A proof for the Stationary Earth

[JohnMartin]

You just told us yesterday that dropped objects fall to Earth due to aether flowing straight down. Now you say there's no aether flow.

It doesn't faze you in the least to directly contradict yourself in the space of two posts.

It's too difficult for someone like you to understand. There is no aether flow where there is no accel. There is no accel of the geo satellite therefore there is no aether flow at the geo satellite. Other objects fall to earth due to aether flow. There is no contradiction, but you won't see it because you are hostile to the geostatic model and must find a problem where none exists.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I'd say that Newtonian mechanics and gravity assumes that Gravity is instantaneous. But this is a quibble. JM is essentially correct on this point.

Newtonian gravity is an approximation to general relativity (GR). For the approximation to work also requires the approximation that gravitational effects propagate instantaneously. These approximations are self-consistent; the speed of light as a limit is nowhere involved.

What JM and other geocentrists try to do is to mix Newtonian and non-Newtonian physics and then claim inconsistency. Of course it's inconsistent! It's two different, inconsistent levels of approximation. If one wants to treat the gravitational field as propagating at the speed of light (as we know it does), one also has to describe gravitation according to GR, not Newton. This can be done, and it works consistently, but it gets pretty complicated. The Newtonian approximations are much easier to use.

The theories are for more inconsistent with each other than some here at Tweb are willing to admit.

NM - space is absolute.
R - space is relative to the observer.

NM - space consists of three dimensions.
R - space is a four dimensional continuum.

NM - time is uniform and absolute.
R - time is non-uniform and relative, and hence dilates.

NM - mass does not change.
R - mass changes.

NM - lengths are absolute.
R - lengths change relative to motion.

NM - motion is not limited by c.
R - motion is limited by c.

NM - space is an absolute.
R- light at c is an absolute.

NM - G is caused by mass attraction.
R - G is caused by bending of the S-T continuum.

NM - knows nothing of an aether.
R - denies the aether in SR, but seems to affirm it in GR.

The MS claims that R is somehow related to NM is simply not correct. R does not really relate to NM very well in many respects. There are no doubt several formulas upon which R theory is related to NM theory, but these formulas are used within R and NM in different manners as shown above.

The eclectic nature of NM and R within MS physics means modern physics is eclectic and therefore only offers some insights into the physical world, but is not the benchmark of reality and is certainly not something to beat up geostatists with.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

It's too difficult for someone like you to understand. There is no aether flow where there is no accel. There is no accel of the geo satellite therefore there is no aether flow at the geo satellite. Other objects fall to earth due to aether flow. There is no contradiction, but you won't see it because you are hostile to the geostatic model and must find a problem where none exists.

JM

It's easy to understand you Moonbat. Your imaginary MagicAether^tm is your go to lame excuse for everything. Objects fall straight down? That's the MagicAether^tm pushing objects down. A geostationary satellite? The MagicAether^tm is absolutely still. Other satellites in geosynchronous polar orbits? That's the MagicAether^tm rotating in a N-S direction. All the non geo satellites? That's the MagicAether^tm rotating in a E-W direction.

Your limp hand waves are laughable Moonbat. That's why everyone is laughing at you.

[Jedidiah]

Why is this an issue?

Don't know. Even JM cannot believe this nonsense. It is just an attention grabber.

[JohnMartin]

It's easy to understand you Moonbat. Your imaginary MagicAether^tm is your go to lame excuse for everything. Objects fall straight down? That's the MagicAether^tm pushing objects down. A geostationary satellite? The MagicAether^tm is absolutely still. Other satellites in geosynchronous polar orbits? That's the MagicAether^tm rotating in a N-S direction. All the non geo satellites? That's the MagicAether^tm rotating in a E-W direction.

Your limp hand waves are laughable Moonbat. That's why everyone is laughing at you.

Believe in anything that aligns with the motion of one object in the universe and ignore any counter models. That's MSer psychology.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Believe in anything that aligns with the motion of one object in the universe and ignore any counter models. That's MSer psychology.

JM

Your MagicAether^tm is so childish it's funny.

Let's walk through a Space Shuttle mission with Moonbat Martin.

The vehicle lifts off from Canaveral and needs its 3 main engines and 2 solid rocket boosters to overcome the terrible MagicAether^tm pushing down on it.

As the vehicle gets higher its speed over ground increases because the MagicAether^tm is now pushing sideways on it.

When the vehicle reaches around 200 miles altitude the engines cut off. The shuttle is now floating on the MagicAether^tm and being carried along at 18,000 mph speed over the ground. There's no more MagicAether^tm down force.

Now the shuttle releases from its cargo bay a satellite with an attached booster to send it to geo orbit. Strangely the MagicAether^tm now starts pushing down on the satellite/booster requiring all the booster's thrust to overcome. Even more strangely, the shuttle doesn't feel any of this downward MagicAether^tm force the booster feels.

OK, time to go home. The shuttle now turns and fires its engines backwards which reduces its over ground speed. Amazingly this action in firing the engines makes the MagicAether^tm begins to push down on the shuttle again so it begins to fall out of orbit. Eventually when the shuttle reaches the ground the MagicAether^tm is now pushing down on it full force again.

26697750051_37ae6ec963.jpg

Moonbat, you're nuttier than a case of Snickers.

[JohnMartin]

yes John, but that accelleration was very, very small, and the associated friction and pressure etc etc would be very, very small. Why do you refuse to be honest and admit the affect your are speaking of is just simply too small to produce any noticeable effect in the normal course of flying an airplane. You are Christian - are you not? Then be honest. The effect is too small to be noticed. So this effect as it applies to an airplane in flight is not something that would differentiate a non-rotating Earth from a rotating one. To tease this one out of any flight data would take a lot of special measuring equipment and very controlled tests looking specifically for the effect.

But there are MANY other effects that a rotating Earth would produce that ARE noticeable - and they are all produced as expected. From Coriolis effects that create hurricanes and other rotating air masses and weather systems, to ring lasers can and routinely do measure the Earth's rotation, to differential velocities in Rocket launches which are used to conserve fuel and thus achieve orbit more efficiently, to geosynchronous and geostationary satellites that are stationed at the precise altitude where the orbital velocity is such that they make on Earth orbit in one (siderial) day of 23 hours and 56 minutes.

John, even the difference between solar day and siderial day is an artifact of
1) The Earth's orbit
2) The Earth's rotation.

You are swatting at gnats and swallowing camels John.

And BTW, all you have to do to get to the truth of the matter is just be honest and truthful - something you have refused to do in all of these monster threads you've managed to initiate over the years. Just like in this case, all you do is move on to another topic when you are confronted with why the current topic doesn't show what you initially claimed it did, or you just ignore what has been plastered all over your face (like the fact this effect is not something that is going to be noticed even the smallest bit in the every day piloting of an aircraft)

Jim

Just another example of grand claims made without much content. The difference between solar day and siderial day is simply the difference between the sun's motion and the universe's rotation around the earth very day. Your other statements about ring lasers, differential velocities in Rocket launches, geosynchronous and geostationary satellites are either without content, and/or have been discussed at length on another thread.

Your repeated allegations that I am not being honest are also offensive and without merit. The W-E friction is real. Maybe it cannot be detected, then again maybe it can for objects with greater velocity, and the W-E friction may well become a factor.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Your MagicAether^tm is so childish it's funny.

Let's walk through a Space Shuttle mission with Moonbat Martin.

The vehicle lifts off from Canaveral and needs its 3 main engines and 2 solid rocket boosters to overcome the terrible MagicAether^tm pushing down on it.

As the vehicle gets higher its speed over ground increases because the MagicAether^tm is now pushing sideways on it.

When the vehicle reaches around 200 miles altitude the engines cut off. The shuttle is now floating on the MagicAether^tm and being carried along at 18,000 mph speed over the ground. There's no more MagicAether^tm down force.

Now the shuttle releases from its cargo bay a satellite with an attached booster to send it to geo orbit. Strangely the MagicAether^tm now starts pushing down on the satellite/booster requiring all the booster's thrust to overcome. Even more strangely, the shuttle doesn't feel any of this downward MagicAether^tm force the booster feels.

OK, time to go home. The shuttle now turns and fires its engines backwards which reduces its over ground speed. Amazingly this action in firing the engines makes the MagicAether^tm begins to push down on the shuttle again so it begins to fall out of orbit. Eventually when the shuttle reaches the ground the MagicAether^tm is now pushing down on it full force again.

Moonbat, you're nuttier than a case of Snickers.

Newtonian mechanics says inertia is an innate property of a body. The innate property is is merely an assumption within the NM model. When a body is in motion, the body stays in motion due to the innate property of the body. However as the innate property of a body, called inertia is merely an unproven assumption, then one can posit that such a property can be caused by another mechanism, such as an innate property of space. The aether model posits that because there is physical evidence for the aether, then the aether is the cause of acceleration and deceleration of a body and not the body itself.

Your above example ignores the properties of the firmament and only assumes the aether does what you think geostatists think the aether does. Your example is a straw man position that avoids the involvement of the firmament in relation to the force called gravity.

You have also run away from the satellite dispute as well. You have been soundly thrashed, yet again.


JM

[Meh Gerbil]

Wrong question.

I hate it when I ask the wrong question.

[Yttrium]

NM - space is absolute.
R - space is relative to the observer.

NM - space consists of three dimensions.
R - space is a four dimensional continuum.

NM - time is uniform and absolute.
R - time is non-uniform and relative, and hence dilates.

NM - mass does not change.
R - mass changes.

NM - lengths are absolute.
R - lengths change relative to motion.

NM - motion is not limited by c.
R - motion is limited by c.

NM - space is an absolute.
R- light at c is an absolute.

NM - G is caused by mass attraction.
R - G is caused by bending of the S-T continuum.

NM - knows nothing of an aether.
R - denies the aether in SR, but seems to affirm it in GR.

The MS claims that R is somehow related to NM is simply not correct. R does not really relate to NM very well in many respects. There are no doubt several formulas upon which R theory is related to NM theory, but these formulas are used within R and NM in different manners as shown above.

Your interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. NM is not an absolute. It's an approximation. It is used when relativistic or quantum effects are too small to be noticeable. In other words, it's great for everyday use. When things are moving fast enough relative to each other to have noticeable relativistic effects, we use relativity. When things very small, like subatomic particles, we resort to quantum mechanics. So NM and R are not inconsistent, NM is an approximation for R when things are moving relatively slow.

(Granted, relativity and quantum mechanics don't get along too well together yet. Physicists are still working on that.)

[Roy]

It's too difficult for someone like you to understand. There is no aether flow where there is no accel. There is no accel of the geo satellite therefore there is no aether flow at the geo satellite. Other objects fall to earth due to aether flow. There is no contradiction, but you won't see it because you are hostile to the geostatic model and must find a problem where none exists.

Great.

Why is there no acceleration? Because there's no aether flow.
Why is there no aether flow? Because there's no acceleration.
Round and round and round we go...

[JohnMartin]

Great.

Why is there no acceleration? Because there's no aether flow.
Why is there no aether flow? Because there's no acceleration.
Round and round and round we go...

Why is there gravity? Because there is a S-T continuum.

Why is there a S-T continuum? Because there's gravity.

Same deal. Different model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Your interpretation of Newtonian Mechanics is incorrect. NM is not an absolute. It's an approximation. It is used when relativistic or quantum effects are too small to be noticeable. In other words, it's great for everyday use. When things are moving fast enough relative to each other to have noticeable relativistic effects, we use relativity. When things very small, like subatomic particles, we resort to quantum mechanics. So NM and R are not inconsistent, NM is an approximation for R when things are moving relatively slow.

(Granted, relativity and quantum mechanics don't get along too well together yet. Physicists are still working on that.)

You've equivocated on the word absolute, among other failures. The NM to R relationship is only a modern myth promoted by those who haven't thought about the problems.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I've asked that his thread be shut down as the subject has run its course.

JM

[Roy]

I've asked that his thread be shut down as the subject has run its course.

Not quite.

You still haven't explained how

277,000/(3.30x3600) = 14.38 m/s^2

Don't forget to include the units.