A proof for the Stationary Earth, Part 2

[Roy]

The animation shows a geostationary earth...

Furrfu

[Roy]

And what does equation 2 mean?

That JM has made no progress.

[JohnMartin]

it is showing how the satellite motion appear in the sky from a stationary point of earth. it appears to trace a figure 8 in the sky. but it is an illusion due to the orbital inclination of the satellites. if you viewed the orbit with the earth rotating you would see the satellites orbiting in a normal circle with the earth but moving up and down past the equator because they are orbiting at an angle to the equator.

if the earth is stationary how do you explain the strange figure eight motion? how can the aether flow in a figure 8?

The superposition of aether flow is an answer given by Dr Bennett. I am currently not familiar with the physical/numerical details. I assume those details are developed in his alfa model.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

The animation shows a geostationary earth with an orbiting sun and the geosynchronous satellites orbiting in an analemma. The animation assumes the satellites move on a geostationary earth. Maybe someone who is interested can ask the author of the website how such a satellite orbit path can be modeled by assuming the earth is stationary, with an orbiting sun, and I assume, an orbiting universe. I wonder if he will say aether flow. Probably not. But if not, how does it work? He must admit that such a satellite model is possible as that is what he has shown in the animation.

Interesting.

JM

As Sparko explained the analemma (figure 8 pattern) is what a stationary observer on the ground sees. The actual satellites are in a normal high inclination circular geosynchronous orbit with the planet rotating beneath them.

Sirius Satellite Radio has two such satellites in the same orbit so that one or the other will have its downlink beam pattern always covering most of North America.

Well John, does the MagicAether^tm push the satellites in a figure-8? This is why Sungenis and Bennett refused to answer my questions about the analemma pattern.

Another interesting orbit developed by the Russians is the Molniya orbit. This is a geosynchronous orbit with a very high apogee and a very close to Earth perigee

molniya_orbit.gif

This shape allows the satellites additional dwell time over the far northern latitudes when at apogee. Three such satellites spaced appropriately can provide continuous radio coverage to the north high latitude and polar regions. The ground track of a Molniya bird looks like this

molniya2D.gif

I'd love to know how the MagicAether^tm does this too.

[HMS_Beagle]

The superposition of aether flow is an answer given by Dr Bennett. I am currently not familiar with the physical/numerical details. I assume those details are developed in his alfa model.

JM

"superposition of aether flow" is a BS non-answer that explains absolutely nothing. You might as well say "magic!" for all the help in actually explaining the motion that gives.

[Sparko]

The superposition of aether flow is an answer given by Dr Bennett. I am currently not familiar with the physical/numerical details. I assume those details are developed in his alfa model.

JM

except the altitude of the satellite remains the same so you think aether can blow in multiple direction at the same altitude at the same time. again your answer is "magic aether that can do anything required to give me an answer"

if aether can move anything in any direction at any time, why can't it be detected or measured? We can detect wind which sounds similar but we cant detect aether. amazing.

[JohnMartin]

Originally Posted by JohnMartin View Post
Newtonian equations were -

Eq 1) x' = (x - vt)

Eq 2) t' = t

Special relativity says -

Eq3) x' = (x - vt) /sqrt (v2/c2)

JM fails again. Stationary objects are not transported unlimited distances. Nor does Newtonian mechanics require that time stands still. Maybe this is any attempt to justify the entire universe orbiting earth at may times light speed?

My mistake with the equations which are amended below.

Eq3) x^' = (x - vt) /sqrt (1-v²/c²)

Eq4) t^' = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt (1-v²/c²)

The same conclusions and arguments apply, now with the correct equations.

A few other minor discrepancies:

2a) Time dilation. Hence t' is not equal to t.

That's not because of time dilation.

t and t' record the same event. t differs from t' according to gamma. Gamma determines time dilation of t' relative to t. As SR requires t' to be not equal to t, then time dilates.

Similarly the tick rate change in F′ is related to the tick rate change in F by Δt′ = γΔt. The differences between the clock tick rates of F and that observed of F′ from F is time dilation calculated by gamma. SR assumes time dilation as stated by me in the previous post. I see no error in my statement, t' is not equal to t.

3a) Length contraction. Hence x' is not equal to x.

That's not because of length contraction.

Length contraction is Δx = γΔx′ so x' is not equal to x.

A body can travel at any velocity and neither the time, nor the body length will change.

If time isn't changing, nothing is travelling.

I meant time does not dilate in NM. Time also changes in SR as the object moves. Length contraction occurs in x' according to the gamma variable 1- sqrt (1-v²/c²).

x'
Why x' and not just x' ?

The concepts behind the equations are so diverse that the values represent very different understandings of what x' and t' are in NM and SR.

x' and t' mean the same in NM and SR, although they usually have minusculely different values. It's JM_mathsTM which appears to have a very different understanding of them.

A comparison of the concepts behind NM and SR shows the values of x' and t' may well be only minusculely different, but the values are measuring different realities.

I wonder if JM even knows what x' refers to?

The x' co-ordinate of the F' frame.

The problems posed remain substantially unanswered. The derivation of SR from NM is simply sophistic.

JM

[JohnMartin]

"superposition of aether flow" is a BS non-answer that explains absolutely nothing. You might as well say "magic!" for all the help in actually explaining the motion that gives.

The Helio model simply has no answer. Not even the magic aether. For the Helio models requires the earth to be both orbiting the sun, but not orbiting the su for the satellite calcs to work out. If the Helio model was used to model the satellite motions, those satellites would be left behind in space as the earth moves past the sun at 65,000 km/hr.

JM

[JohnMartin]

There is nothing in Newtonian Mechanics that says it is an absolute. It's a convenient approximation when relative speeds are slow compared to the speed of light.

Newtonian mechanics has always been understood to have absolute time. The move from NM absolute to relative time in SR was part of the Einsteinian revolution. NM definitely assumes absolute time.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

The Helio model simply has no answer. Not even the magic aether. For the Helio models requires the earth to be both orbiting the sun, but not orbiting the su for the satellite calcs to work out. If the Helio model was used to model the satellite motions, those satellites would be left behind in space as the earth moves past the sun at 65,000 km/hr.

JM

No one bought that amazingly stupid excuse of yours the last dozen times you posted it. Every time it was pounded into a fine mist by empirically observed reality. Why do you think your BS woo somehow gets better with age?

Right now we have satellites in orbit around the Moon and around Mars, among other places. Why aren't they swept away by the blowing MagicAether^tm as they orbit those spheres?

[JohnMartin]

except the altitude of the satellite remains the same so you think aether can blow in multiple direction at the same altitude at the same time. again your answer is "magic aether that can do anything required to give me an answer"

if aether can move anything in any direction at any time, why can't it be detected or measured? We can detect wind which sounds similar but we cant detect aether. amazing.

You can always read the book and see what the authors say about the experiments that have detected the aether. It's too much work to type it all out here.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No one bought that amazingly stupid excuse of yours the last dozen times you posted it. Every time it was pounded into a fine mist by empirically observed reality. Why do you think your BS woo somehow gets better with age?

There is a distinct lack of self examination going on with the Helio model. Apply a similar examination to the Helio model that you do to the Geo model and see if the Helio model explains those satellite orbits. It simply does not.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

You can always read the book and see what the authors say about the experiments that have detected the aether. It's too much work to type it all out here.

JM

You don't type it out because you have no answers. You're a sheep who has learned to bleat out a handful of non-answers to every fact you can't explain. BAAA BAAAA John.

[HMS_Beagle]

There is a distinct lack of self examination going on with the Helio model. Apply a similar examination to the Helio model that you do to the Geo model and see if the Helio model explains those satellite orbits. It simply does not.

JM

Of course it does Moonbat. You're just too scientifically ignorant to realize it and too arrogant to admit you're wrong.

[JohnMartin]

So let's start there: John can you explain to me the difference between 'No influence' and a 'small influence'? I know you probably know the difference - no need to answer.

And if you know the difference, then you can't honestly say what you did above. Because I said (over the course of several posts) that the sun's influence was very small and did not affect

(1) the stability of the orbit
(2) the basic parameters associated with a geosynchronous orbit.

You go on to mention the '3 body problem'. But again, you don't understand the DIFFERENCE between the Sun/Moon/Earth system and a 3 body system where ALLof the three bodies has a non-negligable influence on the other. The Earth/Moon act mostly as a single body relative to the Earth/Moon/Sun, so each component (Earth/Sun and Earth/Moon) behave mostly as independent 2 body problems. To see why, the Earth is ~93 MILLION miles from the sun. The moon (when between the Earth and the sun) is ~92.75 MILLION miles from the sun. .25/93 = .0027 or .27%. When we factor in the fact that the effect of gravity is subject to the inverse square law, we can say that the sun's influence on the moon when it is between the Earth and sun is (relative to the suns influence at 1 million miles) 1/93² vs 1/92.75² which comes up as

.00011624443298145174766239710551362 / .00011562030292519366400739969938721 ~= 1.005399

or a greater pull of just 0.5399%⁺. That's it John. And to add to that, the situation is almost identically reversed when the moon is opposite the earth. Now we have 1/93² vs 1/93.25², which is just .5384% less. So the NET effect of the sun on the moon is symmetrical over its orbit, which causes just a very slight alteration of the shape and to a lesser degree, the period of the orbit. But given THAT, the moon orbits the Earth as The Earth orbits the sun, all in free fall.


Likewise, and to an even smaller degree, the effect of the sun on a geostationary/geosynchronous satellite. It is only ~22,300 miles above the Earth. And so, for an equitorial orbit at an equinox, the difference in percent becomes 1/92.9777² vs 1/93² vs 1/93.0223² or .04797% vs .04796%<sup>+

+</sup>(always ((larger value / smaller value) -1) *100 %).

Now this is percent effect John, not true 'force', though I did that calculation in the previous thread. Regardless, the differences are minor. Over time they build up, which is why the satellites have positioning thrusters. But as with the Earth/Moon/Sun, the Earth/Satellite/Sun behaves mostly as two independent 2 body problems.

Further, the differences between these values and the same values calculated using the ToR instead of Newtonian physics would differ by something between a 10 millionth and a billionth of a percent John*. So we can use the Newtonian maths without concern over the fact Relativity is in fact a better description of the actual orbits.


* extrapolated from a simple SR estimate of the time dilation at typical orbital velocities: consider the Apollo 11 trip to the moon:
lorentz factor = 1/sqrt(1-1528²/300,000,000²),(using average v = 1528 m/s, c=300,000,000 m/s) = 1.0000000000129710222224745933485 = (~1:100 billion or a billionth of a percent)
T for apollo 11 = 72h, 27 minutes = 260,820 seconds * (1/ 1.0000000000129710222224745933485)=260,819.9999966 1689798397805885427.
260820-260,819.99999661689798397805885427=0.0000033831020 1602194114573=3.38 microseconds**


So, again John, you make all these grandiose claims that free fall doesn't work as an explanation and that 3 body effects are ignored and that newton and relativity are incompatible and on and on and on, but here are some REAL looks at what those differences all boil down to. They are very, VERY small. The layman oriented explanations do not have to take in the full ToR to explain what is going on. And when working out where a geosynchronous orbit wold be, we don't have to worry very much at all about the sun, or the moon, at least not in terms of initial positioning, orbital stability, and general orbital elements.


Jim