I studied satellites and THE EARTH MOVED!

[Joe Cummings]

I have to tank Tony Pagano for getting me to think about the motion of
the earth and how it can be detected.

As usual, he takes up an impossible position and thinks he is able to
defend it by rhetoric alone. When he is unable to argue aginst a
point of vuiew he resorts to rhetorical tricks or abuse.

Let's take the case where I recently improved on his arguments by
showing the there is no need for one of his "Coriolis forces" to
describe the motion of a satellite; all that was needed was to show
that from the viewpoint of an immobile earth the orbiit of the
satellite partook of the motion of the cosmos - it rotated at the same
speed as the cosmos. That, remember, depended on the assumption that
the earth was immobile.

Tony's ingenious answer was that I was "whining!" Wonderful.
I think it's characteristic of people who are aware they have a weak
case to be offensive/:defensive. It's difficult for them to concede
or acknowledge a point.

Anyway, enough of motive seeking, and let's go aloft with the
satellites.

One of them, A, has an orbit of 9 hours one, B, an orbit o 10 hours
and the third,,C, an orbit of 12 hours. Almighty God is sat above
them, watching their movements.

We line them up on the equatorial plane and set them off.

After an hour, the first satellite, A, will have travelled (360/9 =)
40 degrees along its orbit..

The second, B, (360/10 =) 36 degrees.

The third,C,, (360:12=)30 degrees.

To the Lord, and to an observer on earth,, the satellites will have
separated,
A leading B by 4 degrees, and C trailing B by 6 degrees.

By the magic of thought experiment, we put B in a 24 hour orbit, A in
a 23 hour orbit, and C in a 25hour orbit.

Now by the same logic, A will lead B and C wil trail B.

What observer on earth will see is that B appears to be stationary,
because it is rotating at the same angular speed as the earth, A will
be inching further east, and C will be slowly moving to the west.

To give the figures so that everyone is clear, B is moving 15 degrees
every hour (along with the earth).

A is moving (360/23=) 15.65 degrees to the east - it is .65 degrees
in advance of B

C is moving [15 degrees minus (360/25=)] 14.4 or .6 degreesto the west
away from B

But how is our geostationary believer going to explain it?

Here are three satellites, one apparently stationary, one moving
slowly eastward and one moving slowly westward.

What forces will he have to conjure up?

For A, he will have to magic a force that is stronger than the
cosmos-moving ether to go west to east;

For C, a force that resists or slows down the ether.,

and for B a force that negates the power of the ether, and one that
negates the gravitational pull of the earth.

Instead of epicycles upon epicycles, we have force upon force, and
coming we know not whence.

A forther "force" must be added:

Seen from either A or C, B is travelling at about 11,000 Km.ph
A "force" must be found that allows B to travel at 11,000 Kph and
remain motionless.

Over to you, Tony.
Will he respond with that curious mélange of misunderstood technical
terms and bullshit, or will it be that old standby, abuse?

The entire world is waiting, as I am waiting now.

Joe Cummings

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:38:25 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com>:

Good thought experiment.

But you forgot most-often-used possibility #3: Ignore your
post and repost his usual garbage in a new thread.

>The entire world is waiting, as I am waiting now.

Hopefully with un-bated breath...
--

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

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:38:25 +0200, Joe Cummings wrote:

> I have to tank Tony Pagano for getting me to think about the motion of
> the earth and how it can be detected.
>
> As usual, he takes up an impossible position and thinks he is able to
> defend it by rhetoric alone. When he is unable to argue aginst a point
> of vuiew he resorts to rhetorical tricks or abuse.

Since you fail to quote my comments your characterizations of me are
without foundation. Furthermore I've offered repeated historical
examples of the greats who have failed to detect the movement of the
Earth. Einstein was forced to create new laws of nature to explain these
failures.

>
> Let's take the case where I recently improved on his arguments by
> showing the there is no need for one of his "Coriolis forces" to
> describe the motion of a satellite; all that was needed was to show that
> from the viewpoint of an immobile earth the orbiit of the satellite
> partook of the motion of the cosmos - it rotated at the same speed as
> the cosmos. That, remember, depended on the assumption that the earth
> was immobile.

Regardless the point is you haven't proven that a fixed Earth is false.
And your examples below merely show an ignorance of the geoCentric model
not that it is false. Einstein and Mach were both well aware of the
nature of the geoCentric model and claimed that it was equally valid to
the heliocentric; it just wasn't the preferred model. What do you know
that Einstein did not?

>
> Tony's ingenious answer was that I was "whining!" Wonderful.
> I think it's characteristic of people who are aware they have a weak
> case to be offensive/:defensive. It's difficult for them to concede or
> acknowledge a point.

Snipped as irrelevent.

>
> By the magic of thought experiment, we put B in a 24 hour orbit, A in a
> 23 hour orbit, and C in a 25hour orbit.
>
> Now by the same logic, A will lead B and C wil trail B.
>
> What observer on earth will see is that B appears to be stationary,
> because it is rotating at the same angular speed as the earth, A will
> be inching further east, and C will be slowly moving to the west.
>
> To give the figures so that everyone is clear, B is moving 15 degrees
> every hour (along with the earth).
>
> A is moving (360/23=) 15.65 degrees to the east - it is .65 degrees
> in advance of B
>
> C is moving [15 degrees minus (360/25=)] 14.4 or .6 degreesto the west
> away from B
>
> But how is our geostationary believer going to explain it?
>
> Here are three satellites, one apparently stationary, one moving slowly
> eastward and one moving slowly westward.
>
> What forces will he have to conjure up?

I'm waiting for you to explain what the problem is for the geoCentric
model.

>
> For A, he will have to magic a force that is stronger than the
> cosmos-moving ether to go west to east;

What would lead you to conclude the necessity of magic forces? The
entire universe is filled an ether which is very dense but frictionless
substance. An object with no force being applied to it and stationary
with respect to the ether will merely be carried along by the ether at 15
degrees per hour clockwise with the ether's rotation.

Given that the ether is frictionless the rockets launching satellites A,
B and C eastward will provide a sufficient force to get the satellite to
the desired altitude above the Earth with an eastward velocity above the
Earth.

Satellite A is moving at 15.65 degrees/hour eastward against the ether
moving 15 degrees/hour westward. To an observer on the Earth Satellite A
will move eastward at 0.65 degrees/hour. The centripetal force on A will
be balanced by the real centrifugal force from the star field since it is
accelerating with respect to the starfield.

>
> For C, a force that resists or slows down the ether.,

Again you don't demonstrate the necessity of a force on Satellite C that
either resists the ether or slows it down. The ether is frictionless.

The ether moves 15 degrees/hour westward with Satellite C moving 14.4
degrees/hour eastward. To an observer on the Earth Satellite C will move
1.4 degrees/hour westward. The centripetal force on C will be balanced by
the real centrifugal force from the star field since C is accelerating
relative to the starfield.

>
> and for B a force that negates the power of the ether, and one that
> negates the gravitational pull of the earth.

Since the ether is considered frictionless there is nothing to negate.
The ether moves 15 degrees/hour westward with Satellite B moving 15
degrees/hour degrees eastward. To an observer on the Earth Satellite B
will appear stationary. The centripetal force on C will be balanced by
the real centrifugal force from the star field since B is accelerating
relative to the star field.

In the heliocentric model there is no explanation for the centrifugal
force and so it is considered fictitious. Hans Thirring demonstrated
that in the geoCentric model the centrifugal force is real and caused by
the gravitational field of the universe's starfield.

>
> Instead of epicycles upon epicycles, we have force upon force, and
> coming we know not whence.
>
> A forther "force" must be added:
>
> Seen from either A or C, B is travelling at about 11,000 Km.ph A "force"
> must be found that allows B to travel at 11,000 Kph and remain
> motionless.
>
> Over to you, Tony.
> Will he respond with that curious mélange of misunderstood technical
> terms and bullshit, or will it be that old standby, abuse?
>
> The entire world is waiting, as I am waiting now.
>
> Joe Cummings

Don't you get tired of crashing and burning?

[zencycle]

On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:

> Einstein and Mach were both well aware of the
> nature of the geoCentric model and claimed that
> it was equally valid to the heliocentric;
> it just wasn't the preferred model.

Cite please?

> Don't you get tired of crashing and burning?

It's funny how you keep running headlong into a wall, then ask why everyone stopped moving.

[Joe Cummings]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 20:16:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:38:25 +0200, Joe Cummings wrote:
>
>> I have to tank Tony Pagano for getting me to think about the motion of
>> the earth and how it can be detected.
>>
>> As usual, he takes up an impossible position and thinks he is able to
>> defend it by rhetoric alone. When he is unable to argue aginst a point
>> of vuiew he resorts to rhetorical tricks or abuse.
>
>
>
>Since you fail to quote my comments your characterizations of me are
>without foundation.

Liar.
Seee 17 lines below. Note the word "whining", which you used.

> Furthermore I've offered repeated historical
>examples of the greats who have failed to detect the movement of the
>Earth. Einstein was forced to create new laws of nature to explain these
>failures.
>
>
>>
>> Let's take the case where I recently improved on his arguments by
>> showing the there is no need for one of his "Coriolis forces" to
>> describe the motion of a satellite; all that was needed was to show that
>> from the viewpoint of an immobile earth the orbiit of the satellite
>> partook of the motion of the cosmos - it rotated at the same speed as
>> the cosmos. That, remember, depended on the assumption that the earth
>> was immobile.
>
>Regardless the point is you haven't proven that a fixed Earth is false.
>And your examples below merely show an ignorance of the geoCentric model
>not that it is false. Einstein and Mach were both well aware of the
>nature of the geoCentric model and claimed that it was equally valid to
>the heliocentric; it just wasn't the preferred model. What do you know
>that Einstein did not?

Here, you should have thanked me for improving your argument. But
knowing you are in a weak intellectual pôsition, you think any
concession is a sign of weakness, and therefore stayed mum.

>
>
>
>>
>> Tony's ingenious answer was that I was "whining!" Wonderful.
>> I think it's characteristic of people who are aware they have a weak
>> case to be offensive/:defensive. It's difficult for them to concede or
>> acknowledge a point.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Snipped as irrelevent.

"irrelevant."

>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> By the magic of thought experiment, we put B in a 24 hour orbit, A in a
>> 23 hour orbit, and C in a 25hour orbit.
>>
>> Now by the same logic, A will lead B and C wil trail B.
>>
>> What observer on earth will see is that B appears to be stationary,
>> because it is rotating at the same angular speed as the earth, A will
>> be inching further east, and C will be slowly moving to the west.
>>
>> To give the figures so that everyone is clear, B is moving 15 degrees
>> every hour (along with the earth).
>>
>> A is moving (360/23=) 15.65 degrees to the east - it is .65 degrees
>> in advance of B
>>
>> C is moving [15 degrees minus (360/25=)] 14.4 or .6 degreesto the west
>> away from B
>>
>> But how is our geostationary believer going to explain it?
>>
>> Here are three satellites, one apparently stationary, one moving slowly
>> eastward and one moving slowly westward.
>>
>> What forces will he have to conjure up?
>
>
>I'm waiting for you to explain what the problem is for the geoCentric
>model.
>
>
>
>>
>> For A, he will have to magic a force that is stronger than the
>> cosmos-moving ether to go west to east;
>
>What would lead you to conclude the necessity of magic forces? The
>entire universe is filled an ether which is very dense but frictionless
>substance.

"Dense and frictionless?" They are but two of the propereties of this
wonderful substance. I'll give more examples of its magic properties
anon.

> An object with no force being applied to it and stationary
>with respect to the ether will merely be carried along by the ether at 15
>degrees per hour clockwise with the ether's rotation.
>
>Given that the ether is frictionless

but its also very dense, isn"t it?

>the rockets launching satellites A,
>B and C eastward will provide a sufficient force to get the satellite to
>the desired altitude above the Earth with an eastward velocity above the
>Earth.
>

So that means the ether isn't operating on the satellites? Yet it
moves the entire cosmos around in 24 hours!

>Satellite A is moving at 15.65 degrees/hour eastward against the ether
>moving 15 degrees/hour westward.

Why is there no force from the ether moving the satellite East to
West?

>To an observer on the Earth Satellite A
>will move eastward at 0.65 degrees/hour.

> The centripetal force on A will
>be balanced by the real centrifugal force from the star field since it is
>accelerating with respect to the starfield.

You have been told countless t"imes that your understanding of
"centrifugal," "centripetal" and accelerating" borders on the idiotic.

Look, regardless of a rotating or non-rotating earth, just take the
trouble to read any elementary treatment of satellite physics. I
realise that before you will be able to understand it, you will need
to do some elementary maths and physics; I urge you to do this too.
It will make a better man of you.

>
>
>>
>> For C, a force that resists or slows down the ether.,
>
>Again you don't demonstrate the necessity of a force on Satellite C that
>either resists the ether or slows it down. The ether is frictionless.
>
>The ether moves 15 degrees/hour westward with Satellite C moving 14.4

>degrees/hour eastward. To an observer on the Earth satellite C will move 1.4degrees/hour westward

..6 degrees

>The centripetal force on C will be balanced by
>the real centrifugal force from the star field since C is accelerating
>relative to the starfield.

See my remarks above.

>
>
>>
>> and for B a force that negates the power of the ether, and one that
>> negates the gravitational pull of the earth.
>
>Since the ether is considered frictionless there is nothing to negate.
>The ether moves 15 degrees/hour westward with Satellite B moving 15
>degrees/hour degrees eastward.

But again, you loony, the ether, which moves the entire cosmos,
doesn't push the sarellite westward?

>To an observer on the Earth Satellite B
>will appear stationary.

>The centripetal force on C will be balanced by
>the real centrifugal force from the star field since B is accelerating
>relative to the star field.

See above.

>
>In the heliocentric model there is no explanation for the centrifugal
>force and so it is considered fictitious. Hans Thirring demonstrated
>that in the geoCentric model the centrifugal force is real and caused by
>the gravitational field of the universe's starfield.

See Above.

>
>
>
>>
>> Instead of epicycles upon epicycles, we have force upon force, and
>> coming we know not whence.
>>
>> A forther "force" must be added:
>>
>> Seen from either A or C, B is travelling at about 11,000 Km.ph A "force"
>> must be found that allows B to travel at 11,000 Kph and remain
>> motionless.
>>
>> Over to you, Tony.
>> Will he respond with that curious mélange of misunderstood technical
>> terms and bullshit, or will it be that old standby, abuse?

It was the first.

>>
>> The entire world is waiting, as I am waiting now.

As more properties have to be added to the creationists' ether, it is
getting to look like the phlogiston of yore.

I'll try to find a list of the properties claimed for their ether.

[zencycle]

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 4:15:02 AM UTC-4, Joe Cummings wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2018 20:16:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Since the ether is considered frictionless there is nothing to negate.
> >The ether moves 15 degrees/hour westward with Satellite B moving 15
> >degrees/hour degrees eastward.
>
> But again, you loony, the ether, which moves the entire cosmos,

> doesn't push the satellite westward?
>
The fact that this ether moves entire galaxies, but can't seem to budge a satellite aside, how does pagano account for geostationary vs geosynchronous satellites? If the earth is stationary, then the geostationary satellite is stationary. What's keeping it up there? (we know the answer, but it will be funny watching pagano flail about trying to explain it)

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 18 May 2018 08:16:06 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

>On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 4:15:02 AM UTC-4, Joe Cummings wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 20:16:41 GMT, T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Since the ether is considered frictionless there is nothing to negate.
>> >The ether moves 15 degrees/hour westward with Satellite B moving 15
>> >degrees/hour degrees eastward.
>>
>> But again, you loony, the ether, which moves the entire cosmos,
>> doesn't push the satellite westward?
>>
>The fact that this ether moves entire galaxies, but can't seem to budge a satellite aside, how does pagano account for geostationary vs geosynchronous satellites?

He doesn't. As with most things he can't effectively address
he handwaves it away and posts dozens of lines of
irrelevancies, many invoking out-of-context quotes from
those no longer able to defend themselves due to being
slightly dead.

> If the earth is stationary, then the geostationary satellite is stationary. What's keeping it up there? (we know the answer, but it will be funny watching pagano flail about trying to explain it)

Good luck with that. Don't hold your breath.

[J. J. Lodder]

Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have to tank Tony Pagano for getting me to think about the motion of
> the earth and how it can be detected.
>
> As usual, he takes up an impossible position and thinks he is able to
> defend it by rhetoric alone. When he is unable to argue aginst a
> point of vuiew he resorts to rhetorical tricks or abuse.
>
> Let's take the case where I recently improved on his arguments by
> showing the there is no need for one of his "Coriolis forces" to
> describe the motion of a satellite; all that was needed was to show
> that from the viewpoint of an immobile earth the orbiit of the
> satellite partook of the motion of the cosmos - it rotated at the same
> speed as the cosmos. That, remember, depended on the assumption that
> the earth was immobile.

You really need to look at some clasical mechanics textbook
(and do some sums)
instead of trying to reach conclusions by handwaving..

No need for Tony. This is standard classical mechanics.
In corotating coordinates
(the sane man's way of understanding geostationarity)
the sat experiences three forces:
Newtonian gravitation,
centrifugal force equal to m \Omega X (\Omega X r),
Coriolis force equal to -2 m \Omega X v,
where \Omega is the earth's rotation vector
and X the exterior vector product.

For corotating sats in circular orbits in the equatorial plane
gravitation balances centrifugal force and Coriolis force.
At geostationary altitude v is zero
and gravitation balances centrifugal force.
For lower orbits the Coriolis force points up,
at higher orbits it points down.
Balancing this out determines the needed velocity.
(you do understand vector products, I hope?)

Jan

[Joe Cummings]

On Sun, 20 May 2018 15:57:51 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I have to tank Tony Pagano for getting me to think about the motion of
>> the earth and how it can be detected.
>>
>> As usual, he takes up an impossible position and thinks he is able to
>> defend it by rhetoric alone. When he is unable to argue aginst a
>> point of vuiew he resorts to rhetorical tricks or abuse.
>>
>> Let's take the case where I recently improved on his arguments by
>> showing the there is no need for one of his "Coriolis forces" to
>> describe the motion of a satellite; all that was needed was to show
>> that from the viewpoint of an immobile earth the orbiit of the
>> satellite partook of the motion of the cosmos - it rotated at the same
>> speed as the cosmos. That, remember, depended on the assumption that
>> the earth was immobile.

Welcome aboard.

>
>You really need to look at some clasical mechanics textbook
>(and do some sums)
>instead of trying to reach conclusions by handwaving..

Here you must say exactly what the "handwaving" was. You may perhaps
disagree with my interpretation of the immobile earth and my helpful
suggestion that an orbit of a satellite would rotate with everything
else.

I'd like to know your alternative explanation.

Why complicate things?

My description of the behaviour of the satellite is fa rly clear, but
you are now introducing further complications which add nothing to my
description.

>(the sane man's way of understanding geostationarity)
>the sat experiences three forces:
>Newtonian gravitation,
>centrifugal force equal to m \Omega X (\Omega X r),
>Coriolis force equal to -2 m \Omega X v,
>where \Omega is the earth's rotation vector
>and X the exterior vector product.

You're getting needlessly complicated here.

The satellite wouldb be moving inertally in a straight line if the
earth did not attract it. The only force acting on the satellite is
the graitational pull of the earth. This, combined with the inertial
movement ensures that the satellite moves in an orbit around the
earth.

You have to justify your introduction of the Coriolis force, and
furthermore tell us what Coriolis effect would one see on the three
satellites at 23,24,and25 hour orbits.


>, >For cosrotating sats in circular orbits in the equatorial plane

>gravitation balances centrifugal force and Coriolis force.
>At geostationary altitude v is zero
>and gravitation balances centrifugal force.
>For lower orbits the Coriolis force points up,
>at higher orbits it points down.
>Balancing this out determines the needed velocity.
>(you do understand vector products, I hope?)
>
>Jan

Could you tell us if you believe in an immobile earth like Pagano?


Have fun,


Joe Cummings
>
>
>
>
>

[J. J. Lodder]

Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 May 2018 15:57:51 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I have to tank Tony Pagano for getting me to think about the motion of
> >> the earth and how it can be detected.
> >>
> >> As usual, he takes up an impossible position and thinks he is able to
> >> defend it by rhetoric alone. When he is unable to argue aginst a
> >> point of vuiew he resorts to rhetorical tricks or abuse.
> >>
> >> Let's take the case where I recently improved on his arguments by
> >> showing the there is no need for one of his "Coriolis forces" to
> >> describe the motion of a satellite; all that was needed was to show
> >> that from the viewpoint of an immobile earth the orbiit of the
> >> satellite partook of the motion of the cosmos - it rotated at the same
> >> speed as the cosmos. That, remember, depended on the assumption that
> >> the earth was immobile.
>
>
>
>
> Welcome aboard.

No need to. I have been a regular here,
but have given up on it, mostly.

> >You really need to look at some clasical mechanics textbook
> >(and do some sums)
> >instead of trying to reach conclusions by handwaving..
>
> Here you must say exactly what the "handwaving" was. You may perhaps
> disagree with my interpretation of the immobile earth and my helpful
> suggestion that an orbit of a satellite would rotate with everything
> else.

You have done nothing else, as yet.

> I'd like to know your alternative explanation.

Solve Newton's equations.

Again, just solve the equations.

> >(the sane man's way of understanding geostationarity)
> >the sat experiences three forces:
> >Newtonian gravitation,
> >centrifugal force equal to m \Omega X (\Omega X r),
> >Coriolis force equal to -2 m \Omega X v,
> >where \Omega is the earth's rotation vector
> >and X the exterior vector product.
>
> You're getting needlessly complicated here.

Why? Just the correct equations.
They are Newton's equations in rotating coordinates.

> The satellite wouldb be moving inertally in a straight line if the
> earth did not attract it. The only force acting on the satellite is
> the graitational pull of the earth. This, combined with the inertial
> movement ensures that the satellite moves in an orbit around the
> earth.

Of course, in an inertial frame.

> You have to justify your introduction of the Coriolis force,

There is nothing to justify, just calculate it.
For the result, see above.

> and
> furthermore tell us what Coriolis effect would one see on the three
> satellites at 23,24,and25 hour orbits.

May I suggest you do your own homework?
It is more instructive than arguing about it,

Jan

[jillery]

Don't worry too much about Lodder. Apparently he doesn't know about
your efforts to post an explanation simple enough for Pagano to
understand. Lodder is into drawn out, pedantic explanations, so it's
unlikely he would acknowledge the skill it takes to explain anything
to a willful two-year-old.

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

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:38:25 +0200, Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:


[...]

I hope you were with someone special at the time.

[Joe Cummings]

On Tue, 22 May 2018 13:44:48 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

So you can't say what the "handwaving" was. No surprise there.

>
>> I'd like to know your alternative explanation.
>
>Solve Newton's equations.

I asked for you to give an alternative explanation. You can't?

Solve the equations to do what, exactly?

>
>> >(the sane man's way of understanding geostationarity)
>> >the sat experiences three forces:
>> >Newtonian gravitation,
>> >centrifugal force equal to m \Omega X (\Omega X r),
>> >Coriolis force equal to -2 m \Omega X v,
>> >where \Omega is the earth's rotation vector
>> >and X the exterior vector product.
>>
>> You're getting needlessly complicated here.
>
>Why? Just the correct equations.
>They are Newton's equations in rotating coordinates.
>
>> The satellite wouldb be moving inertally in a straight line if the
>> earth did not attract it. The only force acting on the satellite is
>> the graitational pull of the earth. This, combined with the inertial
>> movement ensures that the satellite moves in an orbit around the
>> earth.
>
>Of course, in an inertial frame.
>
>> You have to justify your introduction of the Coriolis force,
>
>There is nothing to justify, just calculate it.
>For the result, see above.

Evidently you can't. No surprise.

>
>> and
>> furthermore tell us what Coriolis effect would one see on the three
>> satellites at 23,24,and25 hour orbits.
>
>May I suggest you do your own homework?
>It is more instructive than arguing about it,

It would be more instructive on your part if you could actually show
some work.

And again I ask you: Do you think the earth is immobile?

Jan is a secretive arguer; h is so coy that he won't tell anyone what
he thinks.
>
>Jan
Joe Cummings

[Bill Rogers]

This is the calculation he wants you to do.....

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/aeronautics-and-astronautics/16-07-dynamics-fall-2009/lecture-notes/MIT16_07F09_Lec08.pdf

or here,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_reference_frame

The chance that doing so would be helpful in a discussion with Pagano, who struggles to understand the difference between acceleration and velocity, and between rotating objects and a rotating coordinate system, is miniscule.


> >
> >Jan
> Joe Cummings

[Wolffan]

On 22 May 2018, jillery wrote
(in article<uj98gddt4se9gs2ci...@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:38:25 +0200, Joe Cummings
> <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I hope you were with someone special at the time.

Certainly. With Tony. He’s special, Very, very, very special. So special
that he still takes the short schoolbus and always will.

[J. J. Lodder]

You can't learn by just being 'instructed'.
-You- should do some work, to understand
what has been in the literature for two hundred years.

> And again I ask you: Do you think the earth is immobile?
>
> Jan is a secretive arguer; h is so coy that he won't tell anyone what
> he thinks.

Don't attempt to argue before you have done the sums,

Jan

[Don Cates]

On 2018-05-22 2:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 13:44:48 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>
>>> May I suggest you do your own homework?
>>> It is more instructive than arguing about it,
>>
>> It would be more instructive on your part if you could actually show
>> some work.
>
> You can't learn by just being 'instructed'.
> -You- should do some work, to understand
> what has been in the literature for two hundred years.

While everything you say about the calculations using a rotating
reference system is correct, it may be beside the point. Tony's position
is a bit unclear (he doesn't know what he is talking about), it appears
that he prefers an inertial reference system and a non-rotating earth
with the rest of the universe doing the rotating. Is there really a way
to make that work?

>
>> And again I ask you: Do you think the earth is immobile?
>>
>> Jan is a secretive arguer; h is so coy that he won't tell anyone what
>> he thinks.
>
> Don't attempt to argue before you have done the sums,
>
> Jan
>
>
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[drlmc...@gmail.com]

i don't know between you two who proved what but I have studied this for a while back and can certainly prove geocentric model is incorrect.
Gyroscopes and the scientists at the North pole measuring the oscillations of the earth as it not only rotates but indeed orbits the sun

[J. J. Lodder]

Don Cates <cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 2018-05-22 2:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 13:44:48 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) wrote:
> >
> >>> May I suggest you do your own homework?
> >>> It is more instructive than arguing about it,
> >>
> >> It would be more instructive on your part if you could actually show
> >> some work.
> >
> > You can't learn by just being 'instructed'.
> > -You- should do some work, to understand
> > what has been in the literature for two hundred years.
>
> While everything you say about the calculations using a rotating
> reference system is correct, it may be beside the point.

I am not adressing Pagano.
I am adressing those here who think that they can refute Pagano
with naive handwaving arguments about satellite motions.
They should learn to do Newtonian mechanics first.

> Tony's position
> is a bit unclear (he doesn't know what he is talking about), it appears
> that he prefers an inertial reference system and a non-rotating earth
> with the rest of the universe doing the rotating. Is there really a way
> to make that work?

No, except in the trivial sense
that general relativity allows you
to choose any reference frame.
Tony's position is self-contradictory, so inherently flawed.
He wants to invoke general relativity
AND wants to insist at the same time
that the co-rotating earth centered reference frame
is in some way unique and physically preferred.

I have been thinking about writing a tutorial on the issues involved,
but don't hold your breath, it may never happen,

Jan

[Joe Cummings]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:25:35 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>Don Cates <cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-05-22 2:42 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 22 May 2018 13:44:48 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >> Lodder) wrote:
>> >
>> >>> May I suggest you do your own homework?
>> >>> It is more instructive than arguing about it,
>> >>
>> >> It would be more instructive on your part if you could actually show
>> >> some work.
>> >
>> > You can't learn by just being 'instructed'.
>> > -You- should do some work, to understand
>> > what has been in the literature for two hundred years.
>>
>> While everything you say about the calculations using a rotating
>> reference system is correct, it may be beside the point.
>
>I am not adressing Pagano.
>I am adressing those here who think that they can refute Pagano
>with naive handwaving arguments about satellite motions.
>They should learn to do Newtonian mechanics first.

I was prepared to accept that I haven't used Newtoniian mechanics, and
that it's possible to correct erors I may have made because of that.
Howver, a geosynchronous satellite is not a handwave: it's a
contradiction of Pagano's assumption that the ether moves everything
round the earth in twerntyfour hours.

My arguments about the satellites moving in 23 and 25 hour orbits at a
different rate to the ether should also stand.

...

>
>> Tony's position
>> is a bit unclear (he doesn't know what he is talking about), it appears
>> that he prefers an inertial reference system and a non-rotating earth
>> with the rest of the universe doing the rotating. Is there really a way
>> to make that work?
>
>No, except in the trivial sense
>that general relativity allows you
>to choose any reference frame.
>Tony's position is self-contradictory, so inherently flawed.
>He wants to invoke general relativity
>AND wants to insist at the same time
>that the co-rotating earth centered reference frame
>is in some way unique and physically preferred.
>
>I have been thinking about writing a tutorial on the issues involved,
>but don't hold your breath, it may never happen,
>
>Jan
>
>

Joe Cummings

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course not. By Pagano handwave the rotating distant masses
cause just the same centrifugal and Coriolis force as Newton has,
by Mach, and through Lense Thirring effect.

> My arguments about the satellites moving in 23 and 25 hour orbits at a
> different rate to the ether should also stand.

No, it doesn't.
The geostationary sat is at the point
where gravitation matches centrifugal force.
The 23 hour sat doesn't have enough centrifugal force,
so it moves with just the right retrograde velocity
for the Coriolis force to make up the difference.
The 25 hr sat idem, the velocity is reversed,
and so is the sign of the Corrilis force.

Summary:
If Pagano postulates the correct centrifugal and Corriolis forces
no observation on satellite motion can contradict him,

Jan

[jillery]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 21:16:30 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

IIUC the relevant points of Joe Cumming's thought experiment are:

1) how satellites in general stay in orbit.

2) how geostationary satellites appear to hover over one spot of the
Earth.

3) how satellites above geostationary orbit move west relative to the
Earth.

4) how satellites below geostationary orbit move east relative to the
Earth.

5) how Pagano's version of geocentrism explains 1-4

Pagano has said that satellites move due to the rotation of ether (or
whatever) around the Earth.

Even if one can reconcile this presumptive ether rotation with the
observed rotation of other cosmological objects, which is a very big
"IF", there is still the apparent and different motions of Cumming's
three satellites.

Even if Pagano postulated "the correct centrifugal and Coriolis
forces" to account for these observations, it would be nothing more
than ad hoc special pleading in extremis. Pagano can provide no
explanation why the ether would have different velocities at different
altitudes, and with a circular stationary crossover boundary at 35,786
km above the Earth.

[Joe Cummings]

On Wed, 23 May 2018 21:16:30 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Are you sure? The stars surround the earth, and a force from any one
point is balanced by a force from a point diametrically opposite.
Remember, the "starfield", being spherical can be regarded as
equidistant from the earth on all sides.

For your scheme to work, the stars would have to act from one side of
the sphere only..

>arguments about the satellites moving in 23 and 25 hour orbits at a
>> different rate to the ether should also stand.
>
>No, it doesn't.
>The geostationary sat is at the point
>where gravitation matches centrifugal force.

Again, you assume that centrifugal force emanating fom the stars is
one-sided. IS it?

>The 23 hour sat doesn't have enough centrifugal force,
>so it moves with just the right retrograde velocity
>for the Coriolis force to make up the difference.
>The 25 hr sat idem, the velocity is reversed,
>and so is the sign of the Corrilis force.
>
>Summary:
>If Pagano postulates the correct centrifugal and Corriolis forces

I have to differ on the question of centrifugal force. The pull from
the opposite sides of the stars cancel out, and gravity is the only
force acing on the satellite.



Jpoe Cummings>
>Jan
>

[Joe Cummings]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 08:31:20 +0200, Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:


Write in hastre, repent in haste. I attributed to you some of
Pagano's arguments. Apologies.

Correction: "For Pagano's scheme to work..."

>For your scheme to work, the stars would have to act from one side of
>the sphere only..
>
>
>>arguments about the satellites moving in 23 and 25 hour orbits at a
>>> different rate to the ether should also stand.
>>
>>No, it doesn't.
>>The geostationary sat is at the point
>>where gravitation matches centrifugal force.
>
>Again, you assume that centrifugal force emanating fom the stars is
>one-sided. IS it?
>>The 23 hour sat doesn't have enough centrifugal force,
>>so it moves with just the right retrograde velocity
>>for the Coriolis force to make up the difference.
>>The 25 hr sat idem, the velocity is reversed,
>>and so is the sign of the Corrilis force.
>>
>>Summary:
>>If Pagano postulates the correct centrifugal and Corriolis forces
>
>
>I have to differ on the question of centrifugal force. The pull from
>the opposite sides of the stars cancel out, and gravity is the only
>force acing on the satellite.

Correction: Pagano assumes the centrifugal force emanates from the
stars.

My argument was that the motion of the satellites showed that there
were objects that were not subject to the ether and moved differently
to the rest of the cosmos.

Of course, the paradox in the immobile earth view is is that we "see"
the cosmos rotating at 24 hours a day, whilst we "interpret" the
motions of the atellites.
>
>
>Jpoe Cummings>
>>Jan
>>
JC

[J. J. Lodder]

Don't reason, compute.
The centrifugal force is equal to m \Omega X (\Omega X r)
In case you don't understand vector products learn that first.

As for the error in your reasoning: Mach's distant stars
rotate around the centre of the earth, not around the position
of some geostationary satellite.

All unassailable, until you drag in general relativity,

Jan

[jillery]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:09:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

What you don't realize is Pagano shrugs off references to general
relativity and computations; he simply handwaves them away. You might
as well tell a fundie muslim to eat pork.

[Joe Cummings]

On Thu, 24 May 2018 16:09:16 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

I never said the stars rotate about the satellite; If the stars form a
sphere, all the diameters logically go through the earth. One couple
of equal and opposite forces goes along that diameter which is in a
straight line with the centre of the earth and the satellite. The
opposite forces cancel out, leaving earth's gravity as the remaining
force. It may be that there are other forces acting as a result of
the rotation.

It's been an interesting exchange, I wouldn't say discussion, because
of your predilection for gnomic utterances.

I tried to counter Pagano's static earth by examining the behaviour of
a geosynchronous satellite, and thuoght it might be useful to take a
couple more satellites for company (and comparison).

As it's over seventy years since I did any maths, it was a bit
challenging ,but certainly not "handwaving," by which I understand a
mode of behaviour one lapses into when one can't find words to express
one's ideas.

I was pleasantly surprised to find that the two accompanying
satellites moved in different directions to the geosybchronous
satellite.

I'd worked out a theory, and it became my pet, to be defended.

NowI'm not at this stage about to start a course on vector analysis,
but I do want to say two things:

the first is that the satellites as seen from the eath will behave as
I said, one leading the geosynchronous satellite, and one trailing it.

The second is that the most popular attempt to demonstrate a rotating
earth is by way of a geosybchronous satellite;You say that the claim
of an immobile earth is "unassailable."



I would love you to show how the example of a geosybchronous satellite
fails the test.



I've finished my part of the discussion now.

Thanks

Joe Cummings

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 11:08:49 +0200, Joe Cummings

I hope the above doesn't mean you intend to stop pushing your argument
in front of Pagano. It unambiguously refutes Pagano's line of
reasoning clearly and concisely, and makes sense to anybody capable of
understanding written English.

I do need to make a pedantic nit. This topic has conflated
"geosynchronous" and "geostationary". As you know, although both
types of orbits revolve around the Earth in a day, the latter is a
special case of the former, being circular and concentric with the
equator.

Although satellite orbits in general destroy Pagano's conjectures,
your expressed image of one satellite hovering above the Earth while
others appear to move in different directions, is a clever and
compelling one.

[Joe Cummings]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 14:18:08 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks for your kind words.

One of the good things about TO is that we can try out ideas, and more
importantly find out what others think about them. A good contributor
is one who is amenable to correction. None of us are omniscient. (Of
course, I must exclude our friend Tony from this group.)


Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Glenn]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:pvuegdlf7d4ikd7op...@4ax.com...

Now admit you are wrong.

[jillery]

On Fri, 25 May 2018 18:49:11 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Right here would have been a good place for you to have said what you
think I'm wrong about. That you didn't suggests you have no idea what
you're talking about.

[J. J. Lodder]

You said that centrifugal force can't exist, by spherical symmetry.
This is wrong.

> It's been an interesting exchange, I wouldn't say discussion, because
> of your predilection for gnomic utterances.
>
> I tried to counter Pagano's static earth by examining the behaviour of
> a geosynchronous satellite, and thuoght it might be useful to take a
> couple more satellites for company (and comparison).
>
> As it's over seventy years since I did any maths, it was a bit
> challenging ,but certainly not "handwaving," by which I understand a
> mode of behaviour one lapses into when one can't find words to express
> one's ideas.

No. 'Handwaving' in science is filling in gaps in arguments
with lots of words, accompanied by much handwaving.

> I was pleasantly surprised to find that the two accompanying
> satellites moved in different directions to the geosybchronous
> satellite.

Kepler's laws were unknown to you?

> I'd worked out a theory, and it became my pet, to be defended.
> NowI'm not at this stage about to start a course on vector analysis,
> but I do want to say two things:
>
> the first is that the satellites as seen from the eath will behave as
> I said, one leading the geosynchronous satellite, and one trailing it.

Do you really believe that you are needed for this insight?

> The second is that the most popular attempt to demonstrate a rotating
> earth is by way of a geosybchronous satellite;You say that the claim
> of an immobile earth is "unassailable."

As explained, this is nonsense.
Pagano waves his hands [don't want to know]
and claims that by [don't want to know] arguments
the cenrifugal and Coriolis forces are just what they should be,
for his stationary earth.
Hence all satellite motions are just what they should be,
and any argument against Pagano on basis of satellite motions fails.
(at least to first order)

If you want to argue with Pagano you must show
that his handwaving 'derivation' of the inertial forces is wrong.
(others, Carlip for example have done so)

You otoh have said nothing of any relevance,

Jan

[StanFast]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

[StanFast]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 05:50:22 -0700 (PDT), StanFast
<drlmc...@gmail.com> wrote:

>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qpMvS1Q1sos


Welcome to the club.

[jillery]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 12:48:48 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Pagano has not explained the apparent motion of Cumming's satellites,
without invoking handwaving arguments, which included his special
pleading of just-so centrifugal and Coriolis forces, and his imagined
arguments from uncited authorities, so your objections about that is
incorrect.

And Pagano has used similar handwaving arguments to dismiss Carlip's
argument of inertial forces, so your objections about that is also
incorrect.

You claim you know of an explanation for the apparent behavior of
Cumming's satellites consistent with a non-rotating Earth and which
doesn't invoke GR or handwaving, but you have not amplified beyond
that assertion. That, and your objections to Cumming's analogy, have
created blustery hot air similar to anything from Pagano.

Perhaps you could descend from Asgard to enlighten the minds of us
lowly mortals. Or you could continue to play your "I know something
you don't know" game. Either way, the world will continue to spin on
its axis.

[Joe Cummings]

On Sun, 13 May 2018 11:38:25 +0200, Joe Cummings
<joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have to tank Tony Pagano for getting me to think about the motion of
>the earth and how it can be detected.
>
>As usual, he takes up an impossible position and thinks he is able to
>defend it by rhetoric alone. When he is unable to argue aginst a
>point of vuiew he resorts to rhetorical tricks or abuse.
>

>Let's take the case where I recently improved on his arguments by
>showing the there is no need for one of his "Coriolis forces" to
>describe the motion of a satellite; all that was needed was to show
>that from the viewpoint of an immobile earth the orbiit of the
>satellite partook of the motion of the cosmos - it rotated at the same
>speed as the cosmos. That, remember, depended on the assumption that
>the earth was immobile.
>

>Tony's ingenious answer was that I was "whining!" Wonderful.
>I think it's characteristic of people who are aware they have a weak
>case to be offensive/:defensive. It's difficult for them to concede
>or acknowledge a point.
>

>Anyway, enough of motive seeking, and let's go aloft with the
>satellites.
>
>One of them, A, has an orbit of 9 hours one, B, an orbit o 10 hours
>and the third,,C, an orbit of 12 hours. Almighty God is sat above
>them, watching their movements.
>
>We line them up on the equatorial plane and set them off.
>
>After an hour, the first satellite, A, will have travelled (360/9 =)
>40 degrees along its orbit..
>
>The second, B, (360/10 =) 36 degrees.
>
>The third,C,, (360:12=)30 degrees.
>
>To the Lord, and to an observer on earth,, the satellites will have
>separated,
>A leading B by 4 degrees, and C trailing B by 6 degrees.
>

>By the magic of thought experiment, we put B in a 24 hour orbit, A in
>a 23 hour orbit, and C in a 25hour orbit.
>
>Now by the same logic, A will lead B and C wil trail B.
>
>What observer on earth will see is that B appears to be stationary,
>because it is rotating at the same angular speed as the earth, A will
>be inching further east, and C will be slowly moving to the west.
>
>To give the figures so that everyone is clear, B is moving 15 degrees
>every hour (along with the earth).
>
> A is moving (360/23=) 15.65 degrees to the east - it is .65 degrees
>in advance of B
>
>C is moving [15 degrees minus (360/25=)] 14.4 or .6 degreesto the west
>away from B
>
>But how is our geostationary believer going to explain it?
>
>Here are three satellites, one apparently stationary, one moving
>slowly eastward and one moving slowly westward.
>
>What forces will he have to conjure up?
>

>For A, he will have to magic a force that is stronger than the
>cosmos-moving ether to go west to east;
>

> For C, a force that resists or slows down the ether.,
>

>and for B a force that negates the power of the ether, and one that
>negates the gravitational pull of the earth.
>

[Joe Cummings]

On Sat, 26 May 2018 12:48:48 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodde

I was a bit optimistic in thinking this exchange had finished; I
was wrong.

Can't you even read???

I said that the diamatrically opposite forces cancelled each other
out. And that there could be other forces acting as a result of the
rotation of the sphere of the stars. Just four lines above this.

>an interesting exchange, I wouldn't say discussion, because
>> of your predilection for gnomic utterances.
>>
>> I tried to counter Pagano's static earth by examining the behaviour of
>> a geosynchronous satellite, and thuoght it might be useful to take a
>> couple more satellites for company (and comparison).
>>
>> As it's over seventy years since I did any maths, it was a bit
>> challenging ,but certainly not "handwaving," by which I understand a
>> mode of behaviour one lapses into when one can't find words to express
>> one's ideas.
>
>No. 'Handwaving' in science is filling in gaps in arguments
>with lots of words, accompanied by much handwavin

You're wrong; handwaving is when you run out of words.

Perhaps the next time you get into a domestic argument you may have to
have recourse to handwaving.

>
>> I was pleasantly surprised to find that the two accompanying
>> satellites moved in different directions to the geosybchronous
>> satellite.
>
>Kepler's laws were unknown to you?

Of planetary motion? Ah here you're trying the "superior knowledge"
bit. I presume you are one of those mythical persons to whom all
knowledge is instantaneously available. There's no such person. And
for what it's worth, you yourself don't know all the logical
consequences of Kepler's laws.

>
>> I'd worked out a theory, and it became my pet, to be defended.
>> NowI'm not at this stage about to start a course on vector analysis,
>> but I do want to say two things:
>>
>> the first is that the satellites as seen from the eath will behave as
>> I said, one leading the geosynchronous satellite



>

>Do you really believe that you are needed for this insight?

I was recording what I found out. You seem to have the idea that
people come here and make only new ideas known. They don't, they
record what they think, and record it so that other people can comment
or rectify it. You seem to be the only one who makes "ex cathedra"
staements. One of your problems, which I characterised as "gnomic
utterances," is your attempt to scorn people by referring to some
aspect of physics ( in this case), and refusing to expouind on their
errors. This isn't appreciated by people here. TO is a forum where
scientists and non-scientists gather to exchange views and and have
them agreed with or corrected.

Thje huge problem with creationism is that it appeals to people who
have a poor understanding of science. Most people, you excepted, who
accept evolution regard it as their duty to try to correct errors and
misconceptons. Helpfully.

>
>> The second is that the most popular attempt to demonstrate a rotating
>> earth is by way of a geosybchronous satellite;You say that the claim
>> of an immobile earth is "unassailable."
>
>As explained, this is nonsense.
>Pagano waves his hands [don't want to know]
>and claims that by [don't want to know] arguments
>the cenrifugal and Coriolis forces are just what they should be,
>for his stationary earth.
>Hence all satellite motions are just what they should be,
>and any argument against Pagano on basis of satellite motions fails.
>(at least to first order)

Here you have a teeny problem:
I haven't seen Pagano's arguments, just as I haven't seen yours.
Here, everyone is equally treated. Some people bring their expertise
modestly, unlike you, who, I think would like to enter TO on horseback
if they could.

>If you want to argue with Pagano you must show
>that his handwaving 'derivation' of the inertial forces is wrong.
>(others, Carlip for example have done so)

*
Here you could have been helpful and said where Pagano derives his
arguments.

>
>You otoh have said nothing of any relevance,

I think you should try to work out what you mean by "relevance" in a
discussion group where scientists mix with non-scientists.

For your discomfort, one or two people have expressed their
appreciaton of my posting.

I strongly urge you to drop your "superior" persona, and engage in
discussions with scientists and non-scientists here.

Why, you may become appreciated too.


Have fun,


Joe Cummings


Have fun,


Joe Cummings
>
>Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Joe Cummings <joecumm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I strongly urge you to drop your "superior" persona, and engage in
> discussions with scientists and non-scientists here.

You may not have noticed,
but I have done just that for many years.
As said, I gave up on it.

I do post occasionally to correct gross misconceptions, [1]
if they happen to come to my attention,

Jan


[1] In your case the misconception that the motion of the earth
can be 'demonstrated' by 'studying' satellite motions.

[jillery]

Once again, I note your failure to demonstrate how Cumming's claims
are a misconception.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 27 May 2018 13:09:49 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

I believe that all he was trying to demonstrate for the
math-and-science-illiterate Tony, using satellite motions,
was that geostationary satellites refute the idea of a
non-rotating Earth. Seems fairly simple to me: If a
satellite remains stationary (laterally) over a point on a
non-rotating Earth it falls down and goes boom...
--

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