Re: ZetaTalk and Spaceguard UK (D8)

Bill Nelson wrote:
> If a satellite (low mass) has to move much faster than
> 1023 m/s to remain in orbit at 100 miles distance from
> the surface - then ... the Moon must move faster.

Greg Neill wrote:
>> Note that the mass of the Moon has been REDUCED by the
>> distance:
>>    Mass of Moon 73,696,438,000,000,000,000 Metric Tons
>>    Reduced Mass 20,228,796,000,000,000 metric tons-force
>
> The centrifugal force depends only upon the mass of the Moon,
> the radius of curvature of its path (the distance) and its velocity.

The IMPLICATION:

So if your math RULES, then moving the Moon closer to the Earth only
requires that the Moon move as fast as the satellites, to stay aloft.
So we could move the Moon in from 200,000 miles to be as close as the
satellites at 100 miles, and all would be well.  Right?  And we could
move the Moon to orbit at the ground or surface level and all would be
well, as long as it's going at the right speed.  Right?  Or am I missing
something?  Or are YOU missing something, like the obvious!

Magnus Nyborg wrote:
> Orbital speed for ideal circular motion of a low-mass object
> circling a high-mass object M (which refers to it's mass) is
> determined by the formula
>
>    v = sqrt( G*M / r )
>
> Ground orbit (if possible) -
>    v = sqrt( 6.67E-11 * 5.976E24 / 6.378E6 ) = 7905 m/s
> Satellite orbit -
>    v = sqrt( 6.67E-11 * 5.976E24 / 6.478E6 ) = 7844 m/s
> Moon orbit -
>    v = sqrt( 6.67E-11 * 5.976E24 / 3.844E8 ) = 1018 m/s
>

Imagine the Moon orbiting there alongside the satellites!  This is what
you're saying, that all would be well, per Newton!  The elephant and the
mosquito, side by side!  NO problem whatsoever!  If this is the rule of
the Universe, per your flawless math, then we should indeed have these
types of arrangments out there.  DO we?  Give me an example of this type
of near-touching orbits of large mass objects!  Why are they staying
apart, if Newton explains ALL.  What is missing is the Repulsion Force
(see next post).