Philip, Thanks for this post, it was helpful in my understanding. Are you limiting the angle of the space probe intercepting the planet it slingshots around to any certain degree, or not at all? Seems to me the probe would have to be no less than a 90 degree intercept. But I don't know. The probe would clearly get the greatest change in velocity with the head-on (180 degree) intercept. I think I can kind of see the paper possibility here. The planet's velocity speeds up the probe. What I cannot understand is how could the technology which couldn't maintain the radio connection between Grissom and the tower in that famous incident Grissom commented on, "How are we going to communicate from here to moon?", manage all the theoretical maneuverings required for the slingshot to work the first time perfectly with these multibillion dollar probes? How fast does Jupiter orbit anyway? 100,000 mph? 200,000 mph? At these speeds (if anywhere close to true) it would be awfully hard for the probe to safely intercept the planet, wouldn't it? Sincerely, Gary Shelton ----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Can we really say for certain? > 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. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.7 - Release Date: 2/10/05