To the (no doubt) grave consternation of the Posse, "The Principle" is in receipt of an offer for US theatrical distribution.

Our distribution partners are seasoned veterans, who have been through the kinds of wars that powerful, controversial, and important documentary films such as "The Principle" can always expect to stir up.

Details will be announced shortly, here and on our Facebook page.

Oh, and by the way……

Karl Keating, you've got mail.

AWESOME!! GOD IS SO WONDERFUL!!

ReplyDeleteExcellent news! The "shift" is coming.

ReplyDeleteRick, I have sent you an email a couple of times about the evidence from geostationary launch data that conflicts with the "realities" of a rotating earth.

It's not my intention to badger you about this, I'm just not sure if you are getting my emails. I'm having computer and browser issues. If you have received my emails Please let me know.

If you have not received my 2 prior emails, I have posted my paper at pbranefreeze.blogspot.com. Thank You so much for all you are doing.

Hi pbrane!

ReplyDeleteSorry but I never got the referenced emails.

I will review at the blog.

Thanks!

pbrane: I have received the following response to your post from Dr. Bennett:

ReplyDelete"Briefly…. Pea-brane’s fehler is assuming the angular velocity w is constant during the change from parking orbit to geostat distance…

This would linearly increase the tangent velocity with r, Vt= rw... if it were true.

In the parking orbit the radial velocity Vr =0 and Vt = 17.5 Kmph

The burn boosts the speed to 22.5 Kmph , increases the system’s total energy, and produces a radial acc that decreases to 0 at apogee.

BUT: the sat speed = sqrt(Vr2 + Vt2) …… not just Vt

Vr is 0 at apogee , w is minimum, and Vt = 3.6 Kmph , so another burn must add more energy to keep the orbit distance constant…. a circular orbit ."

If you wish to repost at your blog, feel free.

pbrane: I have received the following response to your post from Dr. Bennett:

DeleteMR: Thank you Rick. I’ll relate my comments directly to Dr. Bennett.

MR: Thank you Dr. Bennett for taking the time to add to this conversation.

DB: "Briefly…. Pea-brane’s fehler is assuming the angular velocity w is constant during the change from parking orbit to geostat distance…

MR: I’m not sure what it is I’m “assuming”. The launch data I have presented comes from Wikipedia (Hohmann Transfer Orbit, Low Earth Orbit, Geostationary Transfer Orbit, Geostationary Orbit) Other sources on the web have produced similar data.

There is an angular velocity (rotational period) that would remain constant, (IF WE WERE ROTATING). It’s not the one you are referring to. This one gets to the heart of my entire point: an object launched straight up at the equator or riding up a Space Elevator or helicopter or hot air balloon or whatever, will retain the earths’ rotational period (and 66,000 mph orbital velocity but that’s for a later discussion) of 24 hours, and would share the characteristics of a rigid-body rotating. Remember, the farther out you go from the center of rotation the faster you go.

DB: This would linearly increase the tangent velocity with r, Vt= rw... if it were true.

MR: Here’s what I’m trying to communicate. If the earth is rotating, we would expect to see certain things as a result of that rotation. This concept, fallacious as it is, is logically deduced not mathematically deduced. For instance, they say that just standing at the equator, we’re rotating at 1,040 mph. Logically then, we could go straight up to geostationary orbit height and still be directly over the place that we left on the equator and would now be rotating at 6,856 mph and maintaining a 24 hour rotational period. The farther you go from the axis of rotation the faster the tangential velocities will be.

In the past, Einstein and others have said: you can’t tell whether the earth or the stars are rotating. But now, things may be different, we are putting up artificial satellites. It is here where the truth may be found. I’ve put up an illustration on my blog: pbranefreeze.blogspot.com. In it I show that, if you had a super tall tower on the equator, your tangential velocity would increase as you rode up the tower and when you got to the top of the tower at geostationary orbit, you would be at orbital velocity = 6,856 mph. THIS IS A PHENOMENON THAT I HAVE NOT SEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE WORLDS ROCKET LAUNCHERS. IF IT WERE REAL, IT WOULD GREATLY IMPACT LAUNCHES FROM EARTH.

DB: In the parking orbit the radial velocity Vr =0 and Vt = 17.5 Kmph

The burn boosts the speed to 22.5 Kmph , increases the system’s total energy, and produces a radial acc that decreases to 0 at apogee.

MR: I think you are missing the point of my article. I’m trying to explain a concept that is logical to expect if the earth and its atmosphere are rotating inside of a vacuous medium… outer space.

Space crafts’ launch west to east putting it ahead of the earths rotational period. As long as you are heading east, (which they do all the way to Geo Orbit), your Tangential (Circular) Velocity will be greater than 6,856 mph at Geostationary orbit height IF THE EARTH IS ROTATING.

DB: BUT: the sat speed = sqrt(Vr2 + Vt2) …… not just Vt

Vr is 0 at apogee , w is minimum, and Vt = 3.6 Kmph , so another burn must add more energy to keep the orbit distance constant…. a circular orbit ."

MR: I’m really not sure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing. Thank you for your time Dr. Bennett.

If you wish to repost at your blog, feel free.

Thank you, Rick. The crazy thing about this is, my argument states the logical consequences of a fallacy; a rotating earth. I have to keep crossing the line between fantasy (rotating earth) and reality (non-rotating earth). I’m applying logic to an unreal situation. I’m saying that if the earth is rotating certain things would also be true.

Michael Reynolds (pbranefreeze.blogspot.com)

Hi Rick! If you want *the* blockbuster movie you should get familiar with my scientific papers. Those papers will change *pretty much everything* within physics. Feel free to contact.

ReplyDeletepbrane:

ReplyDeleteFollowing is the latest reply from Dr. Bennett:

My comment refers to your description of the GeoStat Insertion launch, not to the space elevator.

In the circular parking orbit, the following are constant: radius(height) , radial velocity(zero), the linear tangent velocity Vt = rw and the angular velocity w, which is the rate of change of angle or 2p/T rads/sec – T is the period.

When the burn is made to change to the Geostat orbit , the radial velocity increases and the angular velocity decreases. Just draw the change from circle to ellipse to see this.

You are assuming that w stays constant in your analysis, but it doesn’t… it can’t.

If we put aside the practical problems involved with building a modern Tower of Babel 22,000 miles high, then your speed conclusion is correct….but how does that greatly impact launches?

- If you stand at the base of the Tower at the equator, you will be rotating at supersonic speeds of > 1000 mph.

- MSP ignores the law of inertia… a rotating Earth would have winds at the equator of 1000 mph.

- The Earth isn’t rotating , so the issue is moot.

I understand the point of your article… Of course I agree that the Earth is at rest, but I explain the eastward launch benefit as due to aether wind boosts, which you don’t cover. I disagree with the orbit change analysis, that’s all. After all, the geostat launches are successful!

Btw: Israel launches westward – over the Mediterranean - for political, not physical, reasons. Failed launches would land in neighboring Arab countries. So they need more fuel than eastward launches to achieve orbit.

(I am) mostly agreeing (with you).

pbrane:

DeleteFollowing is the latest reply from Dr. Bennett:

MR: Rick and Dr. Bennett, I hope you guys are enjoying this discussion; I certainly am. My goal in this is to prove that we are not rotating. I so appreciate the discussion.

Part 1 of 2

Dr.B: My comment refers to your description of the GeoStat Insertion launch, not to the space elevator.

MR: Ahhh… This is where the problem is. My argument is incumbent upon the fact that the two scenarios, (GeoStat launch data and “space elevators”) are germane and cannot be separated from one another, if, the earth is rotating. Please allow me to explain with an illustration:

Imagine a 24-hour analog clock imbedded in the center of the earth with only an hour-hand, and that hour-hand extends out through the equator to the ends of the universe. The earth, the hour-hand, our atmosphere, all together rotate counter-clockwise in the vacuum of space.

Imagine that you can travel out on that hour hand, (like you would in a “space elevator”). IF we were rotating, it would be true that the farther out you go the faster your tangential speed would be. It would also be true that you would retain earths’ 24 hour rotational/orbital period no matter how far out you go… correct? So, as long as you stay on that hour hand, you will rotate 360 degrees in 24 hours.

So let’s say you travel out on that hour-hand to geostationary altitude, (it does not matter whether it takes you an hour to get out to geo altitude or a week or year etc…. Your tangential speed, when you get there, would be 6,856 mph. Now… let’s say that you launch yourself off to the left/east/counter-clockwise at 1,000 miles per hour, your speed would now be 7,856 mph.

So, as far as west-to-east equatorial GeoStat launches go, they would be traveling to the left, (of my “hour-hand”, “imbedded clock” example, the entire launch process. The added rocket speed that you have when you arrive at geostationary orbit altitude would be ADDED to the 6,856 mph requiring you to reverse thrust, IF, we were rotating.

All of the launch data that I’ve been able to see, they have casually accounted for the 1,000 mph boost, (that they and everybody else knows would be real if we were rotating and you launched from west-to-east, but then they don’t mention it anymore; not a word. I have read NO mention of the 6,856 mph MINIMUM speed that would be added to the space craft speed.

This phenomenon should be mentioned in the laws of astrophysics, don’t you think? The laws that would cover launching from a rotating base as opposed to launching from “fixed-earth”. As far as I can tell, everything is based on a fixed-earth.

Dr.B: In the circular parking orbit, the following are constant: radius(height) , radial velocity(zero), the linear tangent velocity Vt = rw and the angular velocity w, which is the rate of change of angle or 2p/T rads/sec – T is the period.

When the burn is made to change to the Geostat orbit , the radial velocity increases and the angular velocity decreases. Just draw the change from circle to ellipse to see this.

Part 2 of 2

DeleteMR: It goes from the 17,500 mph, circular parking orbit and a 90 min orbital period into the elliptical Transfer orbit by accelerating to about 22,700 mph then coasts with a burn or two in between to the Geo orbit and enters the Geo orbit with a speed of 3,600 mph then fires’ it’s apogee kick motor. That circularizes the orbit and brings it to 6,856 mph according to launch data.

Dr.B: You are assuming that w stays constant in your analysis, but it doesn’t… it can’t.

If we put aside the practical problems involved with building a modern Tower of Babel 22,000 miles high, then your speed conclusion is correct….but how does that greatly impact launches?

MR: Just going straight up would give you the geo orbit speed. As I said above, if you head to the left, in a west-to-east direction, you would then be adding speed and would be over the orbital speed of 6,856 mph when you arrive at the geo orbit and you would have to reverse thrust. But that wouldn’t work because you need to accelerate to circularize the orbit. The launch data says they thrust from 3,600 mph to 6,856 mph. Something is not right! Right?

Dr.B: - If you stand at the base of the Tower at the equator, you will be rotating at supersonic speeds of > 1000 mph.

- MSP ignores the law of inertia… a rotating Earth would have winds at the equator of 1000 mph.

MR: I’m not talking about the realities as we know them to be, I’m talking about the conventional scientific wisdom that states: the atmosphere rotates along with us.

Dr.B: - The Earth isn’t rotating , so the issue is moot.

MR: Like you, I too know and believe that the earth isn’t rotating. However, the issue is not moot. Not to me, anyway. I believe that there must be evidence in the launch data that will prove the earth is not rotating,. I believe that the launch data would be different than currently represented, if, the earth were rotating.

Dr.B: I understand the point of your article… Of course I agree that the Earth is at rest, but I explain the eastward launch benefit as due to aether wind boosts, which you don’t cover. I disagree with the orbit change analysis, that’s all. After all, the geostat launches are successful!

MR: Yes, I’d love to also get into what we actually see. I’m going by the data that I’ve been able to find so far. I think the geostationary satellites may be completely stationary; just floating in between earths gravity and the gravity pulling upward.

Dr.B: Btw: Israel launches westward – over the Mediterranean - for political, not physical, reasons. Failed launches would land in neighboring Arab countries. So they need more fuel than eastward launches to achieve orbit.

(I am) mostly agreeing (with you).

MR: Please visit p.brane.freeze.blogspot.com, I have an illustration showing how by ascending a “space elevator/tower” you would trace out a spiral as seen from high above the North Pole, IF WE WERE ROTATING.

Wrong blogspot address. The correct address is: pbranefreeze.blogspot.com

DeleteHi Rick,

DeleteI’ve distilled down my message a little bit.

Unless I’ve got something completely wrong, it’s clear that the earth is not rotating.

In this example, imagine that the earth… IS… rotating.

Imagine you are at the equator; at the top of a “space elevator/tower”. The top is 22,236 miles up (geostationary satellite altitude). Every astrophysicist in the world as well as Dr. Bennett would agree that you would have a tangential velocity of 6,856 mph due to the earths’ 24 hour rotational period. It’s a fact that the farther out you go from the center of rotation the faster you go.

Meanwhile, back at the earth’s surface, from a spot very close to the base of the tower, we launch a satellite by rocket in a west-to-east direction for the purposes of placing the satellite right where you are on the tower.

Shortly after launch, it would reach Low Earth Orbit ((circular orbit) - about 200 miles up, at a speed of 17,500 mph.)

When it reaches the opposite side of the earth from where the tower is, we accelerate it to 22,700 mph, putting it into the Transfer Orbit (half of an elliptical orbit)….. 2-3 hours later, as the spacecraft coasts, it slows to about 3,600 mph. As it approaches where you’re at on the “space elevator/tower”, it fires its apogee “kick” motor accelerating the craft to 6,856 mph. (These flight velocities come from Hohmann Transfer Orbit, Wikipedia.)

The satellite whizzes past you! How can that be!....

You are at the top of the tower waiting for the satellite to join you in geostationary orbit!

You, are where the satellite needs to be, and, you are going the speed the satellite needs to be going, yet, it just whizzed past you!!

You, are already doing 6,856 mph by virtue of being on that tower, 22,236 miles up! This is not just me saying this. This is according to all of the scientists involved in exploratory “space elevator” projects currently going on. Scientists from (NASA, ESA, the Japanese, the Russians, etc.)

By my calculations, this satellite would now be traveling at 13,712 mph. ????????????

Rick, what do you think. Something is wrong here!

The “space elevator” concept is completely at odds with satellite rocket launch data! If we are rotating, the “space elevator” people/scientists are correct, and the launch data,…. is incorrect!

Hi Rick,

DeleteI put up an illustration at the top of pbranefreeze.blogspot.com that goes along with my "distilled down" post. Start at the bottom of the illustration and work your way up. If the earth is rotating, you'll see that the satellite would have to STOP ON A DIME! in order to achieve geo orbit. An impossible feat; especially in light of the fact that the space craft increases its' velocity where it should be stopping.

Thank you

Where’s the Real Launch Data?

DeleteThe "text book" geostationary satellite launch data presented in Wikipedia and elsewhere on the internet, (assuming the GEO SATS are really up there, fixed above the equator), CANNOT BE the real launch data. The data they’ve put up has the assumption of a rotating earth added to their calculations; the problem is, these "text book" calculations, won't work. <>

Here’s how I know this:

If I ask you to fly an airplane from your runway in, say..., California to my runway in Florida, and I paint an X, on the runway, and I tell you to stop your plane on the X; how would you accomplish that? You cannot just, STOP, on that X, you would have to land, either, before the X, and “brake” and reverse thrust so that you could slowly approach the X, and gently stop on it; or, touch down on the X, “brake” reverse thrust, turn around and comeback and then park on the X. Correct?

Relative to your runway, the X on my runway is “fixed”; not moving up or down, side to side, or back and forth. Correct?

The geostationary satellite position up above the equator would also be “fixed” relative to its launch site. There’s no way that the "text book", launch data, (data that shows the craft speeding up when it gets to the “X”, (the fixed geostationary position), could land on that “X”, without doing the same things that my, example above, of the airplane landing on the X has to do.

I believe that if we could see the REAL launch figures, they would show, what I’ve described for my airplane example; but they can’t do that, they can’t give us those figures because we would see that the EARTH IS NOT ROTATING. SOMEONE PROVE ME WRONG!

I'll reply to my own post, if I may.

DeleteActually, I miss spoke. It’s not that if they showed us the real launch data, (data that would show that they do in fact stop and park the satellites), that would prove the earth is not rotating, it’s that they may think, that we would think, that that proves the earth is not rotating. Note, this: The “parking spot” and the launch location are fixed to one another, WHETHER THE EARTH IS ROTATING OR NOT.

My point here is, they’ve apparently put out geostationary launch data that fits the rotating earth narrative, whereas had they thought it through, they would know that it’s safe to put up the real launch data that shows that they are in fact “parking” these satellites; without doing any damage to the maintaining of the status quo of a rotating earth.

If they had thought it through, they would see that either way, rotating or not, requires stopping the satellite. The curious thing is that they’ve put out launch data that states that they accelerate the satellite to match the earth’s rotation and circularize the orbit when in fact, they are “parking” it; that’s the curious thing about it.

Hi Rick,

ReplyDeleteI just put up on pbranefreeze.blogspot.com an exchange that I'm currently having with CoolHardLogic on geostationary satellite launches. Check it out! Love your new youtube video that's on your youtube page.

Michael