Does the contradiction contain proof that the Earth is NOT rotating?
Here is a brief explanation of the “Space Elevator”:
It’s the idea of tethering a cable from a geostationary satellite to a platform on the earths’ equator and driving payloads up the cable to geostationary altitudes and above for the purposes of placing satellites into orbit and beyond.
Here is the fundamental concept of Space Elevators attributed to the inventor of this concept Konstantine Tsiolkovsky from Wikipedia. This concept would absolutely be true, IF the earth were rotating:
Objects would attain orbital velocity as they rode up the tower, and an object released at the tower’s top would also have the velocity necessary to remain in geostationary orbit. (Konstantine Tsiolkovsky Russian scientist in 1895 who originally came up with the concept.)
This concept is becoming main stream now being pursued by NASA, The ESA, Japan, with scientist like Michio Kaku and others also onboard with the concept.
This concept of attaining higher tangential velocities the higher up you go, (though fictitious of course regarding our earth), would be absolutely true, IF, the earth were really rotating. It is what you would expect. It’s a fact, the farther out you go from the axis of a rotating body the faster your tangential velocity.
Now, let’s look at the process of launching geostationary satellites; a launch process that can take anywhere from one to three hours to complete.
Ideally you want to launch eastward as close to the equator as you can (supposedly to take advantage of the 1,000 mph boost you get from the earth’s rotation; more on that in a minute). You put the space craft into a Low Earth Orbit, which is a circular orbit, at about 200 to 300 miles up at a speed of 17,500 mph and a 90 minute orbital period.
Then from the opposite side of the earth, that you want the final position of the satellite to be in, you start a Geostationary Transfer maneuver, which is one-half of a highly elliptical orbit called a Geostationary Transfer Orbit, aka Hohmann Transfer Orbit, whose perigee (closest to earth) is in Low Earth Orbit and whose apogee (farthest from earth) is the ultimate destination orbit; the Geostationary Orbit, 22,236 miles up.
From the Low Earth Orbit an engine (burn) takes place to accelerate the eastward moving satellite from 17,500 mph to about 22,700 mph. The satellite then coasts and continually slows the rest of the way due to earths’ gravity with maybe a burn or two along the way as it heads toward the geostationary orbit altitude.
Just as it reaches the geostationary altitude its speed is about 3,600 mph, it will then fire its “apogee kick” motor. That motor is fired to accelerate the satellite and circularize the orbit bringing it to its final geostationary altitude of 22,236 miles up with an orbital speed of 6,856 mph and an orbital period of 24 hours.
I have a question: How is it that the satellite needs to be accelerated at the geostationary altitude? Wouldn’t you really need to be slamming on the brakes big time. Remember, according to the space elevator people the needed velocity is already built-in. If the earth is really rotating, the higher you go the faster you go. Just by going straight up at the equator will give you the velocity that you need. Yet here we have a space craft that has to be accelerated thousands of miles per hour adding greatly to its already inherent tangential speed???
Why doesn’t this data that I have been able to find, from geostationary launches make any mention of this phenomenon? Oh, they’ll in passing mention the supposed 1,000 MPH boost they get from launching west to east “taking advantage of the earths’ rotation”, (I mean, everybody knows that the earth rotates right? Gotta throw in the obligatory rotating earth thing) but that’s all they say about it. That’s it! It’s not mentioned again.
IF… the earth is really rotating, this would be a real phenomenon! Not just an aside. If the earth is really rotating, then it is a real thing that would greatly impact the calculations for putting up of a geostationary satellite; it doesn’t seem to be accounted for in the launch data. It’s not just the gain of 1,000 MPH at the earths’ surface that would impact their calculations, it’s the 6,856 miles per hour at geostationary orbit altitude that would really impact their calculations; a reality that, (if the earth is rotating) they’ve apparently ignored.
Well it’s no wonder they’ve ignored it;… IT’S FICTICIOUS!
So why isn’t this phenomenon mentioned…? I have a theory about that. They’re not mentioning the related phenomenological consequences of launching from a rotating earth because, maybe, WE’RE NOT ROTATING! (done in my best Sam Kinison voice). Why would they bother with something that ISN’T REAL!
I’d like to add here that I don’t believe that the rocket launchers of the world are conspiring to pull the wool over our eyes. I believe that they are not thinking through the full consequences of the physics that would impact the launches if the earth were really rotating. They have thought no further than the supposed 1,000 mph “boost” their rockets would get from a west to east launch and have completely over looked the 7,000 mph or more total boost they would get if they were really launched from a rotating earth.
In conclusion, IF the earth is really rotating, the tangential velocities inherent in an object moving farther away from the axis of rotation plus adding the speed generated by the space craft as told in the launch data above, would render the launch data incompatible with a rotating earth. The math doesn’t add up.
