It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Flat earth theory?

page: 145
14
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:50 PM

A geostationary satellite is moving at an angular velocity of 15º hour. It has angular momentum.

But I said this,

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

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:51 PM

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

The direction of gravity does not change. It is always directed towards Earth's center of mass.

But I said this
I know you did. You are, again, incorrect.

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

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:51 PM

Then used the earth’s axis as the origin......

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:53 PM

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

Why do you keep mentioning geosynchronous orbits?

We are discussing geo stationary.

How clear can it be. The one object has to move around the other in order to orbit it.

Told you 60 times now. Unbelievable.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:55 PM

The direction of gravity does not change

Wow the confusion.

Then tell me Phage, How does it maintain a curved trajectory through space if it is not falling around a curve of the direction of gravity?

Game over Phage.

Phage, why dont satellites fall back to Earth?
edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:58 PM

I know you did. You are, again, incorrect.

Then what is the correct frame of reference Phage?

Why are you being so hesitant Phage?

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 05:58 PM

How does it maintain a curved trajectory through space if it is not falling around a curve in the direction of gravity?
I told you how. The curve is due to the combination of acceleration due to gravity and the velocity of the satellite.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:00 PM

The curve is due to the combination of acceleration due to gravity

That direction would be straight down to the surface Phage.
edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:01 PM

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

I know you did. You are, again, incorrect.

Then what is the correct frame of reference Phage?

Why are you being so hesitant Phage?

Frame of reference for angular momentum? That would be the satellite,I suppose, since it is the satellite which possesses the momentum.

I'm not hesitant.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:02 PM

That would be the acceleration straight down to the surface Phage.

Only if the vector of the satellite's velocity were parallel to that of acceleration due to gravity. I said that.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8/17/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:03 PM

You suppose?

The only correct frame of reference is the object Earth. In this frame of reference there is no angular momentum for the geostationary sat.

edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:03 PM

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

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

Why do you keep mentioning geosynchronous orbits?

We are discussing geo stationary.

How clear can it be. The one object has to move around the other in order to orbit it.

Told you 60 times now. Unbelievable.

Again...

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. If you use the earth’s axis as a fix point of origin, you can solve for the angular momentum of a geostationary / geosynchronous satellite.

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.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:05 PM

The only correct frame of reference is the object Earth.

Incorrect.

If you are in a car moving at 20 mph and a car next to you is moving at 20 mph, does that mean the car next to you has no momentum?

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:07 PM

If you are in a car moving at 20 mph and a car next to you is moving at 20 mph, does that mean the car next to you has no momentum?

No it means the angular momentum in the irrelevant frame of reference, is irrelevant, Phage.
edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:09 PM

Where is gravity accelerating it to?

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:09 PM

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

If you are in a car moving at 20 mph and a car next to you is moving at 20 mph, does that mean the car next to you has no momentum?

No it means the velocity in the irrelevant frame of reference, is irrelevant, Phage.

That’s all you got? When you been schooled again?

Hahahahahahahahaha

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:12 PM

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Where is gravity accelerating it to?

Probably the same point when you jump off the ground with the same speed of earth’s rotation.
edit on 17-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

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

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:13 PM

Whats the matter? Can you point out what you disagree with?

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:14 PM

So straight down then?

How does it maintain its speed to maintain the curved trajectory through space then?

edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 06:15 PM

No it means the angular momentum in the irrelevant frame of reference, is irrelevant, Phage.
Fine. Tell that to the other car when it hits the car in front of it.

Where is gravity accelerating it to?
Toward Earth's center, but that acceleration is counteracted by the satellite's momentum, the result is an orbit.

new topics

top topics

14