# [geocentrism] Re: Project Rosetta

• From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
• To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
• Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:33:42 +0000 (GMT)

```Robert B
I've inserted some observations and questions within your last post in colour.
Discussion on this subject would be a lot easier if someone would define the
aether, its properties, behaviour etc, with some numbers if possible, and some
experimental reports to substantiate these claims. I'm still, despite your
attempts to explain, confused as to whether you claim that a body will be
accelerated similarly (after allowing for differences in mass) by a stationary
body, Earth, and a moving body eg Mars.
Your explanation of acceleration being determined by direction makes no sense
to me. I am especially not convinced by your failure to differentiate between
acceleration on the approach path compared with the departure path.
Lastly, I'd really like to see what shape you envisage the orbit of Rosetta to
be in a geocentric model. Indeed, among all the bones of contention between the
GC and HC models, the shape of transfer orbits interests me the most! Just what
epicyclic path do you postulate and why?
Paul D
:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:
Paul,
The explanation is more Scriptural than geocentric. OK -- what is/are the
Scriptural reference(s)?
The aether pushes on masses with an inverse square law, which explains the
source of gravity (unlike Sir Isaac?s law). No -- this is an unsupported
assertion which is no better explanation than Sir Isaac's. Further, it
presupposes an additional phenomenon ie what is doing the pushing? This
violates Occam's Razor since Newton's Law relies only upon the action of the
masses.
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
[ Picture removed]
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? Because (concerning Earth/Mars)
any point on the Earth's orbit is perihelion -- you don't have a choice (except
the tiny difference due to Earth orbit eccentricity and we really can't wait
for this to line up with Mars' perihilion and radial seperation). The timing is
related to the point in time where the Hohmann orbit intersects both Earth in
its orbit and Mars' orbit when Mars will be at the intersect point. Prior
sections only show that this condition is needed, but not why. Obvious really
when you understand Hohmann orbits. [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. ] Yes, but as you said -- we do know how to use it.
The aether vortex surrounds the Earth, rotating E to W above the geo-sat
distance. Is it undetectable below ~22k miles or non-existant? How do we test
for this? Does it change abruptly or is there a proportional change? If the
latter, what is the co-efficient of change? 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. Rosetta is moving always West to
East, so, is it being constantly decelerated, or only while in the vicinity of
Earth? What about Mars -- the other gravity assist point in Rosetta's long
orbit? And since Mars is constantly moving between forward and retrograde
motion (GC model) does this also have an effect? This gravity assist is much
more easily understood in an HC model. While in the neighbourhood, is it the
relative velocities of the body and the aether which is important or just the
direction? The Moon for instance, by you statement is being
accelerated, but what happens when its radial velocity equals the aether? Does
it continue to be accelerated? Or would it's relative velocity difference cause
deceleration, which if this is the case, when would you predict that the Moon's
orbital period would be synchronous with the aether?
That explains the general feature of aether-assistance, Well, actually it
hasn't explained very much I'm afraid. as applied to the Earth flyby and the
claim of project Rosetta. Now, why the timing of launch at solar periapsis?
Where does this come from? Not the press release, not NASA, not ESA, not HC
Because at that time the aether which carries the Sun around the earth will be
maximum  (the Earth-Sun distance is minimal) But this distance is (approx) a
constant. It is the one distance within HC/GC which is constant (except the Sun
to any body). 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. As all solar system
probes move West to East, are you saying that if we launch westward for Mercury
and Venus and eastward for (most) other bodies, we would need less fuel???
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. But where does the energy come
from? And you are saying that Jupiter is not accelerated either positively or
negatively? Also, if in this instance we assume the geocentric position, isn't
Jupiter (and indeed any other solar system primary body except Earth)
constantly changing its direction from forward to retrograde and thus is
changing from moving with to against the aether? (Acceleration positive and
negative implied).
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. You really should not use speed, acceleration and
direction together in one statement.
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. Yes -- another
example of the author not saying quite what he meant. Tell me -- if you put a
sensitive accelerometer inside a closed vessel in the Earth's gravity field (or
aether field if you insist) with telemetry to a base station, and release it
from an altitude of 1000 m, will the telemetry report an acceleration for the
period between one second after it was released and one second before it
impacts?
More MS doublespeak? And yes, Neville, more NASA doublespeak?One of the reasons
why I thought Rosetta would be a neutral discussion ground, is because it is
not a NASA project. NASA was only raised by you.
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 ```