":
>
>The calculator determine the 3rd factor from two inputs. I used tony's value of 15 degrees per hour, and a radius of 1 light year to start. Since the velocity at that radius was so large, I dropped the radius 3 orders of magnitude. It was after that when I started inputting velocity to determine radius.

A reasonable approach; I preferred to go with known values
and work from there, but either works.

>FWIW - this isn't comparing apples and oranges. It doesn't matter which variables you assign values to, everything needs to come out the same in the end. Charles Babbage wrote “When the formula to be computed is very complicated, it may be algebraically arranged for computation in two or more totally distinct ways,..... If the same constants are now employed with each [method], and if under these circumstances the results agree, we may then be quite secure of the accuracy of them all.”

OK, point. I should have written "Inversely calculated, but
resulting in the same refutation of Tony's dreck".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 13:23:39 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

That's exactly what he claims, and has been claiming for
weeks (actually, for years).

>The video below is from a satellite remaining
>between the Sun and Earth at L1 the entire time
>and it shows the Earth rotating. Proof is that
>the sunlight side is seen at all times
>
>How could the satellite be orbiting the Earth
>while remaining between the Sun and Earth???

It all has to do with the rotation of the universe around
the Earth daily; Tony can "clear up" your "misconceptions"
for you.

>Either the Earth is rotating, or the Sun
>would become visible each day.
>
>
>One Year on Earth – Seen From 1 Million Miles
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g
--

[Burkhard]

John Harshman wrote:
> On 3/17/18 11:10 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
>> On Friday, 16 March 2018 04:45:02 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 3/15/18 6:31 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
>>>> *
>>>> Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
>>>> low-earth orbiting satellite? If so, I missed it.
>>>
>>> Not my question. My question was why people don't get swept up by the
>>> rotating ether.
>>
>> You mean like 110 km/h constant westwards wind at equator?
>
> More like the 1600 km/h wind, right?

All people with big ears were. Which is why by now, only people with
moderately small ears are left. Natural selection in action, and a happy
marriage between ToE and Paganoism :o)

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <p8p4gv$ija$1...@dont-email.me>, Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
> > On 3/17/18 11:10 AM, Öö Tiib wrote:
> >> On Friday, 16 March 2018 04:45:02 UTC+2, John Harshman wrote:
> >>> On 3/15/18 6:31 PM, Earle Jones wrote:
> >>>> *
> >>>> Has Tony Pagano recently answered John Harshman's question about
> >>>> low-earth orbiting satellite? If so, I missed it.
> >>>
> >>> Not my question. My question was why people don't get swept up by the
> >>> rotating ether.
> >>
> >> You mean like 110 km/h constant westwards wind at equator?
> >
> > More like the 1600 km/h wind, right?
>
> All people with big ears were. Which is why by now, only people with
> moderately small ears are left. Natural selection in action, and a happy
> marriage between ToE and Paganoism :o)

Fortunately, elephants are much heavier than people, so even with their
big ears they are still here.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Steven Carlip]

On 3/18/18 3:16 AM, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 10:17:36 -0400, Steven Carlip
> <car...@physics.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/18 10:38 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>> 2. Hans Thirring (a contemporary of Einstein) proved (using Einstein's
>>> field equations) that the rotating starfield in a Newton's Sphere
>>> generates both Coriollis Forces and Centrifugal forces on everything
>>> within the sphere.

[...]

>> What Thirring found was
>> (1) an effect of the same general form as centrifugal force, but tiny;
>> (2) an effect of the same general form as Coriolis force, but also tiny;
>> (3) a third effect, also tiny, that acting like a force pushing objects
>> toward the equator.

[...]

> Just to be clear, will you quantify what you mean by "tiny" above? Or
> at least say to what you compare it?

Thirring used what is called the "weak field approximation" to find an
approximate solution of the Einstein field equations. This is an
approximation in which some parameter that measures the gravitational
field is assumed to be small, and all terms in the equations that are
proportional to the square or a higher power of the parameter are
ignored. (If some parameter x is much less than 1, then x^2 is much
less than x.)

The small parameter in Thirring's calculation is x = 2GM/Rc^2, where
M is the mass of the shell and R is its radius. (G is Newton's
constant and c is the speed of light.) This doesn't have a fixed
value -- no one tells you the mass of the shell -- but the calculation
is only valid if x is much less than 1, while to get the observed
Coriolis and centrifugal forces you would need x=1.

(If you try to do a more accurate calculation with a larger value of x,
you run into a problem -- the shell tends to fly apart, and you have
to add stresses to hold it together. The calculation can be done for
a slowly rotating shell, using methods much more sophisticated than
Thirring's. If you do that, you find that as x approaches 1, the
stresses needed to hold the shell together approach infinity.)

Steve Carlip

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 19:50:01 -0700, Steven Carlip

Ok. According to your formula, X is proportional to density, and the
density of any cosmological ether is necessarily very small, which
makes Thirring's Coriolis and Centrifugal forces also very small, too
small to have any measurable effect on Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
Thank you for your explanation.

[Steven Carlip]

No, density is mass/volume, this is mass/radius. What x really is,
roughly, is the ratio of the radius of a black hole with mass M to
the radius of the actual shell. To reproduce the observed Coriolis
and centrifugal forces, one would have to have a shell of matter
compact eough to form a black hole, but somehow not collapsing.
That's what takes an infinite stress.

Steve Carlip

[jillery]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:59:26 -0700, Steven Carlip

Ok. I regret my error.