Marc Martin
02-22-2002, 11:17 AM
hi all,
i've been mostly lurking on this list, and (slowly)
reading the materials on the ascension2000 website.
certainly, i've found all of this new (to me) information
quite interesting, but this morning i read some
stuff about gravity that seems rather questionable
to me (having worked as an astrodynamics engineer
for the past 17 years). i'll quote some passages
from convergence iii, chapter 8 "keely and
the physics of vibration" and then add my 2 cents
afterwards...
>most people never consider that we see proof of this
>balanced interplay between gravity and levity every day.
>think about conventional ideas of gravity for a moment;
>it is believed to be a force that causes two objects to
>be attracted to each other. if this is the only force
>that exists, then we should expect that when two objects
>get close enough to experience gravitational attraction
>to each other, they will literally come into contact
>with each other. however, all you need to do is look
>up at the moon on any given night, and you can see the
>proof that this is not what happens! we know that the
>moon has enough of a gravitational pull that it can
>cause the oceans to move, forming the tides on the earth,
>and yet it always maintains a perfect distance from us
>with an ongoing and even orbital motion. to put it bluntly,
>if there wasn?t a constant push-pull of gravity and levity
>moving between the earth and the moon and balancing their
>positions, they would have crashed into each other long ago!
orbital motion depends on more than just gravitational forces.
it also depends on velocity and distance. so, the moon,
satellites, and the space station can all stay in a stable
orbit with respect to the earth if they are travelling
at the correct velocity for the distance they are away
from the earth. so to me, the above paragraph proves
nothing.
>another piece of evidence that is so often overlooked
>is with our satellites. there is a spherical band around
>the earth in which objects can float indefinitely. while
>they are in this area, they will not drift away from the
>earth, but they also will not drift any closer to the
>earth. in this energy belt, all of our satellites are
>placed, so that many of them do not require any propulsion
>systems to stay in orbit; once they?ve been put there,
>they will stay there indefinitely, and any propulsion
>systems are only needed for slight changes in movement,
>if at all. this area could not exist if gravity was
>simply a one-way force.
i don't even know where to start on this paragraph. as
far as i can tell, everything about it is incorrect.
firstly, there is no such spherical "energy band" where
objects can float indefinitely. there are
isolated points where the earth/moon/sun gravity
cancel each other out, but these are isolated ("libration")
points, not spherical bands. the vast majority of the
satellites launched into space are placed "geosynchronous"
(geo) orbit, but there is no special energy band here either. this
is simply a satellite orbit in which the rotational speed
about the earth is equivalent to the earth's rotational
speed about the poles, so the satellites "appear"
stationary from the ground, so you can point your
antennas (like your directv antennas) at them.
however, you can put a satellite in any orbit you'd
like and it will remain just as stable as the satellites
in geo. for example, the space shuttle remains
stable at a very low altitude, the space station
at a slightly higher altitude, the gps satellites
are at a higher altitude, and the geo satellites
are at a much higher altitude still. there is
no special "energy band" keeping them there. just
the appropriate "circular orbit velocity" for that
altitude.
>and now we have a problem with ?space junk? that floats
>around in this energy layer, due to the fact that it
>never goes away; everything that has ever been released
>in this area is something that can potentially collide
>with satellites and other objects. many satellite observatories
>on earth actively track the larger pieces of space junk to
>avoid damage to their equipment, and it is becoming more
>and more publicly known that this is growing into a very
>real problem that will need to be dealt with in the not-
>too-distant future.
yes indeed, we've had problems with space junk for
decades, and it continues to get worse, but again,
there is no special energy layer at work here...
of course, finding so many inaccuracies in a subject that
i know something about makes me wonder about the accuracy
of all these other subjects that i don't know anything about.
however, i'll continue to keep on reading... just with
a higher level of skepticism than before... :-)
marc
i've been mostly lurking on this list, and (slowly)
reading the materials on the ascension2000 website.
certainly, i've found all of this new (to me) information
quite interesting, but this morning i read some
stuff about gravity that seems rather questionable
to me (having worked as an astrodynamics engineer
for the past 17 years). i'll quote some passages
from convergence iii, chapter 8 "keely and
the physics of vibration" and then add my 2 cents
afterwards...
>most people never consider that we see proof of this
>balanced interplay between gravity and levity every day.
>think about conventional ideas of gravity for a moment;
>it is believed to be a force that causes two objects to
>be attracted to each other. if this is the only force
>that exists, then we should expect that when two objects
>get close enough to experience gravitational attraction
>to each other, they will literally come into contact
>with each other. however, all you need to do is look
>up at the moon on any given night, and you can see the
>proof that this is not what happens! we know that the
>moon has enough of a gravitational pull that it can
>cause the oceans to move, forming the tides on the earth,
>and yet it always maintains a perfect distance from us
>with an ongoing and even orbital motion. to put it bluntly,
>if there wasn?t a constant push-pull of gravity and levity
>moving between the earth and the moon and balancing their
>positions, they would have crashed into each other long ago!
orbital motion depends on more than just gravitational forces.
it also depends on velocity and distance. so, the moon,
satellites, and the space station can all stay in a stable
orbit with respect to the earth if they are travelling
at the correct velocity for the distance they are away
from the earth. so to me, the above paragraph proves
nothing.
>another piece of evidence that is so often overlooked
>is with our satellites. there is a spherical band around
>the earth in which objects can float indefinitely. while
>they are in this area, they will not drift away from the
>earth, but they also will not drift any closer to the
>earth. in this energy belt, all of our satellites are
>placed, so that many of them do not require any propulsion
>systems to stay in orbit; once they?ve been put there,
>they will stay there indefinitely, and any propulsion
>systems are only needed for slight changes in movement,
>if at all. this area could not exist if gravity was
>simply a one-way force.
i don't even know where to start on this paragraph. as
far as i can tell, everything about it is incorrect.
firstly, there is no such spherical "energy band" where
objects can float indefinitely. there are
isolated points where the earth/moon/sun gravity
cancel each other out, but these are isolated ("libration")
points, not spherical bands. the vast majority of the
satellites launched into space are placed "geosynchronous"
(geo) orbit, but there is no special energy band here either. this
is simply a satellite orbit in which the rotational speed
about the earth is equivalent to the earth's rotational
speed about the poles, so the satellites "appear"
stationary from the ground, so you can point your
antennas (like your directv antennas) at them.
however, you can put a satellite in any orbit you'd
like and it will remain just as stable as the satellites
in geo. for example, the space shuttle remains
stable at a very low altitude, the space station
at a slightly higher altitude, the gps satellites
are at a higher altitude, and the geo satellites
are at a much higher altitude still. there is
no special "energy band" keeping them there. just
the appropriate "circular orbit velocity" for that
altitude.
>and now we have a problem with ?space junk? that floats
>around in this energy layer, due to the fact that it
>never goes away; everything that has ever been released
>in this area is something that can potentially collide
>with satellites and other objects. many satellite observatories
>on earth actively track the larger pieces of space junk to
>avoid damage to their equipment, and it is becoming more
>and more publicly known that this is growing into a very
>real problem that will need to be dealt with in the not-
>too-distant future.
yes indeed, we've had problems with space junk for
decades, and it continues to get worse, but again,
there is no special energy layer at work here...
of course, finding so many inaccuracies in a subject that
i know something about makes me wonder about the accuracy
of all these other subjects that i don't know anything about.
however, i'll continue to keep on reading... just with
a higher level of skepticism than before... :-)
marc