Natural motions scientific exalted.

[Native]

Subject: Satellite Drag

“Drag is a force exerted on an object moving through a fluid, and it is oriented in the direction of relative fluid flow. Drag acts opposite to the direction of motion and tends to slow an object”.
-------------------
Such drag effects on satellites around the revolving Earth on it´s orbital motion, of course constantly makes satellites to move away from their decided positions, hence the constantly needed regulation.
.
It´s a simple aerodynamic drag effect in space where the satellites periodically are affected as the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.

It all has nothing to do with *gravity* or *time dilation*.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Subject: Satellite Drag

“Drag is a force exerted on an object moving through a fluid, and it is oriented in the direction of relative fluid flow. Drag acts opposite to the direction of motion and tends to slow an object”.
-------------------
Such drag effects on satellites around the revolving Earth on it´s orbital motion, of course constantly makes satellites to move away from their decided positions, hence the constantly needed regulation.
.
It´s a simple aerodynamic drag effect in space where the satellites periodically are affected as the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.

It all has nothing to do with *gravity* or *time dilation*.

When the Sun is more active there are more particles emitted from it. Some of these particles get into Earth's gravity field and slow some things down as they smash into them. The particles act like a very thin atmosphere. Its just that there are a lot of these particles sometimes. Some get through to Earth, some stay in space. The satellites can be slowed down because of running into these particles. Each one slows it down just a little bit. Its analogous to being pushed by a breeze. It is called the 'Solar wind'.

It slows down things in orbit, but the solar wind can be useful in other situations such as if you want to propel something away from the sun. You can make satellites that catch this wind in sails, much like a sailboat uses wind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subject: Satellite Drag

“Drag is a force exerted on an object moving through a fluid, and it is oriented in the direction of relative fluid flow. Drag acts opposite to the direction of motion and tends to slow an object”.
-------------------
Such drag effects on satellites around the revolving Earth on it´s orbital motion, of course constantly makes satellites to move away from their decided positions, hence the constantly needed regulation.
.
It´s a simple aerodynamic drag effect in space where the satellites periodically are affected as the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.

It all has nothing to do with *gravity* or *time dilation*.

Correct. Satellite drag is a totally different problem from time dilation. It affects lower satellites. GPS satellites are at a much much higher orbit. The effect of atmosphere is immeasurably small there:

https://www.google.com/search?q=how...33i22i29i30.7870j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

They are at a height of 12,550 miles. Compare that to the mere 600 km (365 miles) in your link. In LEO (Low Earth Orbit) the effect of the atmosphere is real.

 

[Polymath257]

Subject: Satellite Drag

“Drag is a force exerted on an object moving through a fluid, and it is oriented in the direction of relative fluid flow. Drag acts opposite to the direction of motion and tends to slow an object”.
-------------------
Such drag effects on satellites around the revolving Earth on it´s orbital motion, of course constantly makes satellites to move away from their decided positions, hence the constantly needed regulation.
.
It´s a simple aerodynamic drag effect in space where the satellites periodically are affected as the Earth rotates and orbits the Sun.

It all has nothing to do with *gravity* or *time dilation*.

That is correct. It does not. It has to do with the density of the atmosphere at the location of the satellite.

So now that we agree to that, what's the next problem?

 

[Native]

When the Sun is more active there are more particles emitted from it. Some of these particles get into Earth's gravity field and slow some things down as they smash into them. The particles act like a very thin atmosphere. Its just that there are a lot of these particles sometimes. Some get through to Earth, some stay in space. The satellites can be slowed down because of running into these particles. Each one slows it down just a little bit. Its analogous to being pushed by a breeze. It is called the 'Solar wind'.

It slows down things in orbit, but the solar wind can be useful in other situations such as if you want to propel something away from the sun. You can make satellites that catch this wind in sails, much like a sailboat uses wind.

Agreed in all this, but IMO the Earth´s orbital velocity motion around the Sun has the prime effect.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Agreed in all this, but IMO the Earth´s orbital velocity motion around the Sun has the prime effect.

I was just explaining for those who hadn't heard of it.

 

[Native]

That is correct. It does not. It has to do with the density of the atmosphere at the location of the satellite.
So now that we agree to that, what's the next problem?

As there evidently are *dragging affects* above the Earth, it clearly indicates that *space* isn´t empty as hypothesized below.

Einsteins Cosmological Constant and *dark energy*
The "cosmological constant" is a constant term that can be added to Einstein's field equation of general relativity. If considered as a "source term" in the field equation, it can be viewed as equivalent to the mass of empty space (which conceptually could be either positive or negative), or "vacuum energy".

"Mass of empty space*!? Such an Einsteinian nonsense.

 

[Native]

I was just explaining for those who hadn't heard of it.

*MeeToo* with my addition of the Earth orbital velocity as the prime cause.

 

[Polymath257]

As there evidently are *dragging affects* above the Earth, it clearly indicates that *space* isn´t empty as hyphotesized below.

We're talking about near earth orbits. The upper atmosphere isn't very dense, but it does have an effect.

Einsteins Cosmological Constant and *dark energy*
The "cosmological constant" is a constant term that can be added to Einstein's field equation of general relativity. If considered as a "source term" in the field equation, it can be viewed as equivalent to the mass of empty space (which conceptually could be either positive or negative), or "vacuum energy".

"Mass of empty space*!? Such an Einsteinian nonsense.

This is dealing with intergalactic regions. And yes, that is an incredibly good vacuum.

 

[Native]

We're talking about near earth orbits. The upper atmosphere isn't very dense, but it does have an effect.

So what? You cannot have dragging effects without a media which causes the drag.

Subject: Satellite Drag - E&M drag effect as well
"In addition to these long-term changes in upper atmospheric temperature and density caused by the solar cycle, interactions between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field during geomagnetic storms can produce large short-term increases in upper atmosphere temperature and density, increasing drag on satellites and changing their orbits".

This evident E&M connection between the Sun and Earth has nothing to do with *gravity* too

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what? You cannot have dragging effects without a media which causes the drag.

Subject: Satellite Drag - E&M drag effect as well
"In addition to these long-term changes in upper atmospheric temperature and density caused by the solar cycle, interactions between the solar wind and the Earth’s magnetic field during geomagnetic storms can produce large short-term increases in upper atmosphere temperature and density, increasing drag on satellites and changing their orbits".

This evident E&M connection between the Sun and Earth has nothing to do with *gravity* too

I think that everyone understands this with the exception of you. There is no "E&M drag" the article does not support that.

 

[Native]

This is dealing with intergalactic regions. And yes, that is an incredibly good vacuum.

"Intergalactic space is as close as you can get to an absolute vacuum. There’s very little dust and debris, and scientists have calculated that there’s probably only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. The density of material is higher near galaxies, and lower in the midpoint between galaxies".

For a person who counts on precise *1 arc minute* one also should expect you to be precise in the galactic matters.

Besides all this, the observable space is filled with objects in your *empty space*.

 

[Regiomontanus]

When the Sun is more active there are more particles emitted from it. Some of these particles get into Earth's gravity field and slow some things down as they smash into them. The particles act like a very thin atmosphere. Its just that there are a lot of these particles sometimes. Some get through to Earth, some stay in space. The satellites can be slowed down because of running into these particles. Each one slows it down just a little bit. Its analogous to being pushed by a breeze. It is called the 'Solar wind'.

It slows down things in orbit, but the solar wind can be useful in other situations such as if you want to propel something away from the sun. You can make satellites that catch this wind in sails, much like a sailboat uses wind.

Yes and of course EM radiation exerts pressure too:

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/sunlight_exerts_pressure.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Intergalactic space is as close as you can get to an absolute vacuum. There’s very little dust and debris, and scientists have calculated that there’s probably only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. The density of material is higher near galaxies, and lower in the midpoint between galaxies".

For a person who counts on precise *1 arc minute* one aslo should expect you to be precise in the galactic matters.

How is that not "precise"?

 

[Regiomontanus]

As there evidently are *dragging affects* above the Earth, it clearly indicates that *space* isn´t empty as hypothesized below.

Einsteins Cosmological Constant and *dark energy*
The "cosmological constant" is a constant term that can be added to Einstein's field equation of general relativity. If considered as a "source term" in the field equation, it can be viewed as equivalent to the mass of empty space (which conceptually could be either positive or negative), or "vacuum energy".

"Mass of empty space*!? Such an Einsteinian nonsense.

There is no such thing as 'empty space' literally. The universe is filled with fields. For example the Higgs field permeates all of space (unique among all fields in that it has a non-zero value in its lowest state). And in general, elementary particles are not really 'particles'. For example, electrons should be thought of as excitations in the electron field.

The Known Particles — If The Higgs Field Were Zero

 

[Native]

The Known Particles — If The Higgs Field Were Zero

I wouldn´t count too much on a method of smashing small atoms to smitherines in order to discover everything.
A *Higgs Boson* which carry forces to all other paticles, is utterly nonsens. The "scientists" in CERN should instead have their focus on the colo-enormeus natural fundamental E&M forces and energies they´re using in order to find nothing.

And of course Higgs got a Noble Prize for discovering his nothingness.

 

[Regiomontanus]

I wouldn´t count too much on a method of smashing small atoms to smitherines in order to discover everything.
A *Higgs Boson* which carry forces to all other paticles, is utterly nonsens. The "scientists" in CERN should instead have their focus on the colo-enormeus natural fundamental E&M forces and energies they´re using in order to find nothing.

And of course Higgs got a Noble Prize for discovering his nothingness.

Oh my

 

[Native]

Oh my

Why *Oh my*?

It is nonsense to smash atoms to *foggy clouds* as seen on this image, from which NO real scientific conclusions can be made. The best what can be said about CERN is the W.W.W. The rest is *particle-nonsens* and misuse of mind powers, energy and money.

"The Higgs field is a field of energy that is thought to exist in every region of the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle known as the Higgs boson, which is used by the field to continuously interact with other particles, such as the electron. Particles that interact with the field are "given" mass and, in a similar fashion to an object passing through a treacle (or molasses), will become slower as they pass through it".

If Mr. Higgs was looking for *fields*, he could have taken this logical E&M image concept, which shows a real observable field: *The Cosmic Web Field*

Observed in the specific telescopic filter, the entire observable part of the Universe show such electromagnetic currents and magnetic fields (E&M) in where huge formations takes place in the luminous centers and in its connected web strings.

All CERN reseach energy should have looked here instead of on their laboratory nothingness and then the CERN made *Terrestrial Internet Web* would compute nicely to *The Universal Web*.

Reason for Higgs effect
"To justify giving mass to a would-be massless particle, scientists were forced to do something out of the ordinary. They assumed that vacuums (empty space) actually had energy, and that way, if a particle that we think of as massless were to enter it, the energy from the vacuum would be transferred into that particle, giving it mass".

Dear oh dear! This title context is about *reason*, but it´s content is nothing more that a *wishfull thinking circular argumentation*! They have *an empty energetic field into which a massless particle can provide energy*!?

It is utterly nonsense and a typical *result* of doing *Newtonian* particle = mass = energy nonsense physics* without including the *E&M atomic qualitity descriptions* which can be explained logically.

This is how modern theoretical astrophysicist and cosmologists makes *science*. And with the very helpfull *Fellow Peer Reviewers Method*, such wishfull nonsense can lead to Nobel Prizes in Stockholm, Sveden, where the Prize Committee Board have no other options but to accept the nonsense and pay the prizes.

Maybe the Nobel Prize Committee should make a prize category for *Circular Arguments and Wishfull Thinking* too?

 

[Polymath257]

"Intergalactic space is as close as you can get to an absolute vacuum. There’s very little dust and debris, and scientists have calculated that there’s probably only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. The density of material is higher near galaxies, and lower in the midpoint between galaxies".

For a person who counts on precise *1 arc minute* one also should expect you to be precise in the galactic matters.

You misunderstood. That 1 arc minute was the *old* data provided by Tycho that Kepler used. The modern data is far, far, far more accurate than that. Newton ensured that greater accuracy and Einstein them beat Newton at his own game.

Besides all this, the observable space is filled with objects in your *empty space*.

Yes, there are stars and clouds of gas and dust. But, even in what would be considered 'dense' gas clouds, the vacuum is far stronger than anything actually made on Earth.

 

[Native]

You misunderstood. That 1 arc minute was the *old* data provided by Tycho that Kepler used. The modern data is far, far, far more accurate than that. Newton ensured that greater accuracy and Einstein them beat Newton at his own game.

I really don´t care about this - I just hope you got the comparison point here:

"Intergalactic space is as close as you can get to an absolute vacuum. There’s very little dust and debris, and scientists have calculated that there’s probably only one hydrogen atom per cubic meter. The density of material is higher near galaxies, and lower in the midpoint between galaxies".
For a person who counts on precise *1 arc minute* one also should expect you to be precise in the galactic matters.

You wrote:

Yes, there are stars and clouds of gas and dust. But, even in what would be considered 'dense' gas clouds, the vacuum is far stronger than anything actually made on Earth.

First, qouote: "A vacuum is space devoid of matter" - which is a restricted and even contradictive defintion, as there´s no such thing as *an empty space*. Otherwise you would have to discard and binn the very idea of a CMBR too.

Secondly: When speaking of a *vacuum density* in general, you have:
1) An unexlainable and untestable Big Bang
2) A still increasing expansion velosity.
3) A *gravity assumption* which logically contradicts such a general and increasing velocity expansion.

Arguments on *forth and back* and in all contradictive directions at the same time, is what you really have.