It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 144
14
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Read what I wrote, please.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




The former is correct, the latter is incorrect.


But a geostationary satellte doesnt move relative to the Earth, Phage. Yet you say it falling around the Earth.

Wow.




What about other variations?


Variations of what? We are discussing geostationary orbits. They cannot exist.
edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Read what you wrote Phage.

I asked falling where?

You answered,



Around the planet



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity


Yet you say it falling around the Earth.
Around the Earth's center of gravity, yes.


Variations of what?
Orbits.


We are discussing geostationary orbits. They cannot exist.
Because the Earth rotates?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

You


But it is geostationary and doesnt fall around the planet.


Wrong. A geostationary satellite falls about Earth’s axis at about 1.91 mi/s, around 22,236 mi above earth. Some satellites “fall” at a speed that makes them appear to travel east relative to the earth’s surface. Some satellites travel at a speed that makes them appear to travel west relative to earth’s surface. Geostationary satellites are in the middle in terms of speed and height. They have the appearance of no motion from the equator. But they are still circling the earth’s axis along the curve of the gravity well.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Around the Earth's center of gravity, yes.


You mean a point in space you can draw a line to? This is a description of a path, not an explanation. How does it maintain its curved trajectory through space. An object has to fall around curvature to do that.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Can you give the definition of "falling"?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity


How does it maintain its curved trajectory through space
I told you that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes and after that other posts were made that left you with this,




How does it maintain its curved trajectory through space. An object has to fall around curvature to do that.


Can you answer the question now, Phage?

And can you define "falling"?


If not you might aswell give up now.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

But according to Phage it travels around the Earth.



You keep changing your argument. Your early claim was:



And again, it is not in an orbit. Its geostationary. How can you make this mistake 50 times in a row?


Which you are wrong. A geostationary/ geosynchronous satellites are in orbit. Sorry if you don’t like the general term “around” in a causal forum.

That doesn’t mean geostationary/ geosynchronous satellites are not in earth’s orbit. See, problem solved for your intellectually dishonest argument. You don’t have to use “around” to say geostationary/ geosynchronous satellites are in earth orbit.

Which would be in line with the more specific term of orbit as applied to satellites



Orbit
en.m.wikipedia.org...
In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object,[1] such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the central mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Can you answer the question now, Phage?

The question was answered. The angular momentum of any object in any orbit is determined by gravity. Do you require a definition of angular momentum?



And can you define "falling"?
Acceleration due to gravity.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




That doesn’t mean geostationary/ geosynchronous satellites are not in earth’s orbit. See, problem solve for your intellectually dishonest argument. You don’t have to use “around” to say geostationary/ geosynchronous satellites are in earth orbit.


They are not in Earth orbit. It has to move relative to Earth in order to qualify as orbit per its definition no matter how far you bend over backwards.

Can you now explain how it maintains a curved trajectory through space, without falling around Earth curvature?

Can you define falling?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Acceleration due to gravity.


Does a geostationary satellite encounter a curve in the direction of gravity, Phage?

Again, where is it falling to?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux




That doesn’t mean geostationary/ geosynchronous satellites are not in earth’s orbit. See, problem solve for your intellectually dishonest argument. You don’t have to use “around” to say geostationary/ geosynchronous satellites are in earth orbit.


They are not in Earth orbit. It has to move relative to Earth in order to qualify as orbit per its definition no matter how far you bend over backwards.

Can you now explain how it maintains a curved trajectory through space, without falling around Earth curvature?

Can you define falling?



I was quoting “fall” in a response to how you used “fall” in your post. I don’t really like using the term “fall” in this discussion of orbit.


Again...

You


You guys are hilarious. You keep posting the same dumb contradiction I debunked about 40 times now.


The only thing dumb is that you cannot realize the earth’s rotation has nothing to do with earth’s gravity well. And it’s ”dumb” that you think a satellite cannot be in orbit because it is at a height and speed that matches the earth’s rotation.


First off, the earth’s rotation has nothing to do with the ability of a satellite to orbit. In reality, a satellite does not orbit the center of the earth. A satellite orbits the center of Earth’s gravity well. An orbiting satellite could careless if the earth was rotating, and at what speed.



What is gravity?

spaceplace.nasa.gov...





Second: Why can you not get through your head a geostationary/ geosynchronous still obits the earth. It’s just at a speed that keeps it above a specific point and n earth. But a geostationary / geosynchronous satellite is still traveling around earth’s gravity well.











Geostationary orbit

en.m.wikipedia.org...

A geostationary orbit, often referred to as a geosynchronous equatorial orbit[1] (GEO), is a circular geosynchronous orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above Earth's equator and following the direction of Earth's rotation. An object in such an orbit appears motionless, at a fixed position in the sky, to ground observers. Communications satellites and weather satellites are often placed in geostationary orbits, so that the satellite antennas (located on Earth) that communicate with them do not have to rotate to track them, but can be pointed permanently at the position in the sky where the satellites are located. Using this characteristic, ocean-color monitoring satellites with visible and near-infrared light sensors (e.g. GOCI) can also be operated in geostationary orbit in order to monitor sensitive changes of ocean environments.


Yes, from the earth’s surface. A geostationary satellite appears to be “fixed”. But that same satellite is traveling the “curve” of earth’s gravity well. Orbiting around the center of earth’s gravity well



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Do you require a definition of angular momentum?


What angular momentum. There is no angular momentum that applies to the relevant frame of reference here.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




The only thing dumb is that you cannot realize the earth’s rotation has nothing to do with earth’s gravity well.


I didnt make any such argument.

Report back when you say anything relevant.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity




Does a geostationary satellite encounter a curve in the direction of gravity,
Yes.

Any object in any orbit (including a geostationary orbit) follows a curved path due to the influence of gravity. All falling objects follow a curved path unless they possess a radial velocity parallel to the direction of acceleration due to gravity. Apart from that very special circumstance, the resultant path is always curved. Galileo demonstrated that quite effectively quite a while ago.


There is no angular momentum that applies to the relevant frame of reference here.
Incorrect. A geostationary satellite is moving at an angular velocity of 15º hour. It has angular momentum.

edit on 8/17/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: Phage




Do you require a definition of angular momentum?


What angular momentum. There is no angular momentum that applies to the relevant frame of reference here.


Unless you use the earth’s axis.











Geostationary orbit

en.m.wikipedia.org...



If you go by the definition of Angular momentum, use the earth’s axis as the origin, there is Angular momentum for a geostationary/geosynchronous satellite.



Angular momentum

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In three dimensions, the angular momentum for a point particle is a pseudovector r × p, the cross product of the particle's position vector r (relative to some origin) and its momentum vector; the latter is p = mv in Newtonian mechanics.


edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Yes.


No Phage it does not. It would have to move around the curvature to experience a change in the direction of gravity. Obviously.




Incorrect.


Can you be more specific Phage? What angular momentum?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux




The only thing dumb is that you cannot realize the earth’s rotation has nothing to do with earth’s gravity well.


I didnt make any such argument.

Report back when you say anything relevant.



Then clearly state what your argument is concerning why a geostationary/ geosynchronous is not in earth orbit.

I am guessing you will not because your are intellectually dishonest.

You would rather just keep moving the goalposts, and hope people don’t bother with what you have posted in the past.
edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join