At least I am trying to, as you can see from my response.
- Illustrating a pont raised below [But see also diagrams message, now].
X - - > - > - - > X' O
- Tom Trinko
- Vendredi/Friday/4th of July 21:44
- No I didn't get it because it doesn't make sense. Sorry.
I understand that if you believe in a mythical aether then the motion of the aether would cancel the motion of the satellite.
Unfortunately for you the aether would not cancel the motion of the satellite towards the earth, downward, caused by the force of gravity, which means the satellite would soon fall to earth.
Basically east west and up down are orthogonal so the east west velocity of the satellite will only determine where on earth the satellite will fall. Given that the geostationary satellite is stationary above a point on the earth gravity will cause it to fall down to that point on the earth unless the aether exerts and upward--not westward--force on the satellite.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Saturday, 5th of July
- No, you did not get it.
You did not get that aether ONLY cancels the local movement part of the eastward momentum.
It is the eastward momentum the balances out gravitation to an orbit (through the aether, but locally cancelled out) around earth.
As to mythical, a scientific theory does not become a myth when abandoned.
Let us see.
According to everyone light is a fact. According to modern physics gravitation is a fact (in Aristotelian ones, heavy objects being heavy means them having a predominant tendency down to the middle of the universe, the centre of the earth, light objects being light means them having a tendency upward to the periphey of the universe, towards stars and Heaven beyond them).
If there is no aether, then gravitation and light are action at a distance, and for light also wavemovements in a void.
I have discussed - years ago - the concept of wavemovements in a void, and the science expert who was, as an Atheist, defending modern science, said photons could fix that. Here the action at a distance part would also be fixed. It is less easy to fix gravitational action at a distance problem by gravitons.
Photons first: yes, a wavemovement would be conceivable as photons are emitted in waves rather than continuously. But if so, it should be theoretically possible to have a continuous (high or low) rate of emission of photons, and we do not find that.
Gravitons next: if a graviton moves from earth toward the sun, how would that make sun move closer to earth? If one thousand times as many gravitons move from sun to earth, how would that draw earth closer to the sun?
Remember, if gravitons are emitted from the masses concerned, they are moving right opposite the way they are supposed to work the attraction.
For close range forces, this is even more conspicuous: if electrons and protons (supposing these to both exist though neither has been observed even under electronic microscopy) are moving in a void, where is the substrate transmitting their forces of attraction from one body to other?
Here you see perhaps why aether was a very usual model in scientific worldviews until of course Michelson Morley showed this entailed Geocentrism.
And this means, some Geocentrics would be such, simply because aether makes sense scientifically.
One more: westward movement of aether would be a curved movement. Around earth.
Eastward momentum of satellite would in each moment be a straight momentum. In a tangent from earth, unless gravitation were counteracting it. It is thus in each moment the momentum of the satellite which counteracts the gravitation of the earth.
- HGL adding
- on Sunday 6-VII-2014
- I think YOUR position on why Sungenis must be wrong on Geostationary satellites is that:
satellite has eastward momentum, vector arrow eastward, aether imparts equal westward momentum, vector arrow westward (same length), earth imparts momentum down to its centre, by gravitation, arrow down. W & E arrows cancel, arrow down is NOT cancelled, so, acceleration takes place downwards to the ground.
My understanding of Sungenis' explanation (if he doesn't agree, it may unconsciously even be my improvement on it) is rather this:
There is an eastward arrow for the vector of satellite's momentum, there is a downward arrow, for the vector of earth's gravitation, BUT there is no westward arrow.
Aether imparts NO acceleration to the West.
It only displaces the space in which these vectors work out.
Therefore the eastward vector and the downward vector can balance out in a series of balanced vectors which, in empty space, would be of orbital type.
Except that empty space would have no way, without aether, to transmit the pull of eartyhmass onto satellite mass (and, extremely slightly, the reverse), and the aether that is transmitting it is displacing itself. That is at least one theory.
- Tom Trinko Sunday 22 :25
- Uh no that makes no sense. If you add an eastward vector to a downward vector you bet a vector pointed down and to the east at some angle which will vary with time as the Satellite accelerates down. Given that we're assuming the earth isn't rotating here then what would happen would be that the satelite would follow a roughly parabolic trajectory and impact the earth to the east of the normal sub satellite point.
You can't balance a downward force with a eastward momentum vector over a stationary earth. Math doesn't work.
- Hans Georg Lundahl Monday 7/VII/2014
- The orbit you assume to be there is a very high version of the parabolic trajectory.
The Sungenis theory as I understand does not deny the orbit as such. It only says it is displaced, because the coordinate system of space - the aether - is displaced.
And that orbit and displacement balance out into a more or less stationary position.
- Added a few hours later by HGL
- Maybe you simply are mixing up the vector question with the geosationary question. How a downward vector is accounted for while same hight is acheived is a bit tricky. Here I am spelling it out step by step:
I) What the vectors (acc. to Newtonian physics) make for an orbit:
a) Imagine you have one satellite "above" earth. Draw it above on paper or on whatever material your mind can follow (including your memory, if it is good).
b) Identify a spot as centre of earth, draw the line between it and the satellite. Divide the line into four equal "units".
c) Imagine the satellite is moved by exactly ONE vector (in an otherways stationary universe, like during the long day of Joshua). Draw a line to the right, meaning eastward. Mark off three units.
d) Identify the spot of the third unit as new position of satellite. Draw a line from it to centre of earth and remember, this line is FIVE units long.
e) But in order for the satellite to move "due east" (in an orbit) it should be only FOUR units above the centre of the earth. Identify that spot, then dot the lines of the triangle that are outside that cake slice. NOW you have identified the action of gravitation as the vector responsible for satellite being one unit lower than expected. And still exactly as high as it was to begin with.
II) Now, this was a satellite "during Joshua's long day". It was neither Geostationary according to aether and Geostasis, nor according to empty space and turning earth.
III) How to make a satellite geostationary (outside Joshua's long day), there are two models.
a) Empty space remains in place, so satellite really moves locally that curve, but earth eastward also, at same angular speed. Turning of earth neither affects the gravitational vector of the satellite, nor the eastward momentum vector. Therefore orbit of satellite is real, though from the dot on earth it is seen as stationary, because that dot also moves in an orbit around the centre of the earth, that orbit having a turn of same angle in same time.
b) Turning aether moves westward, at same speed as satellite orbits eastward. Aether affects neither vector. It is only that its turning cancels out, locally, the eastward turning of the satellite. Here too the satellite has a real eastward orbit, but in a space that (as it is aether and not empty) displaces itself at same angular speed in opposite angular turn. Leaving the satellite in same local position.
[IV] There is one problem with this restatement of Sungenis without looking at his book.
Can aether be truly non-vectorial and yet cause movement?
As in the movement it imposes, if I am right, on spacecraft spiralling outward with the "linear" outward / upward movement and the "circular" daily movement of the aether.
Or in the movement it imposes on winds of passage, which, once set in motion by the moving aether, are very vectorial, as any sailor would agree, or the one it imposes indirectly at least on oceanic currents, like the ones used by Christopher Columbus between Açores and Hispaniola and by Thor Heyderdahl between Perú and Polynesia.
That is the problem with my theory. Does it suggest any solution to you?, for if so, you might be right I understand no physics compared to your grasp of the subject.
- Tom Trinko
early in the morning Paris time
- Ok nothing you said makes sense with respect to anything we know to be true.
We agree that the geostationary satellite stays staionary above the earth.
We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving.
But if the earth isn't rotating then the satellite can't be stationary.
Hence the satellite will fall.
The simple fact is that either the aether exerts an upward force on the satellite or the satellite will fall.
Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
9 :07 Paris time
- "We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving."
OR for the gravitational field (a k a aether) to be moving.
"Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did."
I gave no magnitudes for the vectors. I gave distances.
And I gave them in PROPORTIONS to original distance, which I am not trying to find out, because any original distance will work.
It is the vector eastward that is a vector upward. Nothing else on either theory. And that SHOULD have been obvious if you had not balked back from the discussion with a misunderstanding of what I did so stupid as to give the impression it was deliberate.
But perhaps geometry was not your best part of maths?
- Tom Trinko
Tuesday c. 21 :20
- Uh perhaps if you knew vector math you'd know that the magnitude of a vector is the length of the vector ie what you call the distance.
Here's what Augustine says about people like Sungenis: " Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2
Uh where did this upward vector come from? You said that the aether exerts no force on the satellite so there is only a downwards vector due to gravity
- Hans Georg Lundahl
Wednesday c. 9 :20
- No, if you had paid attention, you would have seen that the eastward vector of the satellite is really also an upward vector.
What I called the distance was NOT length of the vector, but a theoretical distance it could get east IF the eastward vector had been the only one. So, you are the one who lacks understanding of math, it is not me that St Augustine is ashamed of so far.
Resumé of vectors / distances: Original position, satellite is four units (distance) above centre of earth. Theoretical eastward distance (if eastward vector had been the only one) - let us cut that travel short three units east of original position. What is it height now? Remember, it is the new position and its distance to the centre of earth that is the height. You have two sides, one of four units, one of three units, so satellite will be now five units above centre of earth. Remember, the diagonal on the diagram is the perpendicular of the satellite. WHY is the satellite in its new position ONLY four units (like before) above centre of Earth in reality? Because of the downward vector of gravity. Which proves that the eastward vector, rightly considered, is an upward vector. Because tangential = up.
Btw, there is no such thing as Volume two of St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis. There is such a thing as BOOK two. Volumes refer to material objects, and how many such you divide his work in or how many works you assemble in one such varies from edition to edition.
So, referring to a Volume for any work ONLY makes sense if you define the edition. I therefore assume, you are not talking about St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis an Incomplete Book, but of book two in his other work On the Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books.
- Seen from here Thursday morning
- Tom Trinko
- Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing.
As to vectors you can insult me all you wish but what you're doing is wrong.
First if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so.
Second you still haven't explained what counteracts the downward pull of gravity. You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite.
In any case the simple fact you keep ignoring is that if we look up and see the satellite stationary in orbit above us and we are not moving then the satellite will fall down unless you apply a force to the satellite.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing." Or what you are doing. You see, that quote is not the only, nor even the most general quote from even just that work on relation between Bible and secular knowledge. Have you tried to see same work, book one, chapter one?
As you mentioned Sungenis, I sent him our conversiation, and he gave this reply:
- Quoting mail from Robert Sungenis
- "Hans, excuse me for getting to this so late. I think your explanation is good. Let me just add that, in the geocentric version, the Geostationary Sat is traveling 7000mph against the space, because space is traveling 7000mph around the fixed Earth. So the same equations that are used to send the Geo Sat up in the heliocentric system are going to be the same in the geocentric system."
- Back to my own words
- "if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so." I do very exactly mean strictly straight angles to the nadir. That is the VERY REASON why any eastward vector is also an upward vector, since tangential.
"You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite." No, it means that the satellite is exerting a force on itself. Inertia.
When we travel "due east," we travel on a circle on the globe that has axis for centre, like equator, and we take one of two available turns. But in each moment "due east" is also a vector tangential to earth's circular surface. This means that if that vector were all there were to our moves, we would be travelling upward, because we would be travelling tangentially.
Do you realise now, WHO of us two or you one it is who merits the scorn of not knowing anything about the universe?
- Tom Trinko
Thursday 10/VII/2014, 23:00 Paris time
- Yes sadly not only don't you understand the universe you think you do.
First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself.
Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required. Now in reality with the satellite orbiting the earth gravity exerts that force which constantly changes the direction of the satellites velocity vector. However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector. If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth. Hence when gravity acts on the satellite it pulls it straight down.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
Friday 11/VII/2014, 11:00 Paris time
- "First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself."
Forces in that strict meaning are things exerted on others. Inertia would be the corresponding thing, but exerted on oneself.
"Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required."
The force that would do so if it were not geostationary is gravity.
It is precisely because the eastward vector is NOT constantly changing direction (except in relation to a rotating aether that changes the direction back) that it is a tangential and therefore upward vector.
"However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector."
It has, as already explained above, previously, a component of velocity in relation to the rotating aether.
" If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth."
It is not stationary per se, but orbiting through an aether which is itself orbitting the other way round at same speed. So, it is only stationary per accidens.
I agree it would fall down if stationary per se.
Would you, before answering again, go through our discussion, the protocol on my blog, because I begin to fear you are about to lose memory of part a) of my argument while arguing against part b) and of part b) of my argument while arguing against part a). It reminds me of a behaviour - in their case presumably deliberate - which I have seen in not so nice persons around my life. You know, Jews, Communists, Atheists, No Popery Prots and some others like that?
[Sent him the three so far extant blogposts that are protocol of our discussion.]
- Saturday Morning 12/VII/2014 I found the end of this discussion:
- Tom Trinko
- Uh I would like it if you'd post the following:
I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.
As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- No problem, will be posted.
No apologies needed. From my p o v.
Done: [linking to first message, where I put the statement on top of it all.]