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: 150
14
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Geostationary satellites orbit Earth's gravity well. The gravity well technically is not affected by Earth's rotation.

If the Earth magically stopped rotating, The geostationary satellite would keep orbiting around that gravity well at the same speed it does now with no change.

Or, let's consider this approach: To an outside observer looking at the satellite and ignoring the Earth's rotation (because why would it matter?), they would say the geostationary satellite orbits earth once every 24 hours (approx.).


edit on 2019/8/18 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




Geostationary satellites orbit Earth's gravity well.


So you are already moving the goal posts. You said it orbits the Earth just a few minutes ago. Was it something I said?


What is a gravity well? Can you post a picture of it?

Rofl.


edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: Box of Rain




Geostationary satellites orbit Earth's gravity well.


So you are already moving the goal posts. You said it orbits the Earth just a few minutes ago. Was it something I said?


What is a gravity well? Can you post a picture of it?

Rofl.



I said the Earth to simplify the conversation. But is does orbit the gravity well. More specifically, it orbits Earth center of gravity. Call that what you want, but getting caught up on semantics is not helping the discussion.

Like I implied before, put a non-rotating planet that is the same size and mass of earth in Earth's place, and a satellite that was geostationary to Earth would still be moving at the same speed when Earth was there. Or put another planet rotating a 4X the earth, and that is the same size and mass of earth in place of Earth, and that satellite's motion would be unaffected.

The satellite and its movement around that planet would not care if the planet were a 24-hr rotating Earth, or that planet that is not rotating, or that planet rotating 4X faster. That's because the orbit is affected by the gravity well, and the gravity well would not change in the three cases I mentioned above. Rotation is not relevant.

Heck, put a black hole with the mass of Earth in place of the Earth and the satellite would keep moving at the same speed around the black hole as if it were the Earth.


edit on 2019/8/18 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




But is does orbit the gravity well.


What is "the gravity well"?

Can you post a picture of teh gravity well?

Well?



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




Heck, put a black hole with the mass of Earth in place of the Earth and the satellite would keep moving at the same speed around the black hole as if it were the Earth.


That speed would be zero then.

It isnt moving around the Earth. Remember?




edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: Box of Rain




Heck, put a black hole with the mass of Earth in place of the Earth and the satellite would keep moving at the same speed around the black hole as if it were the Earth.


That speed would be zero then.

It isnt moving around the Earth. Remember? Wow.





Ah. I didn't realize you were an intentionally obtuse troll. I should have known when you began arguing semantics.

The geostationary satellite is only not moving relative to a point on the SPINNING Earth. But in order to keep up with the motion of that spinning Earth, the geostationary satellite needs to move at the same speed as that spin.

To other outside observers (not on Earth) who are measuring the orbital characteristics of that satellite, the satellite would be moving around the Earth relative to their point of view. They don't need to give damn whether the Earth is spinning or not in order to measure the orbital characteristics of that satellite.

Relative to anyone else who is not spinning with the Earth, that satellite is moving around the Earth (i.e., around the Earth's center of gravity).

Therefore, the orbital speed of a geostationary satellite is not zero when considering the entire system (the Earth-satellite system) as an outside observer of that system.



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




Ah. I didn't realize you were an intentionally obtuse troll. I should have known when you began arguing semantics.


Then why do you keep making the same mistake. Pretty obtuse. I cant help that you keep claiming it is moving around the Earth. It isnt.




Therefore, the orbital speed of a geostationary satellite is not zero when considering the entire system (the Earth-satellite system) as an outside observer of that system.


Yes it moves through space.

What orbital speed? It doesnt orbit.
edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Some skewling,


Finally, a satellite does fall towards the Earth; only it never falls into the Earth. To understand this concept, we have to remind ourselves of the fact that the Earth is round; that is the Earth curves.



To avoid hitting the Earth, an orbiting projectile must be launched with a horizontal speed of 8000 m/s. When launched at this speed, the projectile will fall towards the Earth with a trajectory which matches the curvature of the Earth.




As such, the projectile will fall around the Earth, always accelerating towards it under the influence of gravity, yet never colliding into it since the Earth is constantly curving at the same rate. Such a projectile is an orbiting satellite.



www.physicsclassroom.com...



edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

What orbital speed? It doesnt orbit.


The orbital speed around the center of gravity of the Earth, irrespective of whether or not the earth is rotating.

You can ignore the rotation of Earth. In fact, you can ignore that it is the Earth at all. Like I said above, take the Earth away and replace it with a non-rotating planet that is the same size, shape, and mass of Earth and let that geostationary satellite do the exact same thing it currently does.

Now, stand on that new non-rotating planet and describe the movement of that same satellite relative to you. Please; I want you to describe what you think you'd see, and explain the reasons for your description of the movement.


edit on 2019/8/18 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain





The orbital speed around the center of gravity of the Earth,


Nasa:


An orbit is a path. It's the way something goes around an object in space.


www.nasa.gov...

Center of gravity is not an object. Its just a point in space. A sat does rotate around this point, since it is the middle point of the object. The reason satellites are able to rotate around a point in space is because they are falling around Earth curvature. See my previous post. Geostationary satellites dont do this.

Debunked.
edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

Any progress on teh gravity well yet?



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Center of gravity is not an object. Its just a point in space. A sat does rotate around this point. The reason satellites are able to rotate around a point in space is because they are falling around Earth curvature. See my previous post. Geostationary satellites dont do this.

Debunked.

False. Again, if the Earth were replaced by a black hole the same mass as the Earth -- but much smaller in diameter than the Earth -- satellites would retain their same motions that they had with the Earth instead of the black hole.

Similarly, if the sun were replaced by a black hole the same mass of the sun -- but with a much smaller diameter than the sun -- the planets would still orbit that black hole the same way they orbit the sun today. From the distances the planets orbit, the planets would not be able to tell the difference in the gravity from the Sun as opossed to the gravity of the black hole.

Edit to add:

Our Sun is too small a star to end its life as a black hole. But what would happen if the Sun were suddenly replaced with a black hole of the same mass? Contrary to popular belief, the Solar System would not be sucked in: a solar-mass black hole would exert no more gravitational pull than our Sun. As this computer simulation shows, the planets would actually continue on in their orbits as if nothing had happened.
Source: www.spacetelescope.org...

And let's get back to the non-rotating planet question you seem to be ignoring. Let's make the question a little easier:

Let's say The Earth suddenly stop rotating. How would that affect the absolute motion of the (formerly) geostationary satellite and why?



originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: Box of Rain

Any progress on teh gravity well yet?

A gravity well is a concept. Whether or not I can describe that concept in a way that you are satisfied with doesn't have anything to do with the idea that a satellite's movement doesn't give a damn if a planet is rotating or not.


edit on 2019/8/18 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Finally, a satellite does fall towards the Earth; only it never falls into the Earth. To understand this concept, we have to remind ourselves of the fact that the Earth is round; that is the Earth curves.




To avoid hitting the Earth, an orbiting projectile must be launched with a horizontal speed of 8000 m/s. When launched at this speed, the projectile will fall towards the Earth with a trajectory which matches the curvature of the Earth.






As such, the projectile will fall around the Earth, always accelerating towards it under the influence of gravity, yet never colliding into it since the Earth is constantly curving at the same rate. Such a projectile is an orbiting satellite.




www.physicsclassroom.com...


edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




A gravity well is a concept. Whether or not I can describe that concept


So you cant yet it is the mechanism you use as excuse. How inept.




a satellite's movement doesn't give a damn if a planet is rotating or not.


Can you respond to something I said instead of random irrelevant hypothetical drivel?


Debunked.

edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Whether the surface of the Earth gets in the way or not is not relevant. Let's say the satellite was a magic satellite capable of passing through the Earth, unaffected by the solidness of the planet...

...If so, then it would still orbit the center of gravity. The diameter of that orbit would simply be smaller than the diameter of the planet. In practicality, the planet getting in the way of a real-life satellite would matter to that real-life satellite. But just because the satellite would crash doesn't mean that it wasn't trying to orbit the center of gravity.

The diameter of the body doesn't change its overall effect the body's gravity has on things orbiting it (unless the body gets in the way, but I handled that above).


It's similar to the black hole analogy I gave above. The small diameter of a black hole that has the same mass of the Sun would not change the orbits of the planets if the sun suddenly became that black hole.



originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
So you cant yet it is the mechanism you use as excuse. How inept.

"Gravity Well" is not meant to be a literal term, but rather it's simply a conceptual way to help visualize the gravitational effect of a body. Thinking of that gravity as a well or "dip" is just a tool for visualization.

However, whether or not this visualization tool/technique works for you is not relevant to this discussion, and only serves to deflect. It's perfectly fine if you don't want to visualize a gravitational field in this manner.

So let's stimulate I won't be able to make you understand the conceptual visualization called a "gravity well". Let's just say I fail to do so. If we all agree on that, could we just move on and get past your attempts to deflect this discussion.


edit on 2019/8/18 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




Let's say


Sorry not interested in hypothetical drivel.





"Gravity Well" is not meant to be a literal term, but rather it's simply a conceptual way to help visualize the gravitational effect of a body. Thinking of that gravity as a well or "dip" is just a tool for visualization.


And it simply doesnt apply. Drivel.
edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Now are you going to debunk this?


originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Finally, a satellite does fall towards the Earth; only it never falls into the Earth. To understand this concept, we have to remind ourselves of the fact that the Earth is round; that is the Earth curves.




To avoid hitting the Earth, an orbiting projectile must be launched with a horizontal speed of 8000 m/s. When launched at this speed, the projectile will fall towards the Earth with a trajectory which matches the curvature of the Earth.






As such, the projectile will fall around the Earth, always accelerating towards it under the influence of gravity, yet never colliding into it since the Earth is constantly curving at the same rate. Such a projectile is an orbiting satellite.




www.physicsclassroom.com...




posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




It's similar to the black hole analogy I gave above. The small diameter of a black hole that has the same mass of the Sun would not change the orbits of the planets if the sun suddenly became that black hole.


What is the mass of the point in space you refer to as center of gravity?



According to your logic we could remove the whole Earth around this point, leaving only this mere point in space, and everything will just keep spinning around it like it was........

Superduperdebunked.


edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Sorry not interested in hypothetical drivel.


You aren't very good at thought experiments and using critical thought and logical conceptualization, are you?

Since you can't seem to use critical thought and conceptualization to help you understand this issue, then I might need to give up.

I've tried giving you perfectly valid examples showing exactly way the diameter of an object does not affect its overall gravitational pull, such as the "what if the sun turned into a black hole" thought experiment, but you are simply ignoring them because they do not agree with your incorrect views on the issue.



One more thing that might help: You seem to be confusing the distance of an object (call it "Object X") to the center of gravity of a body (call it "Body Y") with the overall gravitational field of that body.

While it's true that the distance of Object X to the center of gravity of Body Y would affect the gravitational pull Object X feels from Body Y, the actual diameter of that Body Y does not matter to gravitational field of Body Y; a change in diameter of Body B would NOT change its gravitational field if the mass stayed the same.

For example, a person weighing themselves (with a very precise scale) at sea level would weigh less than they would on top of a high mountain. That's because the gravitational pull of the earth is less the farther you get away from its center of gravity. The Earth's diameter didn't change, so that's not the reason for the reduction in gravitational pull between sea level and a mountaintop.

No -- the only reason for the lower effect of gravity is the distance from the center of gravity. The diameter of the Earth certainly didn't change, so it wasn't that.


edit on 2019/8/18 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2019 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain




What is the mass of the point in space you refer to as center of gravity?




According to your logic we could remove the whole Earth around this point, leaving only this mere point in space, and everything will just keep spinning around it like it was........ Superduperdebunked.


Game over.
edit on 18-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 147  148  149    151  152  153 >>

log in

join