Flat earth theory?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

No, more like because you don't understand any of this although that does not stop you from believing yourself to be cleverer than Newton. Classic Dunning-Kruger, really.

a reply to: Box of Rain

If you are not going to respond to the first post I just made you might aswell stop posting. Your hypothetical ramblings do nothing to change the situation.

Geostationary satellites debunked.

No opposition.

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

Sure...as long as you replace Earth with something that has the same mass of the earth. Obviously there needs to be something of mass for there to be gravity.

So when did reality replace the Earth with something that has the same mass of the Earth? You keep posting hypothetical drivel to get away from the fact that the center of gravity is just a point in space, in this case the middle point of the object Earth. Of course a satellite rotates around this point because it orbits the Earth, which it can only do by falling around curvature.

You keep acting like this point in space is an object of mass. You keep confusing cause and effect. You guys say a satellite orbits Earth because it orbits the Earths center of gravity but its the other way around. It can rotate around the center of gravity, the middle point of a sphere in this case, because it is falling around the Earth. You guys are being ridiculous.

Again,

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.

Can someone now respond to this.

A geostationary satellite does not do that. Your hilarious excuse that it is rotating around the center of gravity is not an explanation. Its an observation. Yes it obviously rotates around a point in space, the problem is that you have no mechanism to explain it since it isnt orbiting the Earth.

It seems you guys dont even understand what the words center of gravity and orbit mean.


Oh and geostationary orbits debunked.

Respond to the post.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

More like: orbital mechanics not understood by out of depth troll.

And, of course, goal posts moved.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Dude you cant debunk a subject , concept or idea, with your opinion or semantics

try actually debating the concept by providing evidence which supports your counter argument

of which you have yet to provide anything substantial

all you have done is debated the concept of gravity and orbital mechanics
with "DEBUNKED " and arguing using semantics

none of which helps your position

if you walked into anywhere and tried to debate anyone with that approach you'd be laughed out of the room

there are children who can debate better than you!

Until you provide any actual evidence which contradicts gravity , we will not take you seriously.
You have still to do so

and sorry , saying DEBUNKED ad infinitum doesnt make it true !
it just makes you look foolish

a reply to: sapien82

Can you say something relevant?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

What the # do you think science is , its an observation of natural phenomenon

thus far it is known as gravitational field theory
many many scientists the world over agree on their observations that this is a natural phenomenon

we have a mechanism to explain it , its called orbital mechanics , and gravitational field theory

you saying we dont know what is , is basically because science has yet to sufficiently explain the nature of gravity and how it actually affects matter in this way , we theorise gravitons affect mass but dont understand entirely how this phenomenon occurs , we know that it relates to objects and their mass !

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

yes you are a fool !

Well, still no opposition. Thanks for the display.

Geostationary orbits debunked.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Respond to the post.

I've responded to that post a while ago.

To an outside observer looking at the Earth and satellite as a system, a satellite orbiting ~23,000 miles above the surface (or ~27,000 miles from the center), such as a geostationary satellite does, that satellite would in fact be orbiting around the Earth as seen from those outside observers.

The outside observers don't need to care if the earth is rotating or not. An object in that orbit would act the same if the Earth was rotating or not.

You seem to be talking semantics, not strict orbital mechanics.

a reply to: Box of Rain

What is this random rambling? Say something relevant. You guys are simply rambling.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
Well, still no opposition. Thanks for the display.

Geostationary orbits debunked.

How. How is it debunked?

How does geostationary orbit not meet the definition of orbit...

neutronflux
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

You

Then why do you keep making the same mistake.

What mistake? You don’t have a clear statement on what the mistake is. All you have is an erroneous opinion that has no logic, and keep posting debunked with no actual proof or evidence.

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.

One, “In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object,“. Does a geostationary satellite have a curved trajectory? It’s does by definition to stay above the same point on the rotating curved surface of the earth. To do this, a geostationary satellite is orbiting the central mass of the earth. Is that false.

Two, “Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory”. For a geostationary satellite, the orbit has the same period as the rotation of the earth. As a point on earth completes a full rotation, a geostationary satellite completes one full rotation of its obit. Is that false.

Three, “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.” Geostationary satellites complete one orbit around the earth’s central mass every 24 hours. Is that false.

Four. Now, what your hung up on. “such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.“ a geostationary satellite completes one orbit ever 24 hours as the earth completes one rotation. It’s that false.


By definition, a geostationary orbit is an orbit. If a geostationary satellite did not complete one full circle of its orbit every 24 hours, it would not stay above the same point on earth. That full circle orbit is around the earth’s central mass.

With the definition of orbit having noting to do with earth’s rotation.

Sorry all your points have been refuted, agreed upon, or have nothing to do with any point I made. Told you 100 times now. Seriously doubting your cognitive abilities.

central mass

Can you define that.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
Sorry all your points have been refuted, agreed upon, or have nothing to do with any point I made. Told you 100 times now. Seriously doubting your cognitive abilities.

central mass

Can you define that.

So? You cannot even create a logical argument why Geostationary orbit doesn’t meet the definition of orbit. Your just sad.

a reply to: neutronflux

So? You cannot even create a logical argument why Geostationary orbit doesn’t meet the definition of orbit. Your just sad.

I did this at least 73 times. You are hilarious.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: ManFromEurope

What is your point? I am asking you to explain HOW it is there. Sheesh. Can you say something relevant now in response to the points I made.

Maybe you might list your points. I will try to start this list:

- "So when did reality replace the Earth with something that has the same mass of the Earth?"
Answer: Centrifugal- and centripetalforces are anchored to the center of mass. You can simplify every body to a center of mass for these calculations. The forces will be the same. How would you like to calculate those forces, by calculating them for every tiny molecule of earth itself and adding them up? Surprise, the result will be very, very close to the simplified calculation.

- "You guys say a satellite orbits Earth because it orbits the Earths center of gravity but its the other way around."
Answer: see above. The forces keeping a satellite on its course are anchored to mass, and you +can+ add those forces up for every particle, or you live with the rounding errors and small deviations from perfect circular orbit while navigating the real gravitational tides.
For example, every satellite dips towards earth if it is above the southindian ocean. Thats okay. It is a dip of 0.0003 more gravitational force compared to the mean value.




More questions? Please elaborate.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
Sorry all your points have been refuted, agreed upon, or have nothing to do with any point I made. Told you 100 times now. Seriously doubting your cognitive abilities.



central mass


Can you define that.

"The center of mass built up from the sum of all particles of earth. "
Or give your definition, how do you understand this term?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

The definition of orbit..

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.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

So? No logical argument from you on how Geostationary orbit doesn’t meet the definition of orbit. When, by default, a geostationary satellite must complete one full orbit each day.

a reply to: ManFromEurope


I asked the definition for "central mass"