[geocentrism] Re: Project Rosetta
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:52:07 -0500
Paul,
The explanation is more Scriptural than geocentric.
The aether pushes on masses with an inverse square law, which explains the
source of gravity (unlike Sir Isaac?s law)
From http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf4-1.html
To launch a spacecraft from Earth to an outer planet such as Mars using the
least propellant possible, first consider that the spacecraft is already in
solar orbit as it sits on the launch pad. This existing solar orbit must be
adjusted to cause it to take the spacecraft to Mars: The desired orbit's
perihelion (closest approach to the sun) will be at the distance of Earth's
orbit, and the aphelion (farthest distance from the sun) will be at the
distance of Mars' orbit.
From the above, we know that the task is to increase the apoapsis (aphelion)
of the spacecraft's present solar orbit.
A spacecraft's apoapsis altitude can be raised by increasing the
spacecraft's energy at periapsis.
Well, the spacecraft is already at periapsis. So the spacecraft lifts off
the launch pad, rises above Earth's atmosphere, and uses its rocket to
accelerate in the direction of Earth's revolution around the sun to the
extent that the energy added here at periapsis (perihelion) will cause its
new orbit to have an aphelion equal to Mars' orbit.
After this brief acceleration away from Earth, the spacecraft has achieved
its new orbit, and it simply coasts the rest of the way.
Earth to Mars via Least Energy Orbit
Hohmann transfer to Mars <http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf16-20.gif>
Getting to the planet Mars, rather than just to its orbit, requires that the
spacecraft be inserted into its interplanetary trajectory at the correct
time so it will arrive at the Martian orbit when Mars will be there. This
task might be compared to throwing a dart at a moving target. You have to
lead the aim point by just the right amount to hit the target. The
opportunity to launch a spacecraft on a transfer orbit to Mars occurs about
every 25 months.
GC: But why is perihelion the best launch time? Prior sections only show
that this condition is needed, but not why. [Like Newton?s law of gravity,
we know how to use it , but not why it works : what is the source of the
attraction, why always attraction, not also repulsion, why inverse square
force, why a mass-dependence, etc. ]
The aether vortex surrounds the Earth, rotating E to W above the geo-sat
distance. Objects moving through this aether will be boosted in speed
(aether-assisted) if moving in the same direction, E to W. Else they will
be retarded/ decelerated.
That explains the general feature of aether-assistance, as applied to the
Earth flyby and the claim of project Rosetta. Now, why the timing of launch
at solar periapsis?
Because at that time the aether which carries the Sun around the earth will
be maximum (the Earth-Sun distance is minimal) . The apses are the same for
the GC and HC coordinate systems.
Inward Bound
To launch a spacecraft from Earth to an inner planet such as Venus using
least propellant, its existing solar orbit (as it sits on the launch pad)
must be adjusted so that it will take it to Venus. In other words, the
spacecraft's aphelion is already the distance of Earth's orbit, and the
perihelion will be on the orbit of Venus.
This time, the task is to decrease the periapsis (perihelion) of the
spacecraft's present solar orbit
A spacecraft's periapsis altitude can be lowered by decreasing the
spacecraft's energy at apoapsis.
To achieve this, the spacecraft lifts off of the launch pad, rises above
Earth's atmosphere, and uses its rocket to accelerate opposite the direction
of Earth's revolution around the sun, thereby decreasing its orbital energy
while here at apoapsis (aphelion) to the extent that its new orbit will have
a perihelion equal to the distance of Venus's orbit.
GC: It?s a lot simpler to see in aether terms: to slow down the spacecraft,
move counter to the aether flow ? W to E, not E to W.
Gravity Assist Trajectories
The planets retain most of the solar system's angular momentum. This
momentum can be tapped to accelerate spacecraft on so-called
"gravity-assist" trajectories.
Consider Voyager 2, which toured the Jovian planets. Voyager's arrival at
Jupiter was carefully timed so that it would pass behind Jupiter in its
orbit around the sun. As the spacecraft came into Jupiter's gravitational
influence, it fell toward Jupiter, increasing its speed toward maximum at
closest approach to Jupiter. Since all masses in the universe attract each
other, Jupiter sped up the spacecraft substantially, and the spacecraft
tugged on Jupiter, causing the massive planet to actually lose some of its
orbital energy.
GC: Since Jupiter?s loss of orbital energy to the spacecraft is
infinitesimal , MS is safe in saying this, to assure that total energy is
conserved
But there is really no loss of energy by Jupiter (even if it were possible
to measure it). The aether flow around Jupiter supplies the speed boost for
the spacecraft and increase in its kinetic energy
An interesting fact to consider is that even though a spacecraft may double
its speed as the result of a gravity assist, it feels no acceleration at
all. If you were aboard Voyager 2 when it more than doubled its speed with
gravity assists in the outer solar system, you would feel only a continuous
sense of falling. No acceleration. This is due to the balanced tradeoff of
angular momentum brokered by the planet's -- and the spacecraft's --
gravitation.
GC: Interesting it is ? but not a fact. If the speed doubles in a time
interval, as measured from Earth, the absolute reference frame, there must
be an acceleration in the interval. The change in direction alone during
flyby implies an acceleration.
The flyby interval is always long, so the acceleration is small, so small it
may not be detected by the crude estimate of a human sensing the change in
speed internally, rather than using the precision of an accelerometer. It
may be true that there is no detectable acceleration by a human, but the
wording implies there is no acceleration at all, which is rrrrrubbish.
More MS doublespeak? And yes, Neville, more NASA doublespeak?
Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Paul Deema
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 10:41 AM
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Project Rosetta
Greetings all
I wonder did anyone miss the recent Rosetta press release? (See attachment).
What is the geocentric explanation for Rosetta making three of its four
gravity assist flybys around Earth?
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
