Geosynchronous orbits

On May 12, 11:27 pm, Dave Typinski <möb...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

A proof closer to home is to examine the relationship of satellite
orbit altitude and orbit period.

To do a full orbit in one solar day, they'd have to be either a)
higher by about 80 km or b) the Earth would have to be lighter by
about 3x10^19 metric tons.

Since they aren't higher and Earth isn't lighter, they don't orbit in
one solar day, but in a sidereal day. Since they're geostationary,
the Earth itself must complete one rotatation in one sidereal day, not
in one solar day. QED.


A satellite moving parallel with daily rotation at the Equator and
with a speed coincident with a polar to polar meridian can be said to
be rotational geostationary but not truly geostationary

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/11/video/b

The change in orientation of the rings of Uranus with respect to the
central Sun is actual and not an illusion due to any influence of the
Earth's own motion or a changing perspective .A satellite in Earth's
orbit cannot be said to be geostationary without considering its
motion along the orbital circumference as it moves with the planet
around the Sun where,in order to maintain a fixed relationship to
terrestrial longitude meridians,it must turn slowly with respect to
the central Sun just as the rings of Uranus and its orbiting moon do.

The dynamicists already know this through polar sun-synchronious
orbits,at least in a rough way, but as they omit the orbital specific,
they dump the explanation into the equatorial bulge or some other
worthless guess -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-synchronous_orbit

The idea of a constant reference to solar radiation inclination is
appealing as the older reference for the seasons was based on variable
inclination off daily rotation to the central Sun and it still
remains the bottleneck for recognising and using the orbital
specific.

I seriously do not know why or how intelligent people are willing to
ignore the orbital specific in order to maintain a direct correlation
between daily rotation and a celestial sphere architecture,I can point
out that the equatorial coordinate system is a handy convenience for
locating objects using the calendar system but is creating havoc for
explaining what is happening between daily and orbital motions.































Rotation is only absolute when referenced to the fixed stars. Rotation
referenced to other frames is valid and useful, but it's relative
rotation, not absolute.

A nifty resource:http://www.1728.com/kepler3a.htm

--
Dave
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fair orbital question
    ... orbits the central Sun ?. ... It works exactly the same as your .jpgs of the orbit of Uranus, ... Earth of about 23 degrees), and over a long period of time there is ... consistent with Kepler's view of orbital motion and geometry. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Astronomers and Dynamicists required
    ... radio tuned to WWV. ... After the fact that the Earth is round is that the Earth is rotating ... celestial sphere and orbital motion to the central Sun as opposed to ... background and daily rotation to the central Sun but nobody even has ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: SATELLITE DEBRIS UPDATE & WORM MOON
    ... daily rotation through 360 degrees to the central Sun it generates the ... The occurrence of seasons on the Earth is due to ...    A. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Astronomers and Dynamicists required
    ... After the fact that the Earth is round is that the Earth is rotating ... assigned for that rotation is wrong with the reasoning based on ... celestial sphere and orbital motion to the central Sun as opposed to ... background and daily rotation to the central Sun but nobody even has ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Colonizing space?
    ... our fair share of thorium for the clean energy that it can deliver. ... users anywhere on demand, improves life on Earth, by lowering the cost ... into Earth orbit, and using nuclear pulse lifters to place significant ... The moon as already stated must be mined and is at the bottom of a ...
    (sci.space.policy)