[geocentrism] Re: Can we really say for certain?
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:17:51 +0000 (GMT)
Philip,
Do you know how a "gravity slingshot" is supposed to work? The alleged "probe"
does not "bounce off" a "bouncy" medium. The thing is supposed to be captured
by the planet's (or moon's) "gravitational field", be pulled around behind the
planet, and swung off on its journey. This is like strip the willow, not Donald
Bradman knocking a cricket ball to the boundary. This is why I said that the
acceleration it received on approach would be completely negated by the
deceleration it experienced on recession. This is a "field," not a bat and ball
game.
Besides all this, the accuracy required for this science fiction manoeuver,
over billions of kilometres, is absurd. I will not produce detailed mathematics
on the forum, because many would not follow it. I appeal to your common sense
and everyday experience instead.
As regards, "Can you discuss the physics, without being sidetracked by the
accentrists flawed assumptions?", no I cannot. The vast distances between
planets in the acentric model is fundamental to the whole issue.
The alleged probe would be pulled back, with a force that is basically the same
strength and the opposite direction to that which it would have received on
approach. Gravity slingshots are nonsense.
Neville.
Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ok ... so ignoring Jupiter and just coming closer to easily discernable
gravitational bodies, "strip the willow" can in fact work a slingshot manouvre
as I described. Can you discuss the physics, without being sidetracked by the
accentrists flawed assumptions. I am not an accentrist, and I am not making
assumptions.
Since I last posted I discovered some more detailed information which also
makes more sense and adds energy to my projectile.
As usual I convert the math to practical realities, so that all can see my
point. When a cricket ball is hit by the force of the bat swung with great
force, some of the batsmans energy is added to the ball. The back swing sends
it for six behind the wicket. Do the vectors.
If I threw a "perfect bouncy ball" at the moon as it was coming towards me over
the horison at thousands of miles per hour, (GC speed) It would hit the ball
like a cricketers bat, and bounce it off even further into space, adding part
of its own kinetic energy .
Do the vectors.
I followed the vectors. The equations made no sense to me. But you can verify
them for me if you will Neville. At the following sites.
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114.htm
http://www.egglescliffe.org.uk/physics/gravitation/slingshot/sling.html
gravity like a magnetic field would I think make for an almost perfect bouncy
medium for transferring energy or work.Therefore as in practise we cannot
bounce our projectile off the surface, we can bounce it off by absorbtion in
the gravitational field.
A poor analogy of what I mean.
A diagram should not be needed, but consider a cricket ball that is a
theoretical North magnetic Pole being thrown at velocity in the direction of
rotation close to a rotating South magnetic field. Ok so its Don Bradman
swinging his bat which has a south polarity at its extremity. Its a close miss
pass the end. No collission damage. But no doubt the ball will get an injection
of momentum... (Basic electric motor?)
regards,
Philip.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
