‍ 

Dialogue on “Motionless” Satellites

(Part 1)

 

How the existence of geostationary satellites

proves that the earth rotates

 

Gary Hoge

 

In a document that has since been removed from his website, Robert Sungenis wrote:

 

The GPS satellite is stationary over the earth because the earth is stationary. The GPS satellite doesn’t need adjusting very often because there are few things that interfere with its stationary position at 22,236 miles above the earth. It doesn’t need to use large amounts of fuel, because it doesn’t move.

 

This prompted me to write the following question to Mr. Sungenis: “What I’d like to know is how it became stationary. The people who launched the GPS satellites believed that the earth rotates, and so they placed their satellites into an orbit at which they circle the earth once every day, believing that this would result in a geosynchronous orbit. But if, as you say, those satellites are currently not moving at all, if they somehow went from 6,856 mph to 0 mph (without anybody noticing), what stopped them?”

 

This exchange led to the following dialogue:

 

On the basis of “proof” required of the challenge, the question you propose does not “prove” the case of heliocentrism.

 

I believe that it does, for reasons I’ll make clear momentarily. But first, as I understand it, the real issue we’re discussing here isn’t GPS satellites in particular, but geosynchronous satellites in general, right? I mean, I’m assuming you just chose GPS satellites as a convenient example, right? Well, if so, we’re going to have to pick a different example because I did a little research, and it turns out that the GPS satellites are not in geosynchronous orbits. There are 24 satellites in the GPS network, operating in six different orbital planes, but each GPS satellite orbits at an altitude of only about 12,000 miles (about half the altitude of a geosynchronous satellite) and makes two complete orbits of the earth in less than 24 hours. So let’s forget the GPS satellites and consider instead a truly geosynchronous satellite, such as a Telstar communication satellite.

 

It merely poses the hypothetical problem of how a GPS creator or administrator could properly send a satellite into position if he is doing so under the presumption that the earth is rotating. I will answer that question more in the “Third” answer. But for now, your question must assume that the earth is rotating and/or assume that the GPS is moving at 6800 mph in order for your question to reach the level of proof you are requiring from it. But in either assumption, you are begging the question. What you will need as proof for your claim is direct evidence from the GPS creators or administrators that the GPS is actually moving at 6800 mph (which it must if the earth is rotating). Once that is proven, then you can make a good case that the earth is in rotation. My assertion that the GPS would have to be moving at 6800 is merely the physical requirement for it to be geosynchronous with the earth, if, as it is supposed, the earth is in 24 hour rotation.

 

And my assertion is that a geosynchronous satellite must move at about 6,800 mph whether the earth rotates or not. That’s simply the speed it has to maintain in order to maintain its orbital altitude of 22,240 miles. Any slower and it would fall into a lower orbit. Any faster and it would rise to a higher orbit.

 

A satellite orbiting a celestial body follows a very simple equation of orbital motion, and that equation is independent of the rotational velocity (if any) of the celestial body itself. Put simply, a satellite in orbit around the earth doesn’t care whether the earth is rotating beneath it or not. It moves at a velocity proportionate to its distance from the earth, and that is just as true of the Telstar satellite orbiting at 22,240 miles as it is of a Space Shuttle orbiting at only 300 miles. Each of those machines will move around the earth according to the equation v = SQRT (GM / r), where v is the velocity of the satellite, G is the universal gravitational constant, M is the mass of the earth, and r is the distance of the satellite from the center of the earth.

 

It’s easy to determine from this equation that in order for the Space Shuttle to maintain an orbital distance from the earth of 300 miles, it must travel at a velocity of 17,058 mph. And in order for the Telstar satellite to maintain an orbital distance from the earth of 22,240 miles, it must travel at a velocity of 6,879 mph. That’s true whether the earth is rotating or not. The fact that such satellites appear not to move relative to the surface of the earth simply proves that the earth is rotating.

 

You know as well as I do that a satellite has to keep moving in its orbit or it will fall (in fact, an orbit is nothing but a free-fall toward a planet whose surface is always curving out of the way), and so in order to maintain that geosynchronous satellites don’t actually orbit the earth at all, but just levitate up there in space, you assert that as luck would have it there just happens to be a mysterious gravitational force at 22,240 miles from the earth that just happens to precisely balance the gravitational attraction of the earth at that altitude. Now, it seems to me, with all due respect, that you are simply manufacturing “facts” to fit your theory, pulling imaginary forces out of thin air simply because you need such forces to exist. But assertion is not proof. I’ve proved from simple orbital mechanics and from the fact that equatorial satellites with a 24-hour orbital period are stationary with respect to the surface of the earth that the earth does rotate, and unless you can prove that the hypothetical (and suspiciously convenient) gravitational force you’ve made up really does exist, you owe me a thousand bucks. :-)

 

And I must caution that proof cannot be merely a statement from the GPS creators and administrators that the GPS must be moving at 6800 since it must keep up with the earth’s rotation, for that is also begging the question, being that it assumes one unproven fact in order to prove another.

 

Correct, and that’s why I don’t claim that the Telstar satellite must be moving at 6,800 mph in order to keep up with the earth’s rotation. I claim instead that it must be moving that fast in order to maintain its orbital altitude above the earth, whether the earth rotates or not. The fact that it does keep up with the earth’s rotation at that altitude merely proves that the earth is rotating, and it confirms that the scientists who chose an orbital altitude that would give their satellite an orbital period of 24 hours knew what they were doing.

 

The evidence that the GPS is moving at 6800 mph must be an independent, technical and verifiable source of information apart from the mere opinion of the creators or administrators.

 

You can verify Telstar’s velocity yourself simply by applying the elementary laws of orbital mechanics to the known parameters of the satellite’s orbit (i.e., its distance from the earth).

 

But here’s the rub: The only way one could prove that a GPS satellite is moving at 6800 is to first prove there exists a stationary inertial framework against which to calibrate a speed of 6800 mph. Since in a heliocentric system there is no absolute inertial framework due to the fact that heliocentric theory posits that all the heavenly bodies are in relative motion, then there is no absolute inertial framework to measure a speed of 6800 mph.

 

That’s true, I suppose, but I don’t see how it makes any difference to my argument. Just to make things simpler, let’s pretend there’s no sun and no stars or planets. Let’s pretend there’s just the earth sitting motionless in space with a satellite orbiting it. At a given altitude, the satellite must go around the earth at a given speed. It doesn’t matter whether the earth itself is rotating or not. However, if we put a satellite into an equatorial orbit, and if we give it an orbital period of 24 hours, and if it maintains a fixed position relative to the surface of the earth, we have our proof that the earth rotates. But either way, if you want to keep a satellite at an orbital altitude of 22,240 miles above the earth, it must make a complete circle around the earth’s axis every 24 hours, whether the earth itself makes such a circle or not.

 

In regards to the GPS, scientists know that it requires little thrust and little adjustment to keep the satellites where they are.

 

Of course. The only force acting on a satellite in orbit is the force of the earth’s gravity. It’s true that because earth’s mass isn’t uniformly distributed, there are minor fluctuations in the gravitational field, and this can cause minor variances in the satellite’s orbit. But that’s why satellites carry an onboard propulsion system with enough fuel to make minor adjustments to its orbit for many years.

 

They can’t explain it, for their classical understanding of physics requires sufficient amounts of thrust because of the speed required

 

Not really. Thrust is only required to maintain speed if there’s some force acting to retard that speed, which there isn’t in space. Once a satellite is accelerated to its proper orbital velocity by a booster rocket, its inertia will carry it around the earth for years. Haven’t you noticed that space stations like Mir and the International Space Station orbit the earth for decades even though they don’t have an engine?

 

as well as the necessary adjustments required against the centrifugal and coriolis forces acting upon the GPS

 

Both “centrifugal force” and “coriolis force” are fictitious forces that are the by-product of measuring coordinates with respect to a rotating coordinate system. They aren’t actual “pushes” or “pulls” acting upon the satellite, and so they don’t require any thrust to overcome. Further, all geosynchronous satellites orbit at the equator, and there’s no coriolis force at the equator (which is why hurricanes, whose rotation is a result of the earth’s rotation, can’t form within 500 miles of it).

 

and the required adjustments against solar disturbances such as solar wind, etc.

 

Such disturbances are negligible, but satellites do have onboard propulsion systems to compensate for such minor perturbations of their orbits. For example, the TRIAD satellite corrects for the minute accelerations due to radiation pressure and the minuscule drag of the atmosphere by using a device consisting of a small sphere inside a cavity. The position of the sphere is sensed by capacitors and any displacement towards the cavity walls results in a small thrust being applied by a thruster on the satellite to recenter the cavity about the sphere.

 

But instead of admitting this anomaly, they just keep thinking that the earth is rotating and that the satellite somehow manages to keep in alignment with the earth and can be adjusted with little difficulty.

 

Hopefully I have shown that this isn’t an anomaly at all. It’s easy to keep a satellite in a constant orbit around the earth because there isn’t much out there to disturb such an orbit.

 

All this leads to the conclusion, or at least an equally plausible conclusion, that, from the Geocentric perspective, what is REALLY happening with regards to the GPS is that the GPS satellites are moving against the inertial framework of the stars and their forces, not the earth.

 

Well, that’s exactly what heliocentrism asserts. It asserts that the stars are an inertial frame of reference and that the earth moves and rotates within this frame. It is geocentrism that denies the stars form an inertial frame of reference. In geocentrism the earth itself is an inertial framework. Everything else is in non-inertial acceleration.

 

By “inertial framework” we mean the foundation from which a moving body exerts its escape force and thereby moves away from that foundation. In other words, the GPS is revolving every 24 hours with respect to the stars, but not the earth, since the earth is stationary.

 

And I still say that unless you can prove the existence of a hypothetical gravitational force that just happens to precisely balance the earth’s gravity at an altitude of 22,240 miles, which by a remarkable coincidence is exactly the altitude at which a satellite would orbit the earth once a day, a stationary satellite over a stationary earth is an impossibility.

 

In the Geocentric framework, it is the stars which are moving in circular orbit around the earth, and it is the gravity of the stars (or any forces caused by revolving stars) which provide the inertial framework for any moving object on or near the earth.

 

I don’t understand your use of terminology here. An “inertial framework” is simply a coordinate system that is not accelerating. Either it’s moving at a constant velocity, or it’s stationary. Therefore, I don’t understand what you mean when you say “the gravity of the stars . . . provide[s] the inertial framework for any moving object on or near the earth.” In a true inertial framework, all objects will obey the law of inertia and they won’t spontaneously change their velocity in response to apparent forces. Only real forces will alter their velocity. That’s one way we can demonstrate that the earth moves. Hurricanes rotate and rivers change their course in response to Coriolis force, which isn’t a real force.

 

At any rate, your claim that the gravity of the stars acts on “any moving object on or near the earth” is a disproof of your own theory. If the stars are exerting a force strong enough to hold a four-ton satellite in a stationary position above the earth, they would also exert nearly the same force against satellites in lower orbits. But no such force is observed. Their motion is completely accounted for by the simple laws of universal gravitation. Further, when the Apollo spacecraft went from the earth to the moon, its velocity was completely accounted for by the gravitational attraction of the earth and the moon. (The spacecraft was continuously decelerating as it moved away from the earth until it reached a point where the lunar gravity was stronger than the terrestrial gravity, at which point the spacecraft started to accelerate toward the moon). If the stars were exerting the same force on the Apollo spacecraft that they allegedly exert on a geosynchronous satellite, the Apollo spacecraft would have been going significantly faster than expected when it reached the moon.

 

Hence, in the Geocentric framework, when the technician sends up his GPS, he is encountering real forces - forces against which he must operate the GPS. He must calculate how much thrust he needs; the inertial values; and all the other things that will be required to keep the GPS moving against the tidal forces of the stars (although, because he believes the earth is rotating, he thinks he is merely making calculations against the centrifugal and Coriolis effects between the object and the earth).

 

As I’ve already said, a satellite in orbit encounters almost no resistance to its motion, not from “centrifugal effects,” not from “Coriolis effects,” and certainly not from “tidal forces of the stars,” which would be quite negligible given their distance. That’s why a space station like Russia’s Mir was able to stay in orbit for decades without an engine. There was almost no force acting against it to retard its motion. (Because of its relatively low altitude, there was some minuscule atmospheric drag on the station, which eventually brought it down, but if it had been orbiting at a geosynchronous altitude, it would have orbited probably forever.)

 

Since the inertial force from the stars at 22,000 miles would be in equilibrium with the gravity of the earth, the GPS satellite can virtually hover above the earth at 22,000 miles with little thrust and little adjustment.

 

I don’t get it. You complain (wrongly) that orbital motion is caused by “centrifugal force,” which is a fictitious force, but then you explain the motion (or lack of it) of a geosynchronous satellite by appealing to “inertial force from the stars”? Surely you know that the phrase “inertial force” means “fictitious force,” don’t you?

 

At any rate, don’t you think it’s a rather remarkable coincidence that the alleged “inertial force from the stars” just happens to precisely balance the gravity of the earth at exactly the same altitude at which a satellite would orbit the earth once a day if the earth rotated? Doesn’t that raise a red flag for you? It sure does for me.

 

This also leads to the fact that in modern heliocentric physics and cosmology, the centrifugal force, which is supposedly the only thing keeping the GPS in orbit, is really a fictitious force, since centrifugal force regards only relative motion, not independent motion.

 

Inertia and centripetal acceleration are what keep a satellite in orbit, not “centrifugal force.” “Centrifugal force” is the apparent force you feel when your car makes a tight turn and you feel like you’re being pulled toward the outside of the turn. What’s really happening is your body’s inertia wants to keep your body moving in a straight line, but your car’s seat, to which your body is strapped, is turning with the car and won’t let it. Likewise, a satellite’s inertia wants to keep the satellite moving in a straight line, but the gravity of the earth pulling on it (centripetal acceleration) causes its path to be bent into a circular motion. There’s no need to appeal to fictitious forces to account for the motion of a satellite (except, apparently, in a geocentric universe). Its inertia, combined with the very real gravitational force of the earth, account for it quite nicely.

 

This is interesting. Even though scientists believe that the earth is kept in its orbit around the sun due to the sun’s strong gravitational pull, and that the tides on earth are caused by the strong gravitational pull of the moon, this scientist claims that such forces can be neglected when sending up satellites. Oh really? If the moon can pull on the earth’s water with such tremendous force, how is it that it can’t pull on a satellite that is 22,000 miles closer to the moon than it is to the earth?

 

The moon does pull on the satellite, but the effect is negligible. Recall that the gravitational attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their masses, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The earth and the moon are both quite massive, and so they exert significant gravitational forces on each other. But a satellite’s mass is negligible in comparison. Telstar 6, for example, weights just 3,700 kg. Assuming that this satellite is orbiting at a geosynchronous altitude of 35,870 km, it’s easy to calculate that at the point in its orbit where it’s closest to the moon the gravitational force exerted on the satellite by the moon would be a whopping 15 grams. That’s half an ounce. And that’s why you can neglect the gravitational attraction of the moon when you plot a satellite’s orbit.

 

Notice also that he again makes reference to the “Earth-centered” frame of reference. How can he do so this time? Because he has commandeered general relativity’s equivalence principle.” What is the equivalence principle? It’s the principle that allows them to change frames of reference at will; whatever one suits them will be fine. It says, for example, that, if you fall to the ground, you can’t tell whether you fell toward the ground or the ground came up and hit you. Both are “equivalent,” and in a universe with only relative motion, not inertial motion, one cannot prove one proposition over the other. Do you see how much absurdity is created when you deny that the Earth is fixed? One can say that the Earth hit him, not that he fell to the ground! We put people in insane asylums for less than that!

 

These days we put them there for saying that the earth doesn’t rotate. :-)

 

But seriously, I don’t see why you have a problem with the idea of relative motion. We use such ideas all the time. For example, if you want to design an airplane you don’t have to test your wing by moving it through still air at a hundred miles per hour. Instead, you can treat the airplane as fixed and use a wind tunnel. The result is the same either way. The wing will fly if air goes over it at a certain relative speed, and it doesn’t matter whether that’s caused by the motion of the airplane or the motion of the air itself. That’s why pilots tie their planes down.

 

One more thing before I leave this topic. The difference between the Geocentric and Heliocentric concepts is important, for one of the major flaws in modern heliocentric theory is the failure to account for the effect of the stars on all the motions we see. Modern science has virtually dismissed the effect of forces from the stars,

 

Because they are negligible.

 

and instead has based its solar cosmology almost entirely on the so-called “centrifugal effects” created by the planets in motion. But this is inevitable, since once you posit that the stars are “fixed” (as modern cosmology does) then the only thing you have left to determine why solar and terrestrial objects move in the rotational paths they do is by the supposed centrifugal effect.

 

Not at all. Planets and satellites move the way they do because of their own inertia and because of the force of gravity acting upon them. It’s really not that complicated.

 

And thus, all of the modern heliocentric physics seeking to understand rotational motion is based on a fictitious force, which is not very comforting for anyone wishing to have solid answers for why things work the way they do.

 

As I said, there’s no need to appeal to fictitious forces to explain the motion of the earth or the planets. Those bodies move the way they do because of the very real force of gravitational attraction. It seems to me that it is you who is attempting to explain the existence of geosynchronous satellites by appealing to a fictitious force.

 

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3