[geocentrism] Re: Can we really say for certain?
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:56:20 +1000
I'm not saying they did it Gary, because I'm not in there. All Im saying with
certainty is that it could happen. Now back in 69, I was for the year at Nasa's
deep space dish, I mentioned before.. The signals used for controlling these
probes is not quite the same as talking man to man to the back of the mooon.
Its computer to computer, with confirmations and repeats till all is confirmed.
Like digital TV if you get it it will be correct. If you dont, then you get
nothing.
Most of the workers if not all were aussies. I never saw a yank. As a
technician, I had to do my job. I was a rebel back then. I think we were all
rebels . I questioned everything. If there was any funny conspiracy thing
falsefying data pretending to make phantom contacts whatever, then one of my
mates would have tumbled. We were idealists. We would not take kindly to being
abused and used. I'm sure the yankee techs in yankee land were exactly the
same. Someone once said to me all electricians are mad. I took it as a
compliment. We are not conspirator material.. University professors may be, if
they did not come from the ranks of the hands on tradesman....
Philip.
Signals did come from deep space. They were called in every day when the pulse
was sent to switch on the remote transmission. We could easily with a hand
calculator compute roughly the distance by multiplying the seconds for the
reply to begin, by 186000 miles, and divide by 2.... Every day we would know
how further away it was and how fast it was going... The computers certainly
would compute much more...
Woomera is quite some hundreds of miles from Adelaide. No TV reception there.
One day when there was a maintenance schedule and no tasks, the rebels pointed
the dish in the direction of Adelaide and got some TV.....A bit like looking at
your own feet with binoculars...
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Shelton
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 3:00 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Can we really say for certain?
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:
