Satellites : general discussion and musings

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
The_White_Lodge
Banned
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by The_White_Lodge »

On the feasibility of orbiting satellites

As with my first post on rocketry in a vacuum (http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2404517#p2404517) I am aiming to get at the essence of why the orthodox narrative cannot be the reality in question. A perfect example of such, which I'm sure all of you are familiar with, is that a hollow aluminum body cannot slice through steel and concrete, and so we can say without a shadow of a doubt, that the 2001 psyop event was fraud, no "occam's razor" needed.

I wish to crystalize the magician's deceit and expose the illusion once and for all. There has been a great wealth of discussion on this thread, and any thinking being who has read through it would surely have developed hearty suspicion if not downright incredulity against the official claims of satellites. However, I think that there is a critical point which has gone unsaid or has been understated which needs to be addressed.

In order for a satellite to theoretically sustain orbit it must attain speeds upwards of 27,000 kilometers per hour. If anyone plans on doing calculations regarding the point I will make, let us say that the satellite is traveling 30,000 kilometers per hour. The rounded numbers will make for ease of mathematical analysis.

Now anyone who is familiar with Newton's law of gravitation knows that the force of gravity exerts itself on every part of an object independently and that the sum of these forces are understood as acting as a whole on the object's center of gravity. Were satellites designed as a cohesive sphere or some other polyhedral shape, then the point I am about to make would be poor. But, most of these designs are highly elongated shapes which could never withstand the inertial forces that they would be subjected to. Consider some examples:


Image
The International Space Station


Image
Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2


Image
Jason 1


Image
Sentinel 3



In these designs we see particular tension points where two large components of the object are held together by something like a small rod. These rods would supposedly function to balance any differential of forces that would be exerted on the respective components they hold together. But, there is no material on Earth which is strong enough to withstand the forces required by such designs. Specifically, I am referring to the centripetal force, which is related to the “push” one experiences when one goes around a sharp turn in a car.

It seems many people are under the impression that once a certain velocity is attained by a satellite it will be smoothly set into orbit never to be disturbed by the forces of gravity again. They must not know that an orbiting object would have an elliptical orbit, not a perfectly circular one and that even discounting the motion of the Earth, such an elliptical orbit would regularly accelerate and decelerate such an object. However, the Earth itself is not stationary, and in fact it has a tangential velocity of about 100,000 kilometers per hour as it moves around the Sun and it also has an elliptical orbit where when it is closer to the Sun it moves faster and when it is further from the Sun it moves slower.

Consider the scenario where an orbiting satellite with an average velocity of 30,000 kilometers per hour is moving along the opposite vector as the tangential vector of the Earth as it is traveling around the Sun, a situation which would occur once per orbit. At this instant the orbiting object and the Earth are moving away from each other at around 130,000 kilometers per hour, and as momentum must be conserved, this would cause a rapid deceleration of the orbiting object and this rapid deceleration would not be experienced evenly through the entire object, since it’s respective components would have different mass and with different mass there would different magnitudes of the centripetal force acting upon them. It is then the job of the small rods to handle the stress of transferring these forces through the components it holds together. But, the centripetal force is governed by the equation:

Image

and the velocity at that instant would be 130,000 kilometers per hour, which means even a tenth of a percent difference in the mass of the two components would result in the more massive component being subjected to a force much greater than the less massive component. So, if even the lighter component had a mass of 1 kilogram and the heavier component had a mass of 1.001 kilograms then the rod would be subject to a 1,000,000 Newtons at this instant which is about 225,000 pounds of force. But, no material on Earth could allow for a single rod to uphold 225,000 lbs without failing, and the claimed satellites would have components which would have mass differentials much greater than a hundredth of a kilogram, and so the official narrative would require these rods to be subjected to forces many times greater than 225,000 pounds of force.

Therefore, even if it were practically possible to attain the extravagant speed and altitude necessary for orbit, such an object as those above would be instantaneously ripped apart.

Let us be clear then that were any of the above objects to orbit at all, they would orbit in pieces.

In my personal opinion, some of these designs look so flimsy I wouldn't trust walking under them on a windy day.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by agraposo »

The_White_Lodge,

your calculations are made using standard physics applied to outer space, Newton's laws, Galilean relativity, etc., so it is all a complete nonsense. The only way to verify those calculations would be to put a manmade object out there, and this hasn't been done, otherwise there would be real images from space.
The_White_Lodge
Banned
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by The_White_Lodge »

Agraposo,

My argument was written for those who take the work of Galileo, Kepler and Newton seriously. Since it is all "complete nonsense" to you, perhaps you could provide a better explanation as to why the Moon orbits the Earth than they have done.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by agraposo »

There is ample information in this forum regarding Newton's errors, other possible explanations for gravity, including a stationary Earth (rotating, but not translating). I say that physical laws as described by scientists are only valid in our environment. Those laws can apply to objects in outer space based on terrestrial observations of the sky, like comets, planets and binary stars. But those laws can't apply to manmade objects in outer space, that hasn't been tested (otherwise please provide proofs). I guess NASA or the military won't tell us what is the maximum altitude achieved by any manmade object :)
The_White_Lodge
Banned
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by The_White_Lodge »

Agraposo,

I never said that the work of Galileo, Kepler and Newton was a complete and perfect system and that the Laws of Nature do not extend beyond their theories. In fact, I am certain that Newton's framework was incomplete, the best proof of which is the fact that he could not use his differential equations to accurately model the solar system, and neither has anyone since.

I do hope to discuss what I believe is the next step in understanding Nature beyond his genius work, but that is irrelevant for now to the argument I laid out. There is nothing magical about an object being 400 kilometers in the sky where the laws of gravity and motion suddenly change. Classical mechanics is perfectly adequate to disprove the official narrative regarding satellites. To start getting into theories regarding stationary Earth and undoing heliocentricism, would only dilute any effort to clearly demonstrate that the official narrative is logically inconsistent and therefore fraud.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by agraposo »

The_White_Lodge » 01 Nov 2017, 21:03 wrote:Classical mechanics is perfectly adequate to disprove the official narrative regarding satellites.
The official narrative is fraud, as you say, because the images, like the ones you posted, are fake. I wouldn't waste my time applying terrestrial physics to imaginary objects in space.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1243
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

The_White_Lodge wrote:Now anyone who is familiar with Newton's law of gravitation knows that the force of gravity exerts itself on every part of an object independently and that the sum of these forces are understood as acting as a whole on the object's center of gravity. Were satellites designed as a cohesive sphere or some other polyhedral shape, then the point I am about to make would be poor. But, most of these designs are highly elongated shapes which could never withstand the inertial forces that they would be subjected to...
You are bringing up an interesting point which deserves to be further explored, although, as others have pointed out, we know next to nothing about how gravitation would affect a manmade object in orbit.
The_White_Lodge wrote:However, the Earth itself is not stationary, and in fact it has a tangential velocity of about 100,000 kilometers per hour as it moves around the Sun and it also has an elliptical orbit where when it is closer to the Sun it moves faster and when it is further from the Sun it moves slower.
[...]
Consider the scenario where an orbiting satellite with an average velocity of 30,000 kilometers per hour is moving along the opposite vector as the tangential vector of the Earth as it is traveling around the Sun, a situation which would occur once per orbit. At this instant the orbiting object and the Earth are moving away from each other at around 130,000 kilometers per hour...
I have a problem with your satellite acceleration/deceleration scenario: I get the math, but it´s like you are calculating acceleration from an absolute point of reference outside the earth/satellite system. If the satellite and the earth are "locked together", and there is no significant non-terrestrial force acting on the satellite within millions of miles, then the tangential velocity of the earth [allegedly] going around the Sun is as irrelevant for a satellite as it is for a conventional airplane.

Correct me if I am wrong.
The_White_Lodge
Banned
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by The_White_Lodge »

Agraposo,

I agree the imagery and media fakery is all that anyone needs to see that NASA is a lie, but there are many people out there who far too entranced to "see" that. Many of these people however are willing to engage in dialogue, and often they become particularly enthusiastic with debunking any case against NASA. My aim is to do what I can to aid those who will make the case against NASA with as concise and effective an argument as possible.



Flabbergasted,

Thank you for bringing this up. I think your criticism may be correct and that the Earth's motion may be discounted. If that is discounted, then this would require the differential in weight between the two components held together by the rod to be around 20 times my original estimation, which would require at least a 2 percent differential in weight for the rod to be subject to 225,000 lbs of force.



Simon,

I still have not gotten a chance to read through the thread on your "SSSS system." Please instruct me where I may comment on that topic since that thread is now closed.
The_White_Lodge
Banned
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by The_White_Lodge »

All,

After considering what other errors I may have made in response of Flabbergasted's critique I realize that I have made a grave error in my calculations and in fact I neglected to divide by the radius (67,000,000 meters) which would render the centripetal acceleration for this object at 30,000 kilometers per hour only a little more than 10 meters per second, which is only slightly more than Earth's gravity.

If my admission of failure here be taken on good faith, I ask you all for a second chance to lay out a new argument which will fulfill my initial purpose.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7339
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by simonshack »

The_White_Lodge wrote: Simon,
I still have not gotten a chance to read through the thread on your "SSSS system." Please instruct me where I may comment on that topic since that thread is now closed.
Dear WL, it is closed for a reason - as that thread was (for me at least) just a 'training ground' of sorts where I posted my cosmic musings - and growing concerns regarding the geometrically problematic impossible Copernican model (which we were all taught in school). Since then, I've made quite some progress - and will soon publish my results. Til then, please hold back your comments on that topic - as I'd rather spend my writing time finishing my thesis ... :) -Thanks for your kind comprehension .
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

This article in Japanese http://www.sankei.com/premium/news/1711 ... 15-n1.html is in reference to a new technological effort to create, of all things, artificial meteor showers. The idea is, apparently, that satellites (rather than balloons or other aircraft or somesuch) will be used (as far as I can tell) to unload some kind of firework which streaks across the sky like your traditional shooting star.

I suppose this is another way to reinforce the conventional idea of satellites.
The_White_Lodge
Banned
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:01 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by The_White_Lodge »

I would just like to clarify further the error of my initial post here. The force of gravity on any object is proportionate to its mass, meaning that mass differences of any two disconnected objects is irrelevant which is why a two bowling balls of different mass dropped from the same height will reach the ground at the same time.

What is not trivial is the length of an elongated object and thus the potential difference in radius between the Earth and its ends, and this would include my initial idea of two components of different masses on an object connected by a single rod. However, the length of that rod would have to be considerable for this to generate a significantly different magnitude of force on each respective component it connects. Even in this case, the difference in force would not rip apart the object instantaneously as I initially suggested, but rather it might create an oscillation of motion or general instability in the object, perhaps rendering it completely useless for any practical purpose.

Whether this would be true of satellites as we are told they are designed would be a subtle and controversial calculation, and so it is not likely to serve as the crux of any objection to the official narrative as I had hoped.
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

The_White_Lodge » November 25th, 2017, 3:02 am wrote:I would just like to clarify further the error of my initial post here. The force of gravity on any object is proportionate to its mass, meaning that mass differences of any two disconnected objects is irrelevant which is why a two bowling balls of different mass dropped from the same height will reach the ground at the same time.

What is not trivial is the length of an elongated object and thus the potential difference in radius between the Earth and its ends, and this would include my initial idea of two components of different masses on an object connected by a single rod. However, the length of that rod would have to be considerable for this to generate a significantly different magnitude of force on each respective component it connects. Even in this case, the difference in force would not rip apart the object instantaneously as I initially suggested, but rather it might create an oscillation of motion or general instability in the object, perhaps rendering it completely useless for any practical purpose.

Whether this would be true of satellites as we are told they are designed would be a subtle and controversial calculation, and so it is not likely to serve as the crux of any objection to the official narrative as I had hoped.
Thanks for the clarification. Although gravity is a controversial science as well. Please see our thread on the matter: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1641

There are plenty of other ways in which NASA's science contradicts itself in ways that break the premise of their false achievements, as we have been posting about and reviewing for years. You may want to review them. There may be some ideas that are new to you, which you benefit from. Thank you.
Peter
Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Peter »

The_White_Lodge has a good point. Kepler and Newton can be criticized but more modern theories of people like Einstein seem to be largely fantasies and hypotheses. Historically man has changed his view of the violence of the universe imo depending on the current zeitgeist. Now of course, due to the space travel and satellite lie, it has to be a place of calm. The near universe at least. So we see the space station appearing still and peaceful and the old space shuttle gliding peacefully up to it to dock. In reality both would have to be traveling at tens of thousand of miles an hour and would have such energy that they could easily rip each other apart on contact. That is if they had magically survived being ripped apart on their own much earlier.
kickstones
Member
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by kickstones »

Peter » December 3rd, 2017, 11:08 pm wrote:. Now of course, due to the space travel and satellite lie, it has to be a place of calm.

According to this drivel put out by a fantasist in the article below its maybe not going to be a place of calm in this part of the universe much longer.

The Magnetic Field Is Shifting. The Poles May Flip. This Could Get Bad. :o

The shield that protects the Earth from solar radiation is under attack from within.
01.26.2018 / By Alanna Mitchell

https://undark.org/article/books-alanna ... ng-magnet/

This essay is adapted from...

“The Spinning Magnet: The Electromagnetic Force That Created the Modern World — and Could Destroy It,” :o
by Alanna Mitchell, to be published on January 30

A few extracts.......

When next the poles change places, the consequences for the electrical and electronic infrastructure that runs civilization will be dire. :o

The question is when that will happen.

In the past few decades, geophysicists have tried to answer that question through satellite imagery and math. They have figured out how to peer deep inside the Earth, to the edge of the molten, metallic core where the magnetic field is continually being generated.

The latest satellite data, from the European Space Agency’s Swarm trio, :rolleyes: which began reporting in 2014, show that a battle is raging at the edge of the core. Like factions planning a coup, swirling clusters of molten iron and nickel are gathering strength and draining energy from the dipole.

Scientists can’t say for sure that is happening now ....


But they can say that the phenomenon is intensifying and that they can’t rule out the possibility that a reversal is beginning.

How bad could it be?

Scientists have never established a link between previous pole reversals and catastrophes like mass extinctions. But the world of today is not the world of 780,000 years ago, when the poles last reversed......

Add cosmic and ultraviolet radiation to this mix, and the consequences for life on Earth could be ruinous.

And the perils are not just biological...

Because grids are so tightly coupled with each other, failure would race across the globe, causing a domino run of blackouts that could last for decades.

No lights. No computers. No cellphones. Even flushing a toilet or filling a car’s gas tank would be impossible. And that’s just for starters....

And private satellite operators aren’t collating and sharing information about how their electronics are withstanding space radiation, a practice that could help everyone protect their gear. :)

It’s time to wake up to the dangers and start preparing.
:lol:
Post Reply