The Fixed Earth

[Ancilla]

View attachment 249

A picture tells a thousand words, you may notice how star trail are comsistant with my geocentric cosomolgy.

I can't find the words "geocentric cosomology" in the Bible.

As far as is the earth the centre of the universe, you can't find the centre of something without finding the parameter and you can't find the parameter of the universe, and even if you could find it it keeps expanding. So if you want to believe that the earth is the centre, that's not incorrect because... the centre of the universe is where ever you want to believe it is.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

the centre of the universe is where ever you want to believe it is.

Is that your answer???

 

[Ancilla]

Cup, can you please explain to me how a small planet like the Earth can possible sustain the orbit of the sun?

That's like suggesting that an eighty pound ballerina could support the weight of Ayers Rock.

No he can't. There, I just saved everyone a lot of trouble. But earth being affected by the sun's gravity is pretty hard to understand.

How come Cup's never stated his academic credientails? How is one supposed to expect that people take them seriously on academic matters without mentioning where they studied and how their research was recieved by the scientific community.

 

[Ancilla]

Is that your answer???

Yeah, because the universe does not have a centre, it's not possible to disprove where you think the centre is.

 

[Ancilla]

Let me put it this way, if you want to believe there's a centre of the universe, what difference is it to the rest of us where you assume that centre is????

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Let me put it this way, if you want to believe there's a centre of the universe, what difference is it to the rest of us where you assume that centre is????

Your disregarding the nature of absolute truth, and the reality of the structure of the universe in order to please your personal relativity delusion. There are only two possible cosomolgies, one being the Geocentric with the earth occupying the central position in the universe and this is the Biblical view and is proven by all known observable scientific investigation, and there is the cosomology which has the earth not in the centre of the universe and this is unbiblical and never been proven, it's either or, it's either one or the other. Your personal opinion is that the centre is where ever you want it to be, this is impossible and illogical, and someone who states such should be regarded as being delusional.

 

[MahogonySnail]

There are holes in your thought process Snail'

There is a reason why I brought up the components of satellites in comparison to whether they are a high level altitude or a low level altitude.

"Like any other object in low-Earth orbit, a space shuttle must reach speeds of about 17,500 miles per hour (28,000 km per hour) to remain in orbit. The exact speed depends on the space shuttle's orbital altitude, which normally ranges from 190 miles to 330 miles (304 km to 528 km) above sea level, depending on its mission.

Each of the two Solid Rocket Boosters on the Space shuttle carries more than one million pounds of solid propellant. The Space Shuttle's large External Tank is loaded with more than 500,000 gallons of super-cold liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, which are mixed and burned to form fuel for the orbiter's three main rocket engines." NASA - International Space Program.

Now a discerning and inquiring mind will need to compare that iformation with a high level satellite, with an altitude approx 10 times higher which needs only a small solar panel to power it electrical board! This is because it does not need to be propelled like a low level satellite, because it is non-moving.

Cup, all satellites are thrown into an orbit around the earth and they all move, and they all need to be propelled like a low-level satellite. Thrusters or similar are used to maintain the orbit but for the most part the satellites go around the earth due to their own momentum. You claim they are non-moving. Please provide a reference from a reliable source that GEO satellites do not move as you claim. If you can't your argument is lost.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Cup, all satellites are thrown into an orbit around the earth and they all move,

No they don't, high altitude satellites are Geostationary, they having nothing to propel them because they don't need to move in relation to the earth and nothing is moving them, if there was then they in synchronicity with an alleged rotation of the earth would be the same as a low altitude satellite which does move in relation to the earth, there would be no need for differential components i.e. rocket boosters and large amounts of super fuels for jet propulsion, indeed the low level satellites being 10 times closer to earth would be moving much slower than one further out in space. Again you cannot have Low altitude, high altitude and medium altitude, and claim they are all orbital under the same influence with the same componants when the high altitude satellites have no movement in relation to the earth and medium to low move in relation to the earth and do so by their own fuel and power for they need to reach a speed to maintain flight or orbit if you will, but satellites much higher do not need to attain any speed or have any propulsion. All three can only be correct, all there levels of satellites and componantry on board can only be consistant with observable data with a Geo-static earth, and indeed we see and even NASA will state that all calculations and signals and communications are based on that the earth is stationary.

and they all need to be propelled like a low-level satellite.

But they don't have anything to propel them Snail' as I just told you, communication satellites have no engine rockets or super fuels like low level satellites and shuttles do, why, because they dont move, they wouldn't work if they were moving in relation to the earth. At some stage Snail' you have to admit the anonmalies in present, that can only be resolved by applying Geocentric physics and astronomy.

Thrusters or similar are used to maintain the orbit but for the most part the satellites go around the earth due to their own momentum.

Well Yes, you got that right, they do need power to maintain the speed to stay orbit, otherwise they would just fall to the ground like a plane, now there is another trick to this, but I wont tell it yet because firstly one needs to understand that the high altitude satellites have no need for propulsion and the low satellites do which makes no sense because if they were both under the same influence than the high altitude satellites, would need to have much larger fuel capacity and rocket boosters and engines to attain a much greater speed, why? Because there 10 times further out in space!!!

 

[machew]

Uhh all you would have to do is get a telescope at night, spot a satellite, and wow you can prove that satellites move.

 

[greatkraw]

The Earth is flat I just read it as I was looking up British-Israelism which I had never heard of until reading another thread on CC and then Greatkraw mentioned it agian. Simply amazing! But I don't want to stop this thread from turning or moving so . . .I will wait for the water study results.

If water drains in a toilet and no one is there to see it, does it form a vortx?

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhh spooookeeeeeee

 

[greatkraw]

Cup, you remind me of my evil brother. The only value he has is entertainment value.

I was worried you might convince some people with your British Israel heresy but you have happily sprayed your credibility up against the wall with this one.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Uhh all you would have to do is get a telescope at night, spot a satellite, and wow you can prove that satellites move.

Not communication satellites, at high altitudes, low level satellites do because they are powered by rocket boosters to maintain their speed, until they are refueled or run out, if the run out of fuel or the engine stops they will fall to earth. High altitude satellites are geostationary, do I have to keep on repeating myself, at least Snail' has sparks of occassional reason and is a quick debater, Machew, your not up to pace of the thread content, there are other forums and threads that may be more suitable for your level, just a hint.

 

[MahogonySnail]

No they don't, high altitude satellites are Geostationary, they having nothing to propel them because they don't need to move in relation to the earth and nothing is moving them, if there was then they in synchronicity with an alleged rotation of the earth would be the same as a low altitude satellite which does move in relation to the earth, there would be no need for differential components i.e. rocket boosters and large amounts of super fuels for jet propulsion, indeed the low level satellites being 10 times closer to earth would be moving much slower than one further out in space. Again you cannot have Low altitude, high altitude and medium altitude, and claim they are all orbital under the same influence with the same componants when the high altitude satellites have no movement in relation to the earth and medium to low move in relation to the earth and do so by their own fuel and power for they need to reach a speed to maintain flight or orbit if you will, but satellites much higher do not need to attain any speed or have any propulsion. All three can only be correct, all there levels of satellites and componantry on board can only be consistant with observable data with a Geo-static earth, and indeed we see and even NASA will state that all calculations and signals and communications are based on that the earth is stationary.

I ask you for one reference which proves your point of view that geo satellites do not move. Every reliable reference on satellites and orbits says that a geo satellite is in a geo orbit. All satellites work the same it makes no difference whether its high or low altitude - they orbit by their own momentum and any fuel on large satellites is not enough to sustain them for such a long period of time, but it's used to correct or change the orbit when required.

Yes calculations may be done w.r.t a stationary earth because it is more convenient. But the fact remains that every GEO satellite is designed to go into a geo orbit, not a geo stationary.

But they don't have anything to propel them Snail' as I just told you, communication satellites have no engine rockets or super fuels like low level satellites and shuttles do, why, because they dont move, they wouldn't work if they were moving in relation to the earth. At some stage Snail' you have to admit the anonmalies in present, that can only be resolved by applying Geocentric physics and astronomy.

Of course they don't need anything to propel them but neither do LEO or MEO satellites - it's all the satellites own momentum and how they launch the satellites into orbit with rockets.

Well Yes, you got that right, they do need power to maintain the speed to stay orbit, otherwise they would just fall to the ground like a plane, now there is another trick to this, but I wont tell it yet because firstly one needs to understand that the high altitude satellites have no need for propulsion and the low satellites do which makes no sense because if they were both under the same influence than the high altitude satellites, would need to have much larger fuel capacity and rocket boosters and engines to attain a much greater speed, why? Because there 10 times further out in space!!!

The power is not to maintain speed , momentum does that, in orbit it it's to make corrections if it goes out of orbit. If low level satellitse need fuel to propel them, then how come LEO satellites as small as 50 kg or less and 1 foot cubed satellites can fly at 7.5 km/s in orbit for years with no rockets or fuel? Read some websites about how satellitse work and if you can find one that proves your view please post it. I doubt you can though, because it's pretty much a no brainer that all satellitse orbit around the earth and there's no such thing as a non-moving satellite, except when viewed from an observer on the ground in the case of geostationary satellites.

Not communication satellites, at high altitudes, low level satellites do because they are powered by rocket boosters to maintain their speed, until they are refueled or run out, if the run out of fuel or the engine stops they will fall to earth. High altitude satellites are geostationary, do I have to keep on repeating myself, at least Snail' has sparks of occassional reason and is a quick debater, Machew, your not up to pace of the thread content, there are other forums and threads that may be more suitable for your level, just a hint.

Complete rubbish. Ever heard of AMSAT? Look it up, and tell me how many rocket boosters and fuel small LEO satellites have? Answer : zero.



how do satellitse stay in orbit?
http://library.thinkquest.org/C007258/Keep_Orbit.htm

The satellite in a high-altitude, geostationary orbit circles the earth once every 24 hours, the same amount of time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis. The satellite turns eastward (like our Earth) along the Equator. It stays above the same point on Earth all the time. To maintain the same rotational period as the Earth, a satellite in geostationary orbit must be 22,237 miles above the Earth. At this distance, the satellite can view a huge portion of the Earth's surface. Because the high-altitude satellite appears to remain fixed in one position (it's really orbiting at the same rate as the Earth turns), it requires no tracking to receive its downlink signal. That is why when we turn our home satellite dish on to receive the TV signal from a particular geostationary satellite, we don't have to keep jumping up to adjust its position.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

I ask you for one reference which proves your point of view that geo satellites do not move. Every reliable reference on satellites and orbits says that a geo satellite is in a geo orbit. All satellites work the same it makes no difference whether its high or low altitude

No they are not the same as I just previously described, from a position on earth LOS move, HOS do not.

- they orbit by their own momentum and any fuel on large satellites is not enough to sustain them for such a long period of time, but it's used to correct or change the orbit when required.

They have to use their own momentum via fuel otherwise they fall to earth at LO.

Yes calculations may be done w.r.t a stationary earth because it is more convenient.

OK so you admit that the calculation are done with a geostatic model, that's good, kind of difficult to deny that, not that it's merely convient, it just because the earth is not moving therefor your calculations need to be based on a non-moving earth otherwise you wouldnt be able to calculate with moving earth model because the calculations would be wrong.

But the fact remains that every GEO satellite is designed to go into a geo orbit, not a geo stationary.

But it is geostationary.

The power is not to maintain speed , momentum does that, in orbit it it's to make corrections if it goes out of orbit. If low level satellitse need fuel to propel them, then how come LEO satellites as small as 50 kg or less and 1 foot cubed satellites can fly at 7.5 km/s in orbit for years with no rockets or fuel? Read some websites about how satellitse work and if you can find one that proves your view please post it. I doubt you can though, because it's pretty much a no brainer that all satellitse orbit around the earth and there's no such thing as a non-moving satellite, except when viewed from an observer on the ground in the case of geostationary satellites.

This is the alleged gravity enabled geosynchronous model: consider what is required to make this particular satellite move after it is placed in its position:

a) It must attain and maintain an exact epeed of 6865 MPH, to be off by even 1 MPH would throw it out by over 700 miles in one month. off 10 MPH = 7000 miles out of position per month, this is a serious problem. No other satellites retain an unassisted, unvarying speed!!! That is a fact.

b) It must perform a perfectly circular orbit with absolutely no apogee or perigee. This is something that no satellite has ever achieved.

c) any varience from 4-way confinement withing given flight path affects the speed and direction, this would result in failure as there is no way to readjust direction, and of course you would have to constantly change the postion of the the recieving dish points.

d) The ring of geostationary satellites now over the equator has very nearly reached maximum, i.e. 180 at 2 degrees apart, so the current need for virtual geostationary satellites ...One of the characteristics of the new orbits of new "virtual geostationary satellite" contain the proof that geosynchronous concept os utterly false! And indeed that the present geostationary satelites are in fact geostationary and do not move. What is this characteristic? I will tell you; there orbits can be either clockwise or anticlockwise... while all geostat orbits must be counterclockwise obviously to match the alleged counterclockwise rotation of the earth.

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6701126/description.html

The satellite in a high-altitude, geostationary orbit circles the earth once every 24 hours, the same amount of time it takes for the Earth to spin on its axis. The satellite turns eastward (like our Earth) along the Equator. It stays above the same point on Earth all the time. To maintain the same rotational period as the Earth, a satellite in geostationary orbit must be 22,237 miles above the Earth. At this distance, the satellite can view a huge portion of the Earth's surface. Because the high-altitude satellite appears to remain fixed in one position (it's really orbiting at the same rate as the Earth turns), it requires no tracking to receive its downlink signal. That is why when we turn our home satellite dish on to receive the TV signal from a particular geostationary satellite, we don't have to keep jumping up to adjust its position.

For reasons I just expained, no satellite can maintain the same postion at the same speed and direction, that why all calculations are done based on the earth not moving, if the earth was rotating the satelites that are in geosationary positions could not keep that position, if the satelites were moving in geosynchronous speed, in relation to a rotating earth than such calculation would exist and could be proved by physics seeming no calculation exist that actually works based on a rotating earth, then it is proven by the same given method that they are indeed stationary. LOS that move need propulsion to do so;

http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/GLTRS/browse.pl?1994/TM-106701.html

 

[MahogonySnail]

But it is geostationary.

Dude don't be stupid just look up about geo stationary satellites, it says they are in geostationary orbits. ORBITS if you know the meaning of the word - they're moving.

The website you quoted says:

Typically, a geo satellite is launched first into an elliptical transfer orbit having an apogee at geostationary altitude, and then its orbit is circularized by using a kick motor to impart the necessary addition momentum to the satellite at apogee.

You see the launcher is responsible for giving the satellite its momentum and putting it into an orbit, and they use "kick motors" to adjust the orbit, not keep the satellite pushed along like an aircraft, and not to keep the satellite stationary. If it was stationary with no momentum it would certainly fall to earth. All geo satellite launches and orbits are calculated by considering a rotating earth and designing the launch and orbit to be at the right revolution around the earth. If the earth did not rotate their calculations would be wrong and geo satellites would not work. Earth rotation corrections are also necessary in GPS receivers because the earth rotates by the time the signal gets from the satellite to your receiver on earth. It's pretty much well established that the earth is rotating on its axis you may as well admit it.

 

[Cup-of-Ruin]

Dude don't be stupid just look up about geo stationary satellites, it says they are in geostationary orbits. ORBITS if you know the meaning of the word - they're moving.

http://www.frepantentsonline.com/5751247.html

Bieing geostationary means that they are not moving just like physics and math in order to acheive the satellite position is based upon a fixed earth.

You see the launcher is responsible for giving the satellite its momentum and putting it into an orbit, and they use "kick motors" to adjust the orbit, not keep the satellite pushed along like an aircraft, and not to keep the satellite stationary. If it was stationary with no momentum it would certainly fall to earth. All geo satellite launches and orbits are calculated by considering a rotating earth and designing the launch and orbit to be at the right revolution around the earth. If the earth did not rotate their calculations would be wrong and geo satellites would not work. Earth rotation corrections are also necessary in GPS receivers because the earth rotates by the time the signal gets from the satellite to your receiver on earth. It's pretty much well established that the earth is rotating on its axis you may as well admit it.

No satellite position has ever been adjusted based on a rotating earth model, they use a fixed earth model, why? this is why;



Also because of the atmospheric drag is stronger when the Sun is active, as the atmosphere rises and expands when the sun adds extra energy, satelites have to be carefully moved avoiding all that space junk and other satellites, NASA's LO satellites adjust their inclination to maintain a Sun-synchronous orbit! This is because the sun is moving and not the earth so the physics and calculations must be based on sun movement and not earth movement!

 

[greatkraw]

Cup, just curious; Did man land on the moon?

 

[MahogonySnail]

Bieing geostationary means that they are not moving just like physics and math in order to acheive the satellite position is based upon a fixed earth.

But they aren't stationary, they are in orbit, as the word orbit implies.

Also because of the atmospheric drag is stronger when the Sun is active, as the atmosphere rises and expands when the sun adds extra energy, satelites have to be carefully moved avoiding all that space junk and other satellites, NASA's LO satellites adjust their inclination to maintain a Sun-synchronous orbit! This is because the sun is moving and not the earth so the physics and calculations must be based on sun movement and not earth movement!

You believe what the NASA anti christ tells you now? By the way you also referenced a nasa website earlier in case you didn't realised.

It's not that hard to consider a rotating earth model, it's just more convenient to use a fixed earth model sometimes. But that doesn't mean the satellite doesn't have to orbit in the right way to cancel out the earth's rotation, or that you don't have to account for earth rotation. You can design a system using whatever coordinate system you like, it's just the maths that changes not the fact that the earth rotates.

Check out this book preview on google books:
Mobile satellite communication networks

By Ray E. Sheriff, Y. Fun Hu
http://books.google.com.au/books?id...snum=3&ved=0CA8Q6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=&f=false



It says a transformation from fixed earth to rotating earth coordinates is required. It's not that hard it's just a transformation.

And space junk has NOTHING to do with it lol.

lol you funny cup you making me laugh, it's like debating with a pre-schooler.

 

[Ancilla]

Your disregarding the nature of absolute truth, and the reality of the structure of the universe in order to please your personal relativity delusion. There are only two possible cosomolgies, one being the Geocentric with the earth occupying the central position in the universe and this is the Biblical view and is proven by all known observable scientific investigation, and there is the cosomology which has the earth not in the centre of the universe and this is unbiblical and never been proven, it's either or, it's either one or the other. Your personal opinion is that the centre is where ever you want it to be, this is impossible and illogical, and someone who states such should be regarded as being delusional.

You're so funny. I don't disregard the nature of absolute truth. You still didn't answer my question about how there can be a centre to the universe if there's no perimeters.

 

[Ancilla]

See, what I don't understand is if Cup is denying that satellites are in orbit. Nothing keeps them in orbit other than gravity. I heard it explained for laymen on the Discovery Channel and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't make sense to him.

But I need to call attention to something important going on here. Last night I posted questions for Cup about God and the Bible, but what I found this morning was more of his pseudo-science. This is a Bible discussion forum and I find it really destrubing when people lead the discussion away from the Bible

Cup, don't bother asking me any more questions until you've answered mine, but I won't respond to them. I don't want to answer my questions just come out and say it.