# [geocentrism] Re: Can we really say for certain?

• From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:59:10 +1000

```Neville: "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,"
Yes.  As you continue to allowre controversial issues as regards accuracy, and
which I have been saying has nothig to do with the mechanics of it, that I
propose. I ask you to reconsider what I said again re throwing a theoretically
perfect elastic ball at the moon coming at it with velocity. The web site with
all the math on this states that the planet has to approach the probe for it to
impart extra kinetic energy to the probe.

As you no doubt cannot deny that a cricket bat imparts some of its energy to
further propel the ball on its way, and you also cannot doubt that a moving
magnetic field on the end of a rotating arm can without physical contact propel
a steel ball further on its way, then I must conclude that your difficulty is
caused by my saying gravity can do the same thing as the magnet to a close fly
by of mass.

I do not need math to prove this. It is simple mechanics. But I provide the
link  to the math at the end,for you to refute, if these people are in error.
Whether the math is wrong or not, the mechanics you cannot deny. We are talking
theoretical correctness, not whether we are capable of doing it. Let it be an
accident then if you like.

Remember here that the probes speed is always meant with reference to its
starting point of reference. nothing else.

We have a probe approaching a massive body which is also speeding towards it at
vP. The probe has  an initial speed of v1 when it comes into the influence of
the -planets g. The velocity or speed v1 will increase to a maximum at the
closest approach to become  Vmax.  when it is captured in orbit and swung
around till it is effectively now moving in the same direction as the planet
with it. We could mention here that a trivial loss of energy and speed of the
planet would have occured in doing the work of intercepting the ball.

If we allow for a complete 180 degree turn for simplicity, the probe is doing V
max plus vP, in the reverse direction, which happens to be well above escape
velocity. Vnew This total velocity has three components.

Vnew = initial speed v1  + vg due to the fall and + vP due to that added by the
kinetic energy of the planet, which the planet lost in catching the ball.

As it speed away in the new direction it will indeed lose the Vg component that
it gained when falling into orbit, but it will not lose the vP .

So there will be an increase of speed and thus energy by the amount of vP max
or less depending on the exit angle.

Here is  the man with the math...  http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath114.htm
But I distrusted him because he postulates that the planet has to be
approaching the ball. I cannot see the difference. The intercept and catch must
still have taken some work out of the player, er sorry planet.

It whisses around and carries on taking the added speed of the planet in the
forward direction. Or a little less if at an angle.

like Neville said , controll might be hard, let it be accidental for the
theories sake.

Philip.

```