As a member here I realize i am subject to rules of the forum, and will do my best to abide in them, but one thing I will not do is respond to confrontational personal attacks by users or moderators. If you abide in the same rules you set forth for me as a user, by the time I am finished here your entire view of academia and science will be forever altered, as will your perception of reality.
On my threads the rules are simple, stick to science, keep the personalities out of it, and understand that personal attacks will be completely ignored because I know this is how successful arguments are stifled systematically on forums like this..
As my username indicates I am skeptical of everything I have been taught that does not stand up to the scrutiny of close examination and the presentation of positive , verifiable and interdependently reproducible proof. These are the basic rules of how true science is conducted. I will answer any on topic question asked of me to the best my ability, but I will not reps pond to sarcastic, derogatory or confrontational retorts. Because "everyone agrees" or 75% of people surveyed believe it is not acceptable as proof.
This is precisely why I reject the vast majority of mainstream physic, because it's purveyor instead of proving their theories simply add further mathematical and theoretical complication to explain them instead of providing concrete proof that real empirical science demands. . I propose that this is not science, but badly written complex fiction that no two people in the world understand in precisely the same way, making it nothing more than a waste of time.
Without consensus on what the theory states, you have no theory.
In this thread I will systematically and by using empirical science and pure physics prove that the concept of gravitational sling-shotting using the gravity of planets is impossible, and violates the basic laws of physics.
The individuals who claim this as fact have ignored very basic principals involved, I suppose hoping that academia has dumbed down it's students sufficiently that they will never question it.
The idea of using the orbital velocity of a planet along with it's gravitational attraction to accelerate a space vehicle is not itself flawed, in fact I have no problem believing nor understanding that this is impossible. What I do find impossible is that a net gain in velocity could be achieved.
Let's try to visualize if we can what these 'scientists' claim is happening. They claim by carefully aiming the trajectory of a space probe they can cause it to come within range of a planets strong gravitational field by coming very close to the planet from behind it's orbital direction. So far, so good, right? The probe is accelerated by being caught in the planet's "gravity well" and 'stealing' a small amount of it's momentum.
But there is one glaring problem, one that proves that those who believe this idea is possible lack a basic understanding of physics on a fundamental level.(this idea was first brought to my attention when it was featured on an episode of "Star trek" the original series).
It is proposed that the the probe does not actually come from behind the planet (it could never catch it anyway!), but carefully aimed so that it intersects an area in space slightly behind the planet as it passes in it's orbital path, the probe then being caught in it's gravity, and 'slung' or 'slingshotted' at a higher velocity than it's original velocity.
Ok, so this seems reasonable so far, right? No doubt about it, it could and would work.
But now comes the dis-qualifier and the falsification. No matter what angle the probe came in at (we must assume very close to straight across the planets orbital path), it would be 'slung' in a direction that placed it in the planets gravity well for a much longer time that it spent accelerating towards it, with the best case scenario a net gain of zero velocity. Assuming the encounter could be calculated with such perfection that the probe was 'slung; in a direction that sent it back the direction it came from, the net gain is zero. Assuming it could be caught by the planets gravity and accelerated by careful calumniation to go in a basically opposite direction of the planets direction , acceleration would be possible but not in a direction further from the Sun, only in a direction closer to it.
The basic premise of my argument is that any velocity gained in a direction away from the Sun while accelerating towards the planet would be lost escaping the planets gravity. This is basic orbital mechanics.
If there is someone here who can illustrate using mathematical calculations of how a net gain in velocity can be achieved, present them. Do not make such claims as the success of the technique with existing probes is proof, because it has never been duplicated independently and only JPL claims contact with these probes, other than a an Santana salesman who presents no proof whatsoever.
One of the basic laws of physics is the conservation of energy. In such an encounter as an attempted slingshotting using a planets gravity, the planet would have to lose some of it's energy to the probe. but in actual experimentation using magnets to simulate gravity one will find one of two things will actually happen, the probe would be captured by the planet no matter it's velocity and remain in a elliptical orbit, or it would crash into it.
Show me the math. otherwise the authenticity of all deep space probes has been disqualified.
I maintain it is impossible, and I've got the experimental method to prove it conclusively.
Originally Posted by Totally Skeptical
