Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 7:39 pm
Location: Near Colorado Springs, CO


Post by user737 » Tue May 26, 2020 3:51 pm

And older (comical) story that can still teach us something if we are willing to pay attention...

India Admits Its Moon Lander Crashed, Cites Problem with Braking Thrusters ... crash.html

A couple of choice quotes from the link (with comment):
"During the second phase of descent, the reduction in velocity was more than the designed value," he continued. "Due to this deviation, the initial conditions at the start of the fine braking phase were beyond the designed parameters. As a result, Vikram hard landed within 500 m of the designated landing site," Singh said.
The craft braked too hard and this resulted in a hard landing? Lulz. How did that happen? GNC control parameters based on assumed G?
One explanation for why it has taken so long for the Indian government to formally recognize the crash is that, according to the ISRO, they were still trying to figure out exactly what happened.


*ahem* :mrgreen:
bperet wrote:
Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:50 pm
The origin of the gravitational constant comes from the "Method of Jolly":

Introductory College Physics, Blackwood, 1939 wrote:
A spherical vessel containing 5 kb. of mercury was attached to one pan of a sensitive balance, and it was counterpoised by suitable bodies in the other pan. Next a lead sphere of mass 5,775 kg. (more than 5 tons) was placed below the flask of mercury, their centers being 56.86 cm. apart. The attraction of the lead for the mercury pulled the pan down slightly, and a small mass (0.589 mg.) places in the other pan was found to be sufficient to raise the mercury to its initial position.
From this, the gravitational constant was derived, and then used to compute the mass of the Earth. One of the problems of this system is that the geology of the Earth is assumed to be all in the "low speed" range of Larson; it is all regular matter.

In my 1996 paper, "At the Earth's Core", I introduced the idea that the inner and outer cores of planets (and all bodies that exhibit stable orbits) were actually a fragment from a white dwarf star, being ultra-high and intermediate speed matter, respectively. This fixed a number of problems with the current orbital models, because the ultra-high speed matter would act as an "anti-gravity" engine, actually holding the bodies (like the Earth and the moon) apart, and in a stable orbit. You couldn't force them together if you wanted to.

If this conclusion is true, then the "G" measured for the Earth is the NET motion of all three speed ranges, the pull of the low speed motion of the mantle, the neutral motion of the intermediate speed outer core, and the push of the high speed motion of the inner core. When "G", as determined from Earth, is applied to other bodies, it will be WRONG because each body has a unique distribution of these three speed ranges of matter. It is far from being a universal constant!
Infinite Rider on the Big Dogma

Post Reply