[geocentrism] Can we really say for certain?
- From: "Gary Shelton" <garylshelton@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 23:00:18 -0600
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
Other related posts: