[geocentrism] Re: Project Rosetta
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 17:19:40 +0000 (GMT)
Robert B
First -- if you haven't read Bernie B's post 'From Bernard Brauer Mon Mar 5
18:23:35 2007' re:Geostationary Satellites, read it now.
Now re-read your post, 'From Robert Bennett Tue Mar 6 04:38:22 2007' re:Project
Rosetta. See if you can see the correlations. I will not dissipate my little
remaining life in a largly pointless pursuit of an inexhaustable list of red
herrings at your, or anyone else's urging.
I did however, in deference to your urgings, repeat my google search for
'aether' with results for the first five pages summarised as follows -
aether gives 1.3 * 10^6 hits
from the first five pages --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether ; History. Current status --
not accepted.
http://www.16pi2.com/ ; Takes itself seriously. Does Robert B endorse?
www.mountainman.com.au/aetherqr.htm ; includes Article 6.04 - KeelyNet - From
an Art to a Science - Jerry Decker (Keely, a 26 year scam-merchant); Largish
number of articles. Does Robert B endorse?
http://www.quantumaetherdynamics.com/ ; Seems to be trying to make a buck from
http://www.16pi2.com/ principles.
http://www.crank.net/ ; Many articles/sites concerning aether. As the name
implies - generally judged to be the work of cranks.
www.keelynet.com/davidson/npap1.htm ; Free energy, Gravity and the Aether ;
This is the 26 y scam merchant perpetuated.
http://etheremporium.pbwiki.com/ ; What is Steampunk ... Aether Emporium. ;
Some sort of trendy 'feel-good' site.
Assorted games, music, musical groups.
I did not find what I was looking for, that is, something along the lines of
Prof H Messel's 'A modern introduction to physics in six volumes' with aether
based formulae for Velocity and Acceleration; Force, Mass and the laws of
Motion; Momentum and Energy etc etc. I have been this route previously. It was
similarly unenlightening. I am dissappointed that you don't seem interested in
explaining your views to me. I am ever more inclined to the view that your
position is simply not tenable and not supported by anyone but fringe groups
with little credibility, support or academic qualifications. If you dissagree
with my observations, convince me by engaging in dialogue, not by diversionary
tactics. So, do you see the problem -- do you see why I have to ask you these
questions? Because there is no authority on this/these subjects?
'From philip madsen Tue Mar 6 07:03:21 2007' re:Project Rosetta. Thanks Philip
-- again you make (at least some) of my points for me.
I will address one of your observations here however, as it bears upon the
issue I raised, namely orbital gravity assist. (You in blue (as always), me in
teal. These interspersions in olive).
====================================================
The flyby interval is always long, That depends upon where you start the clock
and where you stop it. so the acceleration is small, This is a non sequiter.
Acceleration (net velocity increase) is dependant on mass and distance, and in
this case -- critically -- the orbital velocity of the body supplying the
assist. The event being discussed involves Earth. Thus the whole issue hinges
upon the Earth's velocity. If it is zero, regardless of whether it deflects the
path of the vehicle or not, the net velocity of the vehicle will not change. If
the vehicle approaches from behind and overtakes a moving Earth, then it will
gain velocity, but if it approaches from in front, it will lose velocity. 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. See below. 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. I don't have to look it up -- I know the answer. I asked the question of
you for your benefit. Just as it is relative between the (on board)
accelerometer and the vessel in my example, so it is in your example. If the
acceleration of both the vehicle and the accelerometer is caused by gravity,
the accelerometer, no matter how sensitive, will not register acceleration.
The free fall motion in your example is linear . That means the direction is
constant. Is this also the case for the flyby? No. Nonetheless, an
accelerometer on board the Rosetta vehicle will still show zero acceleration as
explained above.
========================================================
I'm still interested in your PhD. I will tell you about my fourth year high
school finals if you will tell me about your PhD.
Paul D
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
