[geocentrism] Re: Catching up with PM

Paul,
   
  You claim that "[Robert's] references to the direction of the Zenith and the 
Sun and the time of day for the launch are entirely spurious."
   
  Whilst I leave Robert to answer your posting, I just want to state that I did 
not myself understand the significance of the Zenith at dawn and noon until I 
went back and re-read the post. Robert is discussing here both the alleged 
rotation of the World and the alleged orbit of the World around the Sun. If you 
reconsider this fact I hope that you will see that there is nothing "entirely 
spurious" about the vector addition of the launch velocities and their would-be 
dependence upon time of day.
   
  Neville.
  

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
          
  Robert B
Catching up with PM From Robert Bennett Thu May  3 20:18:45 2007
Robert, a recent communication from you indicates that you are much more highly 
educated than I am; I discern that you may very well have a significantly 
greater intelligence than I possess; by your performance on this forum, you are 
undoubtedly more well read than I am. Why then do you make the kind of 
statements (out of deference to you, here included in blue) which at first 
glance seem almost designed to convey to the reader the impression that you are 
ignorant, slow, and unschooled?
At dawn the site?s zenith would be directed in the orbital direction, boosting 
the launch speed 100 times more than the rotation speed! However, a noon launch 
would be pointed at the Sun, with no orbital boost. Most launches are shortly 
after dawn. 
Yet when the Pioneer third stage has fired, the speed is said to be only 10 to 
15 km/s, which includes the rocket boost?.. What happened to the 30 km/s boost, 
MSers? 
In Fig 1 attached, the various velocities are shown from the heliocentric 
position. Though you've given heliocentric data, I'm aware that you are not a 
proponent of the heliocentric position -- not to put too fine a point on it, 
you never miss an opportunity to denigrate with sarcasm and ridicule (eg Cape 
Carnival) the whole model and the science which supports it. Though I regard 
this as poor form, none the less, I suppose it is your prerogative. But this, 
in my humble opinion, does not give you license to dismiss the model with what, 
having cognizance of your previously attested to qualities, I can only regard 
as deliberate misrepresentation. Challenge the model if you will, but do it 
honestly.
You report the statement that the velocity of the vehicle is only 10 to 15 km/s 
as though this is an absolute value. You must know that this is relative to 
Earth. Indeed, the velocities you quote bracket that important parameter -- 
Earth escape velocity. As shown in the illustration, if this velocity is in the 
same direction as the Sun orbital velocity, then they add, and there is your 
'missing' 30 km/s. Even if they subtract, still, there it is. True for all 
angles in all three planes.
Your references to the direction of the Zenith and the Sun and the time of day 
for the launch are entirely spurious. I'm sure there are good and proper 
reasons why launches take place at the times they do, though they probably have 
more to do with lumping the major load on the day shift and thus avoiding 
excessive penalty rates to the 'after hours' support staff than anything to do 
with physics. But again, I believe you must be aware of the basics of Hohmann 
Transfer Orbits. With this knowledge, you must be aware that a launch can take 
place at almost any convenient time, leaving the vehicle in a parking orbit 
until convenient to give it that final push which will put it on a trajectory 
which intersects the orbit of the target body when the target body is nearby. 
Why then do you seek to confuse the issue? 
"Since the Pioneers are just remote satellites, their motion and the Earth?s 
also must be modeled in HC."
Again having cognizance of your acknowledged qualities, you must know that, 
from the HC position at least (and I'd guess GS also) the Pioneers are 
definitely not remote satellites of Earth. One at least is no longer even a 
satellite of the Sun, but I'm not sure of the other.
"...this must be used, since the Earth and Pioneer and all else orbit the Sun ? 
though relativity says it doesn?t matter. Right away, then, there?s a logical 
contradiction ? which MSP ignores, per usual."
If you'll permit me a personal opinion here -- this, among others, is what I 
have come to regard as the 'Bennett Spin'. While I don't pretend to be able to 
usefully debate relativity, to be able to relate this given quantity relative 
to that location, does not change the reality that this body orbits that body. 
There is no contradiction to be ignored.
"At Jupiter?s distance the angle between Sun and Earth is less than one degree 
? usually much less." 
If I'm barking up the wrong tree here, please correct me, but at the moment, 
the way I figure it, it looks like this -
   Sun/Earth 93 * 10 ^ 6 mi
   Sun/Jupiter 483.9 * 10 ^ 6 mi
   asin(93 * 10 ^ 6 / 483.9 * 10 ^ 6) = 10.9 deg
Still -- the error is only a little more than one order of magnitude.
All up, you should be able to see why I would never quote you in an argument.
 
  Paul D


                
---------------------------------
 What kind of emailer are you? Find out today - get a free analysis of your 
email personality. Take the quiz at the Yahoo! Mail Championship.

Other related posts: