Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose:

The only way to stay over a fixed point on the earth in space is to be at 22,500 miles up, known as geostationary orbit.  Orbital velocity is close to 17,500 miles/hour. This was posited by Arthur Clark (of 2001 fame) and later utilized in geosyncro satellite technology.

Einstein's relativity theory was proven by sending up an atomic clock into orbit and then comparing that very accurate time to another one on earth.  The time difference, although minuscule, was measurable and it proved that part of his theory.

Bill

Thank you Pirate.  At least someone answered me.  I know nothing about the proposed geostationary orbit - but I do know, that theoretically - it's possible to increase orbital speed so that one can stay locked over a single position on earth - and then one would also be in synch with Greenwich Mean Time.  That's about as accurate a standard of time as can be made.  And there would be absolutely no evidence of a time lag notwithstanding the increased velocity.  And if there was evidence of a difference in time then I'd propose that the astronaut check his clocks as they're probably wrong.  And I've read about that test done on an atomic clock.  I would argue that the it's only one test.  We all produce hundreds and even then the evidence isn't accepted.  So I'd put it to those 'relativity giants' that actually you'll need to replicate that test - and even then I'd be inclined to doubt it unless I could replicate for myself.   If they're using some kind of atomic standard - then it's accuracy would be forfeit to all that interaction with the earth's magnetic flux.  Of course it'll be wrong.

But I grant you that the argument won't be popular - and since I know so little about it - it's probably wrong.  But I can't get my head around it and it's cost me a decent night's sleep.  I was so hoping for an explanation.  But it seems that no-one here's interested in theory.  More's the pity.  And I'm banned from the physics forum for arguing that censorship rules science.  That would have been a more appropriate forum for the question.  In any event.  I'm still to learn that trick of keeping my questions to myself.  No-one really cares. 

Sorry for the rant Bill.  And thanks anyway for answering the post.  Otherwise it just hangs there as most of my posts do. 

Kindest regards,
Rosie

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

If you check out any article on orbital mechanics, you will see that velocity only increases your altitude above the planet.  17,500 is the minimal velocity required to achieve orbit.  If you go faster, the orbit altitude increases.  If you go slower, you re-enter the atmosphere. If you get to 25,000 mph, which is escape velocity, then you can leave orbit as done in the Apollo program when they traveled to the moon.

The geostationary orbit requires that you be at 22,500 miles above the earth.  A little higher, or a little lower and the earth will be moving under you one way or the other.  Either you are advancing, or the earth is.  This is the only way to be and maintain a position above a fixed point on the planet.  This is a very complex calculation taking into consideration the diameter of the earth, gravity, and all of the other physics involved.  I am no scholar in this but what I am telling you is correct.  The math is extremely complex.

I hope this helps.

Bill

PS  Yes, you could be "in sync" with Greenwich mean time if in an orbit 22,500 miles above it, but, that only means you are above that point.  You are still traveling at 22,500 mph and, according to Einstein, time is being altered due to your high velocity.  Again, very little observable difference but a difference non the less that exactly went to his predictions.  Not just that it was changed, but the exact amount of change.

Very heavy stuff that I do NOT pretend to understand very much of.  I do understand some of it.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Rose:

If you check out any article on orbital mechanics, you will see that velocity only increases your altitude above the planet.  17,500 is the minimal velocity required to achieve orbit.  If you go faster, the orbit altitude increases.  If you go slower, you re-enter the atmosphere. If you get to 25,000 mph, which is escape velocity, then you can leave orbit as done in the Apollo program when they traveled to the moon.

The geostationary orbit requires that you be at 22,500 miles above the earth.  A little higher, or a little lower and the earth will be moving under you one way or the other.  Either you are advancing, or the earth is.  This is the only way to be and maintain a position above a fixed point on the planet.  This is a very complex calculation taking into consideration the diameter of the earth, gravity, and all of the other physics involved.  I am no scholar in this but what I am telling you is correct.  The math is extremely complex.

I hope this helps.

Bill

Ok.  I'm getting there.  But that also means that there is that preferred distance and preferred speed and at that point the concept of 'time lag' flies out the spacecraft window.  So what price 'time lag'? is my point.  But I must admit I forgot about adjustments against gravity to sustain that postion.  But in any event, I only argued the theoretical postulate.  And I still hold to it.  I believe that all time frames are dependant on velocity - but I also believe that our own time frame is consistent with light speed.  Anything faster and we're in a different time frame and a different universe.  Anything slower and we're in our own universe - which is always within a consistent frame of reference.  No time lags - except as measured against the speed of light.  If I travelled at close to the speed of light it would take ever longer for my signal to reach earth - I grant you.  Is that what's being proposed by time lag?  Actually I think I see it now.  That's the point.  My time frame would then be out of synch with earth's time frame.  Golly.  Thanks Pirate.  AT LAST. 

Let me think about this for a bit.  I think that's the point in any event.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

[Pirate88179]

Rose:

Now you are getting on the right track but, you are also getting over my current level of understanding as well.  I suggest a good read of the relativity theory, not the math involved but the basic posits.  That is what helped me to get to my, although very low, current level of understanding.

Bill

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Bill - it's all so hellishly compulsively interesting.  But I think I'm seeing the light here.  Think about it.  If light signals are dependent on velocity then the speed at which the signal travels through space is fixed at 186 000 miles per second.  Something like that.  In any event a really big number.  Therefore the speed at which it moves through space is fixed at that velocity.  So.  If you're in a space craft moving away from the signal receiver - at whatever velocity - then the time it takes to get your signal back to earth would be dependent on distance you are away from the earth when you sent your signal and the speed at which you're travelling.  There would be an inevitable delay - and that delay would be be a measure of the 'lag in time' which relates to your velocity and your distance from that signal receiver.  At light speed or close to light speed velocity and your distance is increased exponentially - as well as the short time taken in duration to cover that distance.  That truncated time frame is what makes time 'less' or 'slows' down time - relative to earth time.  I think.  Maybe.  I need to think this through more but I think it's somewhere here. 

Golly.  Not a good way to start the day.  I need to get moving.  I've just seen the time.

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

edited spelling