[geocentrism] Re: Project Rosetta
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:38:22 -0500
Paul,
I've inserted some observations and questions within your last post in
color.
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 (af er allowing for differences in mass) by a
stationary body, Earth, and a moving body eg Mars
.
A chem teacher told me once that her class of modern kids reminded her of a
garden of daisies, waiting for her to come sprinkle them with her knowledge,
so they could just absorb it without effort and grow. No homework was ever
necessary in the daisy garden.
Don?t be a lazy daisy, Paul.
Did you know that you can find answers to your own questions on the Internet
or in research libraries, as well as look for questions to ask others? That
you can find answers by researching and thinking for yourself, instead of
acting like a quizmaster?
For example, I have heard that there?s a good summary of the aether as
applied to geocentrism in a book called Galileo Was Wrong. That reference
also includes aether experiments, one of your burning issues. The book is
not MS approved, so it would only be used???.by the open-minded.
Did you even google for the aether and its properties? Obviously not, so
that?s your HomeWork ? to answer your own questions by putting in some
effort.
The Lord helps those who help themselves.
Now exactly what knowledge does ?some numbers? provide? If I challenged
Newton?s Law and asked you the same question, what numbers would you give,
and why? What would they prove?
If you?re asking for equations, they are useless without understanding.
Understanding concepts comes first.
Didn?t you read this: ?The aether flow around Jupiter supplies the speed
boost for the spacecraft and increase in its kinetic energy.?
The aether determines the boost, not the mass. You would be confused if you
didn?t read it? of course.
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.
That makes no sense to you, nor to me, because that?s not my explanation. My
statement was that the change in path direction implies an acceleration.
Why you misquote me also makes no sense to me.
Does circular motion at constant speed represent accelerated motion? If you
knew the answer to this basic question of high school physics, you wouldn?t
be asking why a change in path direction implies an acceleration. More HW
for you?. Research the 2 possibilities for acceleration from Newton?s 2nd
law.
In another mail Paul said to Bernie: ?A body moving in a circular path
experiences centrifugal force. A body at rest does NOT. There are so many
other 'school-boy howlers' in just this page of this site, that it would
keep me busy for days just lightly addressing them.?
Now Robert says to Paul: Does a centrifugal force imply a centrifugal
acceleration? Does motion along part of a circle ? an arc ? imply a
partial centrifugal acceleration? Since the answers to these would answer
the original question, you need more HW. Research circular motion and then
curved motion in general in the context of acceleration.
Paul, there are so many other 'school-boy howlers' in all these questions,
that it would keep me busy for days just lightly addressing them.
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?
As described in a prior post:
All space probes are LAUNCHED eastward.
Once beyond the geo-stat boundary, probes move westward.
To orbit or land on a planet/moon, probe motion is opposite to the local
aether flow, which depends on the planet/moon.
In anticipation of your reply,
Paul D
:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:
Paul,
The explanation is more Scriptural than geocentric. OK -- what is/are the
Scriptural reference(s)?
Now you need Bible study HW. Find all references to the firmament in
Scripture, and show how they relate to the modern concept of aether
(assuming you have done the prior HW).
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.
No??? More HW ? sorry. Look up the Wiki definition of aether for a
supported assertion. Then find a mathematical derivation of the inverse
square law for the aether, by assuming masses scatter or absorb the
aetherons.
The firmament is not a presupposition ? it?s a certainty of Revelation.
Baruch hashem!
Occam?s Razor judges theories by their simplicity and appeal to a sense of
beauty and elegance. These are subjective criteria of art, not of objective
science. Take your artistic razor to the geocentrism art show.
From http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf4-1.html
<http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf4-1.html>
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?
By the time your research HW is done, you?ll know all these answers.
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,
Stop right there. Why does NASA then say in the link, ?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?
! Is NASA wrong and Paul right?
HW: Cite the reference, where you found that ?Rosetta is moving always West
to East?
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,
Once again: Why does NASA then say above, ?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? !
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?
The aether comes from deep in space. Very deep in space.
And you are saying that Jupiter is not accelerated either positively or
negatively?
In its interaction with, or because of, the spacecraft flyby, yes.
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).
But now you want to change the subject?.nice try. Of course the aether
around Jupiter causes its motion, as discussed before - twice. What has
that to do with the nil effect of the flyby on Jupiter?s motion?
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.
Is this an MS rule or a Paul rule? What?s the penalty for violation?
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?
Since both accelerometer and vessel are in free fall, the relative motion
is zero. Another basic physics question you could easily have looked up!
Do it for HW.
The free fall motion in your example is linear . That means the direction is
constant. Is this also the case for the flyby? No.
After completing the HW research above you will eventually realize that the
radius of curvature of the trajectory arc ( and the speed) can be used to
determine the acceleration of the probe caused by the aether.
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.
The NASA site was used for its general technical description of the space
mechanics for gravity-boosted flybys and its alleged ability to put probes
into far space. I found nothing equivalent to this published by the Rosetta
project team. If you have the info equivalent to NASA from the Rosetta team,
put up their physical analysis of gravity boosting on this forum, and we?ll
analyze their scenario.
In any case we now know the flaws in the NASA description, considered to be
an MS source.
http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/basics/bsf4-1.html
NASA -National Aeronautics and Space Administration
<http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html>
Robert
P.S. Don?t be a lazy daisy. All HW is due by next response??
:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:=:
-----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
Other related posts:
