Re: ZetaTalk and Spaceguard UK (D8)

In Article <sgG87.41806$PA1.4270322@news20.bellglobal.com> Greg Neill wrote:
> In Article <3B62DAC0.F57B7501@zetatalk.com> Nancy Lieder wrote:
>> The GIVENS:
>>      Constant as m * p^2/d^3 is constant for all orbits.
>>       where  m = mass of primary
>>              d = distance
>>              p = period
>> This produces some interesting results, where the Moon
>> could theoretically orbit at the same distance as Satellites,
>> at the same velocity.
>
> It is true that the velocity for circular orbit of a relatively
> small mass around a large mass depends only upon the
> distance from the large mass.  So the Moon could indeed
> orbit at practically the same velocity of a man-made
> satellite at the same distance as such a satellite.

Greg Neill, meet Greg Neill.  You guys seem to be contradicting each
other.  In the same sit-down-and-respond-to-sci.astro-posts session,
yet.  Newton's centrifugal force law only takes into account the mass of
the Primary.  You are saying, below, what I've been asserting - that
this does not fit with the Inverse Square law.  However, up until now,
you've not given that argument of mine any credence.  Plus, you're
contradicting yourself.  Want to have a second go at that?

In Article  <9jvdv8$s04$4@sevenofnine.peak.org> Greg Neill wrote:
> In sci.astro Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> No, it does not say that. While the velocity of the Moon and
> the satellite would be similar, they would be different - with
> the Moon having a higher velocity.  Why?  Because the
> gravitational attraction of the Earth/Moon system is higher
> than the gravitational attraction of the Earth/satellite
> system.