Podcast Episode 60.5

61 copy.jpg

image source: https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n517/mode/2up

Podcast Episode 60.5: Newton Was Wrong! Orbits Cannot Exist Part Two

Of "Jovial" orbits and Natural laughter. Newtonian orbits represent nothing more than an example of a humorous brainteaser. Newtonian orbits are appropriately circularly reasoned and are fallaciously founded in mathematical equation that models nothing but fantasy.

"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."

source: Circular reasoning - Wikipedia

Peer Reviewed Age of Enlightenment Indoctrination Reinforces Illogical Polarized Thinking

"In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, or intergroup bias, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out- group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways. This interaction has been researched by many ..."

source: In-group favoritism - Wikipedia

"A cognitive bias is a mistake in reasoning, evaluating, remembering, or other cognitive process, often occurring as a result of holding onto one's preferences and beliefs regardless of contrary information. Psychologists study cognitive biasesas they relate to memory, reasoning, and decision-making."

source: Definition of Cognitive Bias | Chegg.com


SHOW NOTES:

Royal Society and Jesuit promoted irrational dogma would grow over the course of centuries into quite the cancerous mind virus.

Royal Society promoted Newtonian unreasoning has infected the entire system of human education as we understand it.

Fallacious tangents and misdirection are the basic modus operandi for enforcing irrational and impossible heliocentric based belief systems.

ORBITS CANNOT EXIST

"Gravity is always present in space and always pulling everything in Earth orbit toward the ground, including the Shuttle, the Hubble Space Telescope, the International Space Station, and the astronauts. The only reason these objects don’t quickly crash to Earth is that they are also moving forward at the same time, and at a very high speed — about 17,000 miles per hour at the Space Station’s altitude. This speed essentially ensures that they move forward just as rapidly as they fall, and as a result they remain at the same altitude as they circle around Earth. (It reminds me of Douglas Adams’ statement in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy that the trick to flying is to “throw yourself at the ground and miss.”) And this is what happens if a bit of air resistance begins to slow you down: You then start to lose altitude, which causes a fiery reentry as you plow through the atmosphere at high speed."

source: Zero Gravity: It May Not Be What You Think | Science 2.0


These equations model real world phenomena:

Newton's work does not make use of this math.

U1L6a1-1.jpg

source: Kinematic Equations and Free Fall - The Physics Classroom

ONLINE GRAVITY (FALLING) CALCULATOR:

https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224835316

This equation models nothing:

Newton Wrong .jpg

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Not all mathematical ideas are examples of real world physical principle despite advertising hype to the contrary.

"In mechanics, a constant of motion is a quantity that is conserved throughout the motion, imposing in effect a constraint on the motion. However, it is a mathematical constraint, the natural consequence of the equations of motion, rather than a physical constraint. Common examples include specific energy, specific linear momentum, specific angular momentum and the Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_theorem_of_revolving_orbits  and  constant of motion


Newton's orbital concept makes use of the horizontal motion of a projectile and the towards Earth center motion of gravity itself. Or rather falling.

Falling is integral to Newtonian orbits. Newton's concept relies on weight not being canceled and in fact relies on falling itself, centrifugal effect is not part of the 'equation'.

Centripetal force is integral and this is gravity itself.  Or falling. Weight becomes falling. Centrifugal effect canceling weight would mean the Moon would be shot off like a stone from a sling, as Newton correctly posits. Modern NASA derived orbital mechanics is truly bad metaphysics sold as "settled" science.

NASA =  Never A Straight Answer IE It is a propaganda visual effects outlet and nothing more.

wrong+2.jpg

Published by the Royal Society: Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy

8000 meters is about 5 miles

The above artwork illustrates what the paragraph below describes.

Newtonian Orbits ignore demonstrable projectile physics. Newtonian orbits ignore the fact that gravity is an accelerated phenomena.

"As the projectile travels tangentially a distance of 8000 meters in 1 second, it will drop approximately 5 meters towards the earth. Yet, the projectile will remain the same distance above the earth due to the fact that the earth curves at the same rate that the projectile falls. If shot with a speed greater than 8000 m/s, it would orbit the earth in an elliptical path."

"So what launch speed does a satellite need in order to orbit the earth? The answer emerges from a basic fact about the curvature of the earth. For every 8000 meters measured along the horizon of the earth, the earth's surface curves downward by approximately 5 meters. So if you were to look out horizontally along the horizon of the Earth for 8000 meters, you would observe that the Earth curves downwards below this straight-line path a distance of 5 meters. For a projectile to orbit the earth, it must travel horizontally a distance of 8000 meters for every 5 meters of vertical fall. It so happens that the vertical distance that a horizontally launched projectile would fall in its first second is approximately 5 meters (0.5*g*t2). For this reason, a projectile launched horizontally with a speed of about 8000 m/s will be capable of orbiting the earth in a circular path. This assumes that it is launched above the surface of the earth and encounters negligible atmospheric drag. As the projectile travels tangentially a distance of 8000 meters in 1 second, it will drop approximately 5 meters towards the earth. Yet, the projectile will remain the same distance above the earth due to the fact that the earth curves at the same rate that the projectile falls. If shot with a speed greater than 8000 m/s, it would orbit the earth in an elliptical path."

source: Circular Motion Principles for Satellites - The Physics Classroom

abfba24c35344ee39ee4440f441abcab-1.jpg
NEWTON SO WRONG 4.jpg

source: Page 105: Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy

Demonstrable Projectile Physics Prove Orbits Impossible

"The force of gravity is a vertical force and does not affect horizontal motion; perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other."

"If our thought experiment continues and we project the cannonball horizontally in the presence of gravity, then the cannonball would maintain the same horizontal motion as before - a constant horizontal velocity. Furthermore, the force of gravity will act upon the cannonball to cause the same vertical motion as before - a downward acceleration. The cannonball falls the same amount of distance as it did when it was merely dropped from rest (refer to diagram below). However, the presence of gravity does not affect the horizontal motion of the projectile. The force of gravity acts downward and is unable to alter the horizontal motion. There must be a horizontal force to cause a horizontal acceleration. (And we know that there is only a vertical force acting upon projectiles.) The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration. ...In conclusion, projectiles travel with a parabolic trajectory due to the fact that the downward force of gravity accelerates them downward from their otherwise straight-line, gravity-free trajectory. This downward force and acceleration results in a downward displacement from the position that the object would be if there were no gravity. The force of gravity does not affect the horizontal component of motion; a projectile maintains a constant horizontal velocity since there are no horizontal forces acting upon it."

quote source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

Gravity is an accelerated process.

An object only falls  5 meters during the first second of time, after that the distance increases per second accordingly:

Distance covered per second of time (round up):

At one second time: 5 meters per second – total distance: 5 m (4.9m) – velocity at one second = 10 meters a second, rounded up.

At two seconds time: 15 meters per second – total distance: 20 m (19.8m) – velocity at one second = 20 meters a second, rounded up.

At three seconds time: 25 meters per second –  total distance: 45 m (44.1m) – velocity at one second = 30 meters a second, rounded up.

REAL WORLD PHYSICS: FALLING IS DEMONSTRABLY AN ACCELERATED EFFECT

Sir Isaac Newton assumes a globe shaped world that has gravity acting to push physical bodies towards the center of the global mass.

abfba24c35344ee39ee4440f441abcab-1.jpg

The following statement is simply not a logical explanation:

"...it will drop approximately 5 meters towards the earth. Yet, the projectile will remain the same distance above the earth due to the fact that the earth curves at the same rate that the projectile falls."

source: Circular Motion Principles for Satellites - The Physics Classroom

Obviously an object can't both drop towards the Earth and not fall at all. Falling would be towards Earth's center.

see also: Earth Curvature Calculator - Omni


Sir Isaac Newton admits that orbits are not based on any hypothesis.

"We said in a mathematical way to avoid all questions about the nature or quality of this force; which would not be understood to be determined by any hypothesis; and therefore call it by the general name of a centripetal force as it is a force which is directed towards some centre..."

– Sir Isaac Newton himself, page 512.

quote source: https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n517/mode/2up


Demonstrable Ballistic Physics Prove Orbits Cannot Exist

Projectile physics prove Newton wrong.

"Let's return to our thought experiment from earlier in this lesson. Consider a cannonball projected horizontally by a cannon from the top of a very high cliff. In the absence of gravity, the cannonball would continue its horizontal motion at a constant velocity. This is consistent with the law of inertia. And furthermore, if merely dropped from rest in the presence of gravity, the cannonball would accelerate downward, gaining speed at a rate of 9.8 m/s every second. This is consistent with our conception of free-falling objects accelerating at a rate known as the acceleration of gravity."

"Once more, the presence of gravity does not affect the horizontal motion of the projectile. The projectile still moves the same horizontal distance in each second of travel as it did when the gravity switch was turned off."

Newton+Wrong.jpg

Real world projectile physics demonstrate why orbits cannot exist. Within something like 5 minutes time, and after but covering some 1,400 or so miles, the imagined cannonball can do nothing but fall. Gravity's accelerated effect is demonstrably an independent motion from the fixed horixontal velocity of the projectile.

NEWTON4-1.jpg

"The force of gravity is a vertical force and does not affect horizontal motion; perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other."

"If our thought experiment continues and we project the cannonball horizontally in the presence of gravity, then the cannonball would maintain the same horizontal motion as before - a constant horizontal velocity. Furthermore, the force of gravity will act upon the cannonball to cause the same vertical motion as before - a downward acceleration. The cannonball falls the same amount of distance as it did when it was merely dropped from rest (refer to diagram below). However, the presence of gravity does not affect the horizontal motion of the projectile. The force of gravity acts downward and is unable to alter the horizontal motion. There must be a horizontal force to cause a horizontal acceleration. (And we know that there is only a vertical force acting upon projectiles.) The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration."

"In conclusion, projectiles travel with a parabolic trajectory due to the fact that the downward force of gravity accelerates them downward from their otherwise straight-line, gravity-free trajectory. This downward force and acceleration results in a downward displacement from the position that the object would be if there were no gravity. The force of gravity does not affect the horizontal component of motion; a projectile maintains a constant horizontal velocity since there are no horizontal forces acting upon it."

quotes and image source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory


"We said in a mathematical way to avoid all questions about the nature or quality of this force; which would not be understood to be determined by any hypothesis; and therefore call it by the general name of a centripetal force as it is a force which is directed towards some centre..."

– Sir Isaac Newton himself, page 512.

quote source: https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n517/mode/2up


Orbits are not science. This idea is not even a theory. Newton does not follow the scientific method.

Hypothesis – Integral To The Scientific Method

"The overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct.[6] There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, these actions are better considered as general principles.[11] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always done in the same order. As noted by scientist and philosopher William Whewell (1794–1866), "invention, sagacity, [and] genius"[12] are required at every step."

source: Scientific method - Wikipedia

Sir Isaac Newton misdirects the attention of the reader away from the fact that the imagined cannonball would not get past the letter E in the illustration below:

NEWTON WRONG.jpg

Orbital mechanics lack hypothesis, according to Sir Isaac Newton himself.

"We said in a mathematical way to avoid all questions about the nature or quality of this force; which would not be understood to be determined by any hypothesis; and therefore call it by the general name of a centripetal force as it is a force which is directed towards some centre..."

image and quote source: https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n517/mode/2up

ORBITS ARE SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE

The 25,000 mile circumference of the Earth, the 5 miles a second fixed horizontal projectile velocity and gravity's demonstrable accelerated motion towards Earth's supposed center clearly show us why orbits cannot exist.

Peer reviewed orbital equations are meaningless artifacts of a secular religious faith that feeds governmental beast on international scale.


Projectile physics prove Newton wrong:

"...perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other."

quote source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

When we simply use mathematical equations that actually do model projectile physics, which is what Newton's cannonball thought experiment is supposed to do, we easily can see and verify that Sir Isaac Newton's work is indeed hypothesis-less fantasy. This is why Newton (nor anyone else) can ever actually make any reference to the circumference of the Earth, the fact that the horizontal projectile motion is set at a fixed velocity (unchanging) that is unaffected by the vertical accelerated effect (always changing, IE increasing) we term "gravity", as represented by mathematical modeling.

One must ignore reality in favor of mathematical equation that models nothing at all. Orbital equations make use of mass and radius and the concept or idea of gravity as big "G", some kind of magical fixed value that lacks any real world basis.


When we use real world physics as our guide and the math that correctly models real world ballistic (projectile) motion, we can't help but notice how Newton misdirects the reader. The reality is that the imagined cannonball would not get much further than E, in the illustration below. This would occur within about 5 minutes.

Newton Wrong (0.00.23.29).jpg

5 miles a second works out to be about 18,000 mph or so, which is a bit faster than the supposed speed of the International Space Station, which is around 17,170 mph or 4.76 miles per second.


PLEASE NOTICE THAT FALLING IS PART OF THE ORBITAL MECHANIC

Weight cannot be canceled by any centrifugal effect. Even at 5 miles a second (relative to Earth's 25,000 mile circumference), the angular change is too slow for centrifugal effect to be seriously considered a weight defying factor. Please keep in mind the assumed orbital time of the ISS is 92 minutes.

Sir Isaac's orbital idea:

When we use real world physics as our guide and the math that correctly models real world ballistic (projectile) motion, we can't help but notice how Newton misdirects the reader. The reality is that the imagined cannonball would not get much further than E, in the illustration below. This would occur within about 5 minutes.

"...perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other."

quote source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

60.jpg

image source: https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n517/mode/2up

These equations models nothing real:

newton wrong.jpg

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics#Circular_orbits

Another orbital equation that models nothing real at all:

link: Vis-viva equation


This wikipedia entry claims centrifugal effect matters.

Centrifugal effect requires a boundary or some kind of clock arm.

Rate of angular change matters a lot. If we assume the parameters of Newton's cannonball experiment as basis for a thought experiment of our own, one that takes real world values, size, scale and proportion into account, we have a projectile with a velocity of some 17,170 mph or 5 mile a second or so. It would take 92 minutes for this projectile to make one orbit around the Earth. It would take 23 minutes for the imagined satellite to travel from twelve o'clock to three 'clock, meaning it would take 23 minutes for the imagined satellite or cannonball to experience an angular motion of ninety degrees. 

The rate of angular change is only 3.91304347826 degrees a minute. Assuming a 92 minute orbit.

This is far too slow for any real centrifugal effect. Consider a race car attempting to take a banked turn at such a slow rate of change or consider trying that rate of angular change in terms of a twirling bucket of water.

Centrifugal effect needs a boundary or a clock arm or string. None of that is anything at all like Newton's concept of orbits. Gravity as centripetal force s nothing like a string or clock arm. A string being pulled with accelerated effort would correctly model the concept.

If orbits were magically real, we would not expect the occupants of the International Space Station to experience free fall or "Zero Gravity".

If such a magical velocity and height could be achieved, what we would expect to experience were we onboard the orbiting capsule would be something akin to a high flying passenger jet flight, which was cursing along at the fantastic and unbelievable speed of 17,170 mph. Gravity would still be pulling all physical bodies towards Earth's presumed center. And we'd need Superman to carry our space station as we are assuming a frictionless environment, which means we have no means by which we can fly.

A frictionless environment would lack any tangible atmosphere making flight impossible.

Mxsv1.jpg

Centrifugal cancelation of weight is a problem, as falling is integral to Newtonian orbits and canceled weight centrifugal style, would mean we could have no falling for the orbital mechanic.

"Newton himself appears to have previously supported an approach similar to that of Leibniz. Later, Newton in his Principia crucially limited the description of the dynamics of planetary motion to a frame of reference in which the point of attraction is fixed. In this description, Leibniz's centrifugal force was not needed and was replaced by only continually inward forces toward the fixed point."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_centrifugal_and_centripetal_forces#Huygens,_Leibniz,_Newton,_and_Hooke

Contradictions:

Two problems with this: 1. Sir IsaacNewton makes no reference to this concept. Rightfully so as the angular change even at 17,170 mph is not sufficient for this effect to be believable. Try spinning a water bucket vertically taking 92 minutes to make one revolution. 2. If weight cancels then the orbiting object is flung off in a straight line as per Sir Isaac Newton's "law" (which does make sense) and this is an integral part of the cannonball thought experiment attributed to Sir Isaac Newton.

Real world technology has logical explanations that lack obvious continuity errors. This is propaganda and nothing more.

The use of "G" has a constant does not model the real world accelerated motion we term "gravity" or "gravitation" or "falling", at all.

This is an example of mental misdirection and the use of illogically premised mathematical equation as evidence. This math models nothing real or demonstrable. Ballistic physics which does correctly model natural real world phenomena with math, shows us why all of this is very wrong.

The explanation below contradicts Newton's orbital concept. Newtonian orbits rely on weight. Weight cannot be canceled or the object would fly off in what would be a straight line at a constant velocity. (That part of the work attributed to Newton makes sense.) Falling is integral to the orbital mechanic. Please notice how this explanation contradicts the NASA explanation for "Zero Gravity" - an illogical and nonsensical circular form of magical free fall. Free fall would always be towards the presumed Earth center of course. Yet somehow we are to believe that one physical body can fall in circles around another.

Centrifugal effect needs some kind of boundary or clock arm like bar.

Gravity cannot be logically expected to act like a clock arm like bar.  Nor would we expect weight to be canceled by the relative low RPM of even the imagined fantastic velocity of some 17,170 mph, a speed the equally imagined space station of international mythological fame is magically capable of.

see: Centripetal and Centrifugal Force - Acceleration - Engineering ToolBox

Magical centrifugal orbits would not logically result in "Zero Gravity" or rather, magical circular free fall.

static1-1.squarespace.jpg

image source: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-13u-6DwmMRs/VZvaZiPbOyI/AAAAAAAAARk/8sG15930pi8/s1600/10999522_10206011468717348_401826225573827478_o.jpg

The problem is of course that even at some 17,170 mph or 4.76 miles a second, this velocity, although quite fantastic, is still unable to achieve anything close to what is advertised. This becomes apparent when we look at Newton's orbital claim to scale and in proper proportion and context.

Compare the wikipedia entry to this explanation from NASA:

"How Can Spacecraft Fall Around Earth?"
"What does it mean to fall around Earth? Earth's gravity pulls objects downward toward the surface. Gravity pulls on the space station, too. As a result, it is constantly falling toward Earth's surface. It also is moving at a very fast speed - 17,500 miles per hour. It moves at a speed that matches the way Earth's surface curves. If a person throws a baseball, gravity will cause it to curve down. It will hit the ground fairly quickly. An orbiting spacecraft moves at the right speed so the curve of its fall matches the curve of Earth. Because of this, the spacecraft keeps falling toward the ground but never hits it. As a result, they fall around the planet. The moon stays in orbit around Earth for this same reason. The moon also is falling around Earth."

source: What Is Microgravity? | NASA

I WOULD CALL THIS KIND OF CONTRADICTION AN EXAMPLE OF A CONTINUITY ERROR

A clear indication that none of this is reproducible science.

Please note Newton makes no reference to anything but a gravity and the fixed forward velocity of the imaged cannonball.

Newton's concept has nothing to do with centrifugal effect and this makes sense. When we plug in the numbers and use the correct math, we easily can see that the cannonball can do nothing but fall back to the Earth's surface in around five minutes time, after covering only some 1400 or so miles during that five minutes of time.


"...perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other...."

quote source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory


newon+wrong.jpg
Newton Wrong .jpg

"We may therefore suppose the velocity to be so increased, that it would describe an arc of 1, 2, 5, 10, 100, 1000 miles before it arrived at the Earth..."

– Sir Isaac Newton explaining his cannonball thought experiment.

When we use real world physics as our guide and the math that correctly models real world ballistic (projectile) motion, we can't help but notice how Newton misdirects the reader. The reality is that the imagined cannonball would not get much further than E, in the illustration below. This would occur within about 5 minutes.

"...perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other."

quote source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

Episode+48-1.jpg

"We may therefore suppose the velocity to be so increased, that it would describe an arc of 1, 2, 5, 10, 100, 1000 miles before it arrived at the Earth..."

 – Sir Isaac Newton explaining his cannonball thought experiment.

Please note how Newton has the cannonball striking the Earth at "F" which would be over 6,000 miles or so, assuming the Earth's circumference is something like 25,000 miles.

Sir Isaac Newton is using gravity as centripetal force. His thought experiment is the exact same projectile thought experiment that demonstrates why orbits cannot exist.

When we use the 24,800 mile circumference for the Earth and consider this illustration we can see that the letter "E" would be about 1,500 miles from the letter "V". Within five minutes time the cannonball would fall 248 miles or so towards the Earth's center, after traveling about that far. Please keep in mind that this imagined mechanic relies on gravity itself to act as a centripetal force that magically and illogically combines with the forward horizontal motion to somehow resist the effect of gravity, which is falling and which is an effect that is demonstrably unaffected by fixed horizontal projectile velocity. In a way, gravity is being used (conceptually) to resist itself: this is obvious fallacious nonsense. The accelerated effect of gravity is being made to act like a mechanical clock arm bar.

Do you see the problem? When we do the thought experiment making use of real world projectile motions we can't help but notice how Newton misdirects the reader. The reality is that the imagined cannonball would not get much further than E, in the illustration above. This would occur within about 5 minutes.

Please notice how Newton does not use any values. His thought experiment is not a valid mental exercise as it takes real world projectile physics into account until it doesn't. The text does not prove anything at all, it simply tells us what to think. When we plug in the numbers, something Newton did not do, when we use the (about) 25,000 mile circumference for the Earth, and make use of the correct values for gravity, which is an accelerated effect, we easily realize Sir Isaac Newton is wrong.

Newton Wrong  copy.jpg

from pages 512 and 513Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy

"...which we would not be understood to determine by any hypothesis;" - Sir Isaac Newton.

source: Pages 512 - 513 - Link: https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n517/mode/2up

Orbital explanations are propaganda artifacts that ignore demonstrable ballistic physics in favor of "scientific" dogma and catechism.

Plug in the numbers. Use a velocity of 17,170 mph or about 5 miles a second and make use of 90 percent gravity, and of course use the correct math that models actual and demonstrable ballistic or projective physics. At a height of doe 248 or so miles, and assuming a friction free environment as Sir Isaac does, we can easily see that within 5 minutes the thought experiment cannonball or equally imagined orbiting satellite can do nothing but fall.

400,500 meters is 248.859162 miles.

GRAVITY (FALLING) CALCULATOR:

source link: https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224835316

source: Google search


Pages 74 - 77 from Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy:

NEWTON SO WRONG.jpg

Demonstrable real world projectile physics prove Newtonian orbits are impossible.

Within something like five minutes the imagined cannonball, in frictionless environment, would fall some 248 miles toward Earth's center with accelerated effect, Newton ignores gravity's demonstrable accelerated effect in favor of mathematical fantasy. This assumes a velocity that matches Newton's thought experiment and NASA and International space agency claims for the imagined International Space Station. This velocity works out to about 5 miles a second or so*. By the way, this works out to be about 20 degrees or so. A 92 minute orbit, the result of some near 18,000 mph fixed (horizontal) velocity works out to be about 4 degrees a minute.

Compare what I wrote above to Newton's misdirection below:

*About 18,000 mph, compare to 17,170 mph and 4,76 miles a second, the actual values for the ISS.

NEWTON SO WRONG 3.jpg
NEWTON SO WRONG 2.jpg

Historical Context:

"...which we would not be understood to determine by any hypothesis;" - Sir Isaac Newton.

source: Pages 512 - 513 - Link: https://archive.org/stream/newtonspmathema00newtrich#page/n517/mode/2up

Sir Isaac Newton admits there is no hypothesis for orbits. Orbits are not an example of physics. Orbits are fallacious mathematical fantasy and artifact of a secular faith that (for centuries) promotes governmental growth of one kind or another.

Sir Isaac Newton's provided no actual physical theory to explain Kepler's absurdly labeled "laws".

"With the publication of his Principia roughly eighty years later (1687), Isaac Newton provided a physical theory that accounted for all three of Kepler's laws, a theory based on Newton's laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation"

"The modern understanding of planetary motion arose from the combined efforts of astronomer Tycho Brahe and physicist Johannes Kepler in the 16th century. Tycho is credited with extremely accurate measurements of planetary motions, from which Kepler was able to derive his laws of planetary motion.[7] According to these laws, planets move on ellipses (not epicycles) about the Sun (not the Earth). Kepler's second and third laws make specific quantitative predictions: planets sweep out equal areas in equal time, and the square of their orbital periods equals a fixed constant times the cube of their semi-major axis.[8] Subsequent observations of the planetary orbits showed that the long axis of the ellipse (the so-called line of apsides) rotates gradually with time; this rotation is known as apsidal precession. The apses of an orbit are the points at which the orbiting body is closest or furthest away from the attracting center; for planets orbiting the Sun, the apses correspond to the perihelion (closest) and aphelion (furthest). With the publication of his Principia roughly eighty years later (1687), Isaac Newton provided a physical theory that accounted for all three of Kepler's laws, a theory based on Newton's laws of motion and his law of universal gravitation. In particular, Newton proposed that the gravitational force between any two bodies was a central force F(r) that varied as the inverse square of the distance r between them. Arguing from his laws of motion, Newton showed that the orbit of any particle acted upon by one such force is always a conic section, specifically an ellipse if it does not go to infinity. However, this conclusion holds only when two bodies are present (the two-body problem); the motion of three bodies or more acting under their mutual gravitation (the n-body problem) remained unsolved for centuries after Newton,[10][11] although solutions to a few special cases were discovered.[12] Newton proposed that the orbits of planets about the Sun are largely elliptical because the Sun's gravitation is dominant; to first approximation, the presence of the other planets can be ignored. By analogy, the elliptical orbit of the Moon about the Earth was dominated by the Earth's gravity; to first approximation, the Sun's gravity and those of other bodies of the Solar System can be neglected. However, Newton stated that the gradual apsidal precession of the planetary and lunar orbits was due to the effects of these neglected interactions; in particular, he stated that the precession of the Moon's orbit was due to the perturbing effects of gravitational interactions with the Sun"

"Newton's theorem of revolving orbits was his first attempt to understand apsidal precession quantitatively. According to this theorem, the addition of a particular type of central force—the inverse-cube force—can produce a rotating orbit; the angular speed is multiplied by a factor k, whereas the radial motion is left unchanged. However, this theorem is restricted to a specific type of force that may not be relevant; several perturbing inverse-square interactions (such as those of other planets) seem unlikely to sum exactly to an inverse-cube force. To make his theorem applicable to other types of forces, Newton found the best approximation of an arbitrary central force F(r) to an inverse-cube potential in the limit of nearly circular orbits, that is, elliptical orbits of low eccentricity, as is indeed true for most orbits in the Solar System. To find this approximation, Newton developed an infinite series that can be viewed as the forerunner of the Taylor expansion.[14] This approximation allowed Newton to estimate the rate of precession for arbitrary central forces. Newton applied this approximation to test models of the force causing the apsidal precession of the Moon's orbit. However, the problem of the Moon's motion is dauntingly complex, and Newton never published an accurate gravitational model of the Moon's apsidal precession. After a more accurate model by Clairaut in 1747,[15] analytical models of the Moon's motion were developed in the late 19th century by Hill,[16] Brown,[17] and Delaunay."

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_theorem_of_revolving_orbits#Historical_context


"Nothing holds the Moon up!"

"In reality, nothing holds the Moon up.  As Newton's inertial frame analysis predicts, the Moon is completely under gravity's thrall; in other words, it falls, because in such a frame there's only one force on the Moon: gravity.  Gravity accelerates it.  That doesn't mean its speed must necessarily change, or that it must get closer to Earth (although actually both of these things do occur slightly during the month, but that's not an important point).  If Newton's F=ma is solved for the general case of falling under gravity, the motions that result are lines, circles, ellipses, parabolae, and hyperbolae.  In one of those great correspondences between Nature and pure mathematics, these are precisely the curves that result if we take a cone and slice it in any direction."

"Even if the Moon's orbit were circular, its direction of travel would still be changing, which is one kind of acceleration.  (Remember that acceleration is a change in velocity, meaning that acceleration can change an object's speed, or it can change merely the direction of motion, or both.)  The Moon, and every other satellite, fall just as surely as an apple does when pulled down by gravity.  Whereas the apple changes its speed but not its direction of motion, the Moon changes its direction of motion, but not its speed.  The real difference between a satellite and an apple falling from a tree, is that for the fast sideways-moving satellite, the direction of "down" is always changing.  But the satellite really is falling, and in fact a near-Earth satellite has almost the same acceleration that a falling apple has.  If it's above us now, then in about 45 minutes, for a low satellite, it will have fallen so far down that it'll be on the other side of Earth.  By then, the direction of down has reversed completely, and the satellite will again fall down for those who live on the opposite side of Earth, returning to us about 90 minutes after we first saw it.  Of course, it never hits Earth because of its ever-present sideways motion.  The Moon is much farther away where gravity is weaker, so it takes fully two weeks to fall to the other side of Earth."

source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Centrifugal/centri.html.

"The real difference between a satellite and an apple falling from a tree, is that for the fast sideways-moving satellite, the direction of "down" is always changing."

Sir Isaac and logical would indicated that the direction of "down" is always (centripetally) pointed toward Earth's presumed center.

So many contradictions: These kinds of "continuity errors", or rather logical inconsistencies are obvious example of evidence that points to the absurdity of this idea in the first place

source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Centrifugal/centri.html

"Does centrifugal force hold the Moon up?"

VB-blackboard-1.jpg

image source: http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun2.htm

RPMS MATTER

"The rate of centrifugation is specified by the angular velocity usually expressed as revolutions per minute (RPM), or acceleration expressed as g. The conversion factor between RPM and g depends on the radius of the centrifuge rotor. The particles' settling velocity in centrifugation is a function of their size and shape, centrifugal acceleration, the volume fraction of solids present, the density difference between the particle and the liquid, and the viscosity. The most common application is the separation of solid from highly concentrated suspensions, which is used in the treatment of sewage sludges for dewatering where less consistent sediment is produced."

source: Centrifugation - Wikipedia

"Centrifugal force?"

"What has that got to do with satellite motion? Next, von Braun draws a picture of a satellite in Earth orbit.  Acting on the satellite are two forces: gravity, pulling the satellite toward Earth, and this centrifugal force, pushing the satellite away.  He writes "A circular orbit occurs whenever a small mass, travelling through the gravitational field of a big one, happens to have a speed at which the centrifugal force is precisely strong enough to balance the large body's gravitational pull."  And later, "If the balance between gravitational and centrifugal force is not perfect, [...] the small body will describe an elliptical path around the large one."

"In an inertial frame, if there really were two equal-but-opposite forces on the satellite as von Braun drew them, then the total force on it would be zero.  So it wouldn't accelerate; it would move in a straight line with constant speed.  Since the orbiting satellite doesn't move in a straight line, neither von Braun's picture nor his explanation can be right."

"In the 1960s, Wernher von Braun put together a series of articles about space flight, some of which were published in Popular Science Monthly.  Eventually they were collected and made into the book Space Frontier, (1st ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston).  It's a very readable book, and talks about how rockets work, and flight and safety in space.  In one of the articles, von Braun explains why a satellite is able to stay up while in Earth orbit. He begins the article by asking what would happen if we could throw an object horizontally, but at faster and faster speeds, such as in the picture shown here.  "Eventually", he writes, "the curvature of the downward-bent trajectory would become equal to the curvature of the earth."  This is almost well and good.  (It's not quite right to say that the curvatures of the orbit and Earth's surface are the same, even for circular motion, but this is a minor error compared with what comes next.)  The important point is that as the bullet moves faster and faster, a magical speed is reached where the curved Earth drops away from the bullet precisely as fast as the bullet falls to the ground; added to which, the direction of "down" keeps changing.  As a result, the bullet never gets any closer to the ground—it's in orbit.  This is actually a marvellous special feature of an inverse square force like gravity; it would not be guaranteed to happen if gravity were not inverse square.  In general, orbits are ellipses, and one such is drawn on the left.  A picture just like this was originally included by Sir Isaac Newton in his Principia of 1687.  After this fine start, von Braun then proceeds to muddy the water.  He says that as the bullet is shot at ever faster speeds, "its trajectory will be less deflected because the centrifugal force is increased by its higher speed, and more effectively counteracts the Earth's gravitational pull."  At this point physicists baulk.  Centrifugal force?  What has that got to do with satellite motion? Next, von Braun draws a picture of a satellite in Earth orbit.  Acting on the satellite are two forces: gravity, pulling the satellite toward Earth, and this centrifugal force, pushing the satellite away.  He writes "A circular orbit occurs whenever a small mass, travelling through the gravitational field of a big one, happens to have a speed at which the centrifugal force is precisely strong enough to balance the large body's gravitational pull."  And later, "If the balance between gravitational and centrifugal force is not perfect, [...] the small body will describe an elliptical path around the large one."

"What would Newton say?  He too would draw the forces acting on the satellite, and would then proceed to apply his "force = mass × acceleration"; but first, he'd want to choose an "inertial frame" within which to do this, since his laws only work in inertial frames.  An inertial frame is one in which, if we throw a ball, it moves away from us with constant velocity (i.e. constant speed in a straight line). Since this doesn't quite happen on Earth, the frame Newton would choose would be something more all-encompassing, outside of Earth.  One good approximation would be the frame of the Solar System, within which the Sun is at rest and Earth revolves fairly accurately in a circle around it, once a year.  An inertial frame like this is presumably what von Braun is using, because anything noninertial won't tie in too well with his picture of Earth plus satellite. In an inertial frame, if there really were two equal-but-opposite forces on the satellite as von Braun drew them, then the total force on it would be zero.  So it wouldn't accelerate; it would move in a straight line with constant speed.  Since the orbiting satellite doesn't move in a straight line, neither von Braun's picture nor his explanation can be right."

source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Centrifugal/centri.html

See page 512 and 513 from Newton's Principia itself, and notice how the above centrifugal explanation contradicts the work  attributed to Newton.

Newton admits in writing in this work, that his orbital "theory" lacks hypothesis, and is therefore not science and is not does follow scientific method.

Please notice how Newton does not use any values. His thought experiment is not a valid mental exercise as it takes real world projectile physics into account until it doesn't. The text does not prove anything at all, it simply tells us what to think. When we plug in the numbers, something Newton did not do, when we use the (about) 25,000 mile circumference for the Earth, and make use of the correct values for gravity, which is an accelerated effect, we easily realize Sir Isaac Newton is wrong.

Demonstrable Ballistic Physics Proves Newton Wrong: Orbits Cannot Exist

Please note that the gravity free path would not be points towards the horizon, assuming a spherical, globe shaped world.

"...perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other...."

Horizontally Launched Projectiles

"Let's return to our thought experiment from earlier in this lesson. Consider a cannonball projected horizontally by a cannon from the top of a very high cliff. In the absence of gravity, the cannonball would continue its horizontal motion at a constant velocity. This is consistent with the law of inertia. And furthermore, if merely dropped from rest in the presence of gravity, the cannonball would accelerate downward, gaining speed at a rate of 9.8 m/s every second. This is consistent with our conception of free-falling objects accelerating at a rate known as the acceleration of gravity. If our thought experiment continues and we project the cannonball horizontally in the presence of gravity, then the cannonball would maintain the same horizontal motion as before - a constant horizontal velocity. Furthermore, the force of gravity will act upon the cannonball to cause the same vertical motion as before - a downward acceleration. The cannonball falls the same amount of distance as it did when it was merely dropped from rest (refer to diagram below). However, the presence of gravity does not affect the horizontal motion of the projectile. The force of gravity acts downward and is unable to alter the horizontal motion. There must be a horizontal force to cause a horizontal acceleration. (And we know that there is only a vertical force acting upon projectiles.) The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration."

"The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration."

"In conclusion, projectiles travel with a parabolic trajectory due to the fact that the downward force of gravity accelerates them downward from their otherwise straight-line, gravity-free trajectory. This downward force and acceleration results in a downward displacement from the position that the object would be if there were no gravity. The force of gravity does not affect the horizontal component of motion; a projectile maintains a constant horizontal velocity since there are no horizontal forces acting upon it."

quote source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

NEWTON4-1.jpg

source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

"Why Do Objects Float in Orbit?"
"If 90 percent of Earth's gravity reaches the space station, then why do astronauts float there? The answer is because they are in free fall. In a vacuum, gravity causes all objects to fall at the same rate. The mass of the object does not matter. If a person drops a hammer and a feather, air will make the feather fall more slowly. But if there were no air, they would fall at the same acceleration. Some amusement parks have free-fall rides, in which a cabin is dropped along a tall tower. If a person let go of an object at the beginning of the fall, the person and the object would fall at the same acceleration. Because of that, the object would appear to float in front of the person. That is what happens in a spacecraft. The spacecraft, its crew and any objects aboard are all falling toward but around Earth. Since they are all falling together, the crew and objects appear to float when compared with the spacecraft."

"How Can Spacecraft Fall Around Earth?"
"What does it mean to fall around Earth? Earth's gravity pulls objects downward toward the surface. Gravity pulls on the space station, too. As a result, it is constantly falling toward Earth's surface. It also is moving at a very fast speed - 17,500 miles per hour. It moves at a speed that matches the way Earth's surface curves. If a person throws a baseball, gravity will cause it to curve down. It will hit the ground fairly quickly. An orbiting spacecraft moves at the right speed so the curve of its fall matches the curve of Earth. Because of this, the spacecraft keeps falling toward the ground but never hits it. As a result, they fall around the planet. The moon stays in orbit around Earth for this same reason. The moon also is falling around Earth."

source: What Is Microgravity? | NASA

"How Do Objects Stay in Orbit?"
"An object in motion will stay in motion unless something pushes or pulls on it. This statement is called Newton's first law of motion. Without gravity, an Earth-orbiting satellite would go off into space along a straight line. With gravity, it is pulled back toward Earth. A constant tug-of-war takes place between the satellite's tendency to move in a straight line, or momentum, and the tug of gravity pulling the satellite back. An object's momentum and the force of gravity have to be balanced for an orbit to happen. If the forward momentum of one object is too great, it will speed past and not enter into orbit. If momentum is too small, the object will be pulled down and crash. When these forces are balanced, the object is always falling toward the planet, but because it's moving sideways fast enough, it never hits the planet. Orbital velocity is the speed needed to stay in orbit. At an altitude of 150 miles (242 kilometers) above Earth, orbital velocity is about 17,000 miles per hour. Satellites that have higher orbits have slower orbital velocities."

source: What Is an Orbit? | NASA

NASA's official explanation, like Sir Isaac Newton's orbital idea itself, contradicts demonstrable ballistic physics.

"The cannonball falls the same amount of distance as it did when it was merely dropped from rest. However, the presence of gravity does not affect the horizontal motion of the projectile. The force of gravity acts downward and is unable to alter the horizontal motion."

"The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration"

source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

Newton's concept has nothing to do with centrifugal effect and this makes sense. When we plug in the numbers and use the correct math, we easily can see that the cannonball can do nothing but fall back to the Earth's surface in around five minutes time, after covering only some 1400 or so miles during that five minutes of time.

NEWTON'S CONCEPT IGNORES GRAVITY'S ACCELERATED EFFECT

wrong+2.jpg

Published by the Royal Society: Newton's Principia : the mathematical principles of natural philosophy

8000 meters is about 5 miles

The above artwork illustrates what the paragraph below describes.

"So what launch speed does a satellite need in order to orbit the earth? The answer emerges from a basic fact about the curvature of the earth. For every 8000 meters measured along the horizon of the earth, the earth's surface curves downward by approximately 5 meters. So if you were to look out horizontally along the horizon of the Earth for 8000 meters, you would observe that the Earth curves downwards below this straight-line path a distance of 5 meters. For a projectile to orbit the earth, it must travel horizontally a distance of 8000 meters for every 5 meters of vertical fall. It so happens that the vertical distance that a horizontally launched projectile would fall in its first second is approximately 5 meters (0.5*g*t2). For this reason, a projectile launched horizontally with a speed of about 8000 m/s will be capable of orbiting the earth in a circular path. This assumes that it is launched above the surface of the earth and encounters negligible atmospheric drag. As the projectile travels tangentially a distance of 8000 meters in 1 second, it will drop approximately 5 meters towards the earth. Yet, the projectile will remain the same distance above the earth due to the fact that the earth curves at the same rate that the projectile falls. If shot with a speed greater than 8000 m/s, it would orbit the earth in an elliptical path."

source: Circular Motion Principles for Satellites - The Physics Classroom

An object only falls  5 meters during the first second of time, after that the distance increases per second accordingly:

Distance covered per second of time (round up):

At one second time: 5 meters per second – total distance: 5 m (4.9m) – velocity at one second = 10 meters a second, rounded up.

At two seconds time: 15 meters per second – total distance: 20 m (19.8m) – velocity at one second = 20 meters a second, rounded up.

At three seconds time: 25 meters per second –  total distance: 45 m (44.1m) – velocity at one second = 30 meters a second, rounded up.

Demonstrable Ballistic Physics Prove Newton Wrong: Orbits Cannot Exist

"...perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other..."

"Let's return to our thought experiment from earlier in this lesson. Consider a cannonball projected horizontally by a cannon from the top of a very high cliff. In the absence of gravity, the cannonball would continue its horizontal motion at a constant velocity. This is consistent with the law of inertia. And furthermore, if merely dropped from rest in the presence of gravity, the cannonball would accelerate downward, gaining speed at a rate of 9.8 m/s every second. This is consistent with our conception of free-falling objects accelerating at a rate known as the acceleration of gravity. If our thought experiment continues and we project the cannonball horizontally in the presence of gravity, then the cannonball would maintain the same horizontal motion as before - a constant horizontal velocity. Furthermore, the force of gravity will act upon the cannonball to cause the same vertical motion as before - a downward acceleration. The cannonball falls the same amount of distance as it did when it was merely dropped from rest (refer to diagram below). However, the presence of gravity does not affect the horizontal motion of the projectile. The force of gravity acts downward and is unable to alter the horizontal motion. There must be a horizontal force to cause a horizontal acceleration. (And we know that there is only a vertical force acting upon projectiles.) The vertical force acts perpendicular to the horizontal motion and will not affect it since perpendicular components of motion are independent of each other. Thus, the projectile travels with a constant horizontal velocity and a downward vertical acceleration."

source: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/vectors/Lesson-2/Characteristics-of-a-Projectile-s-Trajectory

61.jpg

image source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Astronomy%3B_Galileo_with_his_telescope_in_the_Piazza_San_Marc_Wellcome_V0024831.jpg

 

(For more see episode 59)

link: http://www.aamorris.net/podcast-episode-59/

Somewhat confusing centrifugal explanations lie ahead:

Please keep in mind that a centrifugal effect requires a boundary, a string or a clock arm like mechanism. If the string breaks, or if the boundary disappears or if the clock arm like bar were to evaporate into the aether, then the object flies off in a straight projectile path. Gravity cannot logically be used in this manner. It is not like a mechanical clock arm or some kind of right bar, as Newton has it magically act. If one desires to use a string to model the effect of gravity, one needs to have someone pull on that string with accelerated effect. 

Centrifugal force is not a real force. In other words the effect is a result of a change in direction of motion. There is no natural circular component to it. Please keep in mind, problems with Newton's orbital concepts lead eventually to the work of General Relativity, a subject for a future podcast.

"So what is centrifugal force?"

"So why was the concept of centrifugal force invented?"

Centrifugal force was invented to allow us to do proper bookkeeping in a noninertial frame, if we insist on using such a frame to work with Newton's laws (and there might be a good reason for wanting to do so).  For a simple example of a noninertial frame, consider what happens when you stand in a bus while the driver brakes.  For a few moments, every passenger moves forward.  The heavier ones feel a strong force that acts on their large mass, while the lighter ones feel a small force acting on their small mass.  All feel the same acceleration.  This is called a fictitious force, because it's a force that we invoke to explain why we are suddenly accelerated forward.  In the (almost) inertial frame of the outside street, this force doesn't exist.  The real force there is a single simple one provided by the friction of the ground on the bus tyres, and transmitted through its brakes to its body.  This force accelerates the bus backwards—or, to use the more intuitive expression, decelerates the bus.  Unless the passengers hang on, they will continue to move forwards until something inside the bus stops them.

Depending on our choice of frame then, there are two forces to choose from when analysing why the passengers are impelled forward:

  1. In the inertial street frame, there is a braking force that pushes backwards on the bus.  This is a bona-fide force, in the sense that it's produced in an inertial frame.  It acts on the bus only, so unless we hold on, we'll continue to move forward at constant velocity.

  2. In the noninertial frame of the decelerating bus, the force is a mysterious force that acts on us, but not on the bus.  It pushes us forwards, and has a strength that is proportional to how massive we are.  Our fellow passenger, twice as massive as ourself, will feel twice as much force, but by F=ma, both we and they will feel the same acceleration.  This is certainly a more complicated force to explain than the simple one that pushes on the bus in the street frame.  Such a mass-dependent force is an indicator that something is awry—we have chosen to use a noninertial frame, and if we demand Newton's laws to hold in such a frame, then we'll have to invoke this fictitious force.

It's worth pointing out that although the force impelling us forward in the bus's frame when the brakes are applied is conventionally called fictitious, it is real enough for the bus passengers!  It might be a less natural force to use from a fundamental point of view of explaining why Nature works in the way that she does, but that does not mean that a fictitious force is not "real", that it is some kind of make-believe thing that will go away if we concentrate hard enough.  The word "fictitious" merely means that the force vanishes when we shift our frame of reference to one that is inertial, because inertial frames hold a very special position in physics.  But as a means of quantifying how the passengers in a bus lurch forward when the brakes are applied, a fictitious force is entirely appropriate and as real as any other—in the frame of the bus.  There it must be included in Newton's laws, as all forces must.

Centrifugal force is such a fictitious force, invented purely to balance the books, when we analyse a situation in a rotating frame.  Because circular motion involves acceleration (perhaps just a changing direction—not necessarily a changing speed), a rotating frame is also accelerated, just as the bus was.  We feel a centrifugal force when the bus goes around a corner.  If we made a better choice of frame (say, the almost-inertial street frame), then we'd see the situation for what it is: the bus feels a simple force due to the friction of the road on its tyres, while the passengers feel no force at all—until their natural constant velocity motion gets checked by the body of the bus, which pushes on them to get them around the corner along with the bus.  But in the noninertial bus frame, there is a strange force that pushes sideways on the passengers until they press against the inside wall of the bus.

So centrifugal force is a fictitious force invoked to make Newton's laws work in a rotating frame.  (For that matter, Coriolis force is another fictitious force that we introduce in Earth's gently rotating frame, to explain why large air masses, moving due to pressure differences, feel forces that work to create winds.)  Centrifugal force has absolutely nothing at all to do with the motion of a satellite, as long as we do our calculations within an inertial frame.  If we choose a noninertial frame, then we'll certainly need to invoke a centrifugal force.  But a noninertial frame isn't fundamental—it has no use for explaining why the satellite orbits Earth.

A good intuitive case in point is that of geosynchronous satellites.  These are placed in orbit about 36,000 km above Earth's equator, at just the right height that they orbit Earth in one day.  Since Earth rotates once in the same period, these satellites always hover above the same point on its surface.  From an inertial frame (say, the Solar System), there is nothing special about geosynchronous satellites.  They feel only gravity, and respond to it by falling, while retaining the sideways motion given to them when they were initially released from the rocket that sent them up.  But from the point of view of someone standing on Earth's surface and defining himself to be at rest, a geosynchronous satellite just hovers in one place, as if it were somehow overcoming the gravity force that acts upon it.  Remember though, that the rotating Earth is a noninertial frame, and we will need to invoke a centrifugal force to make Newton's F=ma work.  So we can certainly say that in this unnatural frame there is a centrifugal force holding the satellite up.  But it's precisely because noninertial frames are so unnatural, that we are forced into inventing this fictitious force to keep the books balanced.  If we want to calculate things in this frame, then that's fine.  Keep the centrifugal force, and everything will work out right.  And for whatever reason, it might well be useful to do our calculations in this noninertial frame.  But to explain why the satellite stays up, we need to choose an inertial frame.  In that frame, the centrifugal force vanishes, the satellite no longer stays up, and the question evaporates."

source: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Centrifugal/centri.html

NEWTON WRONG AGAIN.jpg

The physical model of Newton does not actually model Newtonian orbits at all.

"Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune."

"These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank."

"An orrery is a mechanical model of the solar system that illustrates or predicts the relative positions and motions of the planets and moons, usually according to the heliocentric model."

sources: "Who Made It?" the Isaac Newton Orrery Story: Another Mythic Tale ...  and Orrery - Wikipedia

Cogs and belts are needed to model Newton's absurd "orbital theory". Orbits are not an example of real world physics. Orbits are an artifact of a religion called "science".

“Considers the relations between the way of life of the 18th century English élite and the place occupied by science in polite culture. Scientific instruments are examined in the context of music, architecture, painting and other aspects of 18th century life. Presented by Simon Schaffer. For more: http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/blog/videoarchive/2013/01/01/videos-for-schools/