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.
The former is correct, the latter is incorrect.
What about other variations?
Around the Earth's center of gravity, yes.
Yet you say it falling around the Earth.
Orbits.
Variations of what?
Because the Earth rotates?
We are discussing geostationary orbits. They cannot exist.
But it is geostationary and doesnt fall around the planet.
Around the Earth's center of gravity, yes.
I told you that.
How does it maintain its curved trajectory through space
How does it maintain its curved trajectory through space. An object has to fall around curvature to do that.
originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux
But according to Phage it travels around the Earth.
And again, it is not in an orbit. Its geostationary. How can you make this mistake 50 times in a row?
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.
Can you answer the question now, Phage?
Acceleration due to gravity.
And can you define "falling"?
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.
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?
You guys are hilarious. You keep posting the same dumb contradiction I debunked about 40 times now.
What is gravity?
spaceplace.nasa.gov...
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.
The only thing dumb is that you cannot realize the earth’s rotation has nothing to do with earth’s gravity well.
Yes.
Does a geostationary satellite encounter a curve in the direction of gravity,
Incorrect. A geostationary satellite is moving at an angular velocity of 15º hour. It has angular momentum.
There is no angular momentum that applies to the relevant frame of reference here.
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.
Geostationary orbit
en.m.wikipedia.org...
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.
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.