A proof for the Stationary Earth, Part 2

[JohnMartin]

You don't type it out because you have no answers. You're a sheep who has learned to bleat out a handful of non-answers to every fact you can't explain. BAAA BAAAA John.

You don't type your answer to the Helio problem because you are a sheep who doesn't even bleat out any answers for your Helio model.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

You don't type your answer to the Helio problem because you are a sheep who doesn't even bleat out any answers for your Helio model.

JM

There is no problem Moonbat. The Earth and an artificial satellite rotate around their barycenter, their common center of mass which is deep inside the Earth. The sun and that barycenter also rotate around their common barycenter which itself is located inside the surface of the sun. That's how gravity works Moonbat. That's what the physics shows and all the forces which allow for geosynchronous satellites around the Earth are accounted for.

There you go sheep. Now you type out your explanation for the figure-8 analemma of geo satellites.You won't because you're an ignorant sheep.

BAAAA BAAAAA JohnMartin BAAAAA

[Yttrium]

Newtonian mechanics has always been understood to have absolute time. The move from NM absolute to relative time in SR was part of the Einsteinian revolution. NM definitely assumes absolute time.

John, you have developed a straw man. That is, you've created your own version of Newtonian Mechanics, and you're proving that it's not compatible with Relativity. This is not a problem for actual physicists, since physicists use the true version of Newtonian Mechanics, and not JohnMartinian Newtonian Mechanics.

[JohnMartin]

John, you have developed a straw man. That is, you've created your own version of Newtonian Mechanics, and you're proving that it's not compatible with Relativity. This is not a problem for actual physicists, since physicists use the true version of Newtonian Mechanics, and not JohnMartinian Newtonian Mechanics.

Show me where I've created the straw man. I deny the claim.

JM

[JohnMartin]

There is no problem Moonbat. The Earth and an artificial satellite rotate around their barycenter, their common center of mass which is deep inside the Earth. The sun and that barycenter also rotate around their common barycenter which itself is located inside the surface of the sun. That's how gravity works Moonbat. That's what the physics shows and all the forces which allow for geosynchronous satellites around the Earth are accounted for.

There you go sheep. Now you type out your explanation for the figure-8 analemma of geo satellites.You won't because you're an ignorant sheep.

BAAAA BAAAAA JohnMartin BAAAAA

You've ignored the problem of the ever orbiting earth around the sun again. The problem is yours to resolve and you simply won't do it.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I meant time does not dilate in NM. Time also changes in SR as the object moves. Length contraction occurs in x' according to the gamma variable 1- sqrt (1-v²/c²).

JM

I made an error above. The equation should read - the x' = (x-vt)/sqrt (1-v²/c²) and x = (x'+vt')/sqrt (1-v²/c²). The corresponding length contraction is given as L = L_o sqrt (1-v²/c²).

The essence of what I said remains. Lengths do not contract in NM, but do in SR. Hence the two theories are conceptually incompatible.

Sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorent...transformation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

JM

[JohnMartin]

John, you have developed a straw man. That is, you've created your own version of Newtonian Mechanics, and you're proving that it's not compatible with Relativity. This is not a problem for actual physicists, since physicists use the true version of Newtonian Mechanics, and not JohnMartinian Newtonian Mechanics.

If we check what Newton says in the Prinicipia we see the observations I have made concerning the concepts used in Newtonian mechanics are correct. Newtonian time is fundamentally absolute, and uniform where he says "flows equably"

I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day, a month, a year.

Absolute space does not change and remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is merely a measure of space relative to absolute space, as immovable.

II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies; and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space

Place does not change, and hence boy lengths do no change.

III. Place is a part of space which a body takes up, and is according to the space, either absolute or relative. I say, a part of space; not the situation, nor the external surface of the body. For the places of equal solids are always equal; but their superfices, by reason of their dissimilar figures, are often unequal. Positions properly have no quantity, nor are they so much the places themselves, as the properties of places. The motion of the whole is the same thing with the sum of the motions of the parts; that is, the translation of the whole, out of its place, is the same thing with the sum of the translations of the parts out of their places; and therefore the place of the whole is the same thing with the sum of the places of the parts, and for that reason, it is internal, and in the whole body.

Motion is absolute in relation to absolute space and relative, when relative to a body other than absolute space.

IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another; and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another. . .

The Newtonian concept of absolute space means the velocity of an object is really derived from the zero velocity of space. Other velocity is derived from the velocity of one body relative to another body other than space. Newton gives the example of the stationary earth and says bodies moving on earth have a velocity relative to the stationary earth. If however the earth moves, then the velocity of the object on the earth is a composite of the earth's velocity and that of the object. Newton gives the example of the sailor on a ship, who moves with a true motion derived from the motion of the sailor, ship and earth, relative to the absolute rest of space.

Wherefore, if the earth is really at rest, the body, which relatively rests in the ship, will really and absolutely move with the same velocity which the ship has on the earth. But if the earth also moves, the true and absolute motion of the body will arise, partly from the true motion of the earth, in immovable space; partly from the relative motion of the ship on the earth; and if the body moves also relatively in the ship; its true motion will arise, partly from the true motion of the earth, in immovable space, and partly from the relative motions as well of the ship on the earth, as of the body in the ship; and from these relative motions will arise the relative motion of the body on the earth. As if that part of the earth, where the ship is, was truly moved toward the east, with a velocity of 10010 parts; while the ship itself, with a fresh gale, and full sails, is carried towards the west, with a velocity expressed by 10 of those parts; but a sailor walks in the ship towards the east, with 1 part of the said velocity; then the sailor will be moved truly in immovable space towards the east, with a velocity of 10001 parts, and relatively on the earth towards the west, with a velocity of 9 of those parts.

Newton, Isaac. THE MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL PHILOSOPHY (Illustrated and Extended with The History of the Ancient Physics and The History of the Ancient Logics and Metaphysics) (p. 14). . Kindle Edition.

All of the definitions presented within the Principia are consistent with what I have said in my critique of special relativity in an recent post given above. The critique was therefore based upon the correct understanding of what Newtonian mechanics is based upon, and not a straw man as claimed.

Also,

The notion of absolute velocity within Newtonian mechanics also proves that Jim's attempts to reduce the 3 body problem of the sun, earth+satellites and the moon to a 2 body problem, based upon the velocities of the earth+satellites+moon as one body relative to the sun, are fundamentally at odds with the definitions of motion given by Newton in the Prinicipia. Jim's efforts on this thread to reduce the satellite orbit, which must move along with the earth around the sun, to a relative velocity problem is unsound and therefore false.

The Helio model does not have a maths model to correctly model the motions of the satellites around an orbiting earth-sun system, that is consistent with the definitions given in Newtonian mechanics. For Newton, all motions are absolute, relative to absolute space, or relative to another body, which is in turn related back to absolute space. The modern approach to solving the satellite movng around the earth, which in turn orbits the sun, must ignore

1) the ever changing earth velocity and distance of the earth to the sun, for such are values relative to the sun and absolute space.

2) the absolute velocity of the sun relative to absolute space. In the example we have seen on this thread, the earth+satellites and the moon move only relative to the sun, which is assumed to have zero absolute velocity. Yet the Helio model says the sun is located within a galaxy that both orbits and moves through space. Such velocities are simply ignored by modern variations of Newtonian mechanics, and as such are not consistent with the original definitions in the Principia.

Hence for a modern Newtonian mechanics to provide a solution to the problem of satellites orbiting an orbiting earth, the solution must develop its own hybrid version of Newtonian Mechanics. A modern NM, and not the original NM. Therefore any claim that the current problem exposed on this and other recent thread concerning the motion of the satellites around the orbiting earth really involves an amount of squinted eye applied to the physics problem ,whereby any inconsistencies with the original definitions in the Principia are ignored, or given a new, modern meaning.

JM

[Sparko]

You can always read the book and see what the authors say about the experiments that have detected the aether. It's too much work to type it all out here.

JM

I am not going to fund their idiocy by buying their book. If you want to use their explanation as yours then you need to present it in your posts. otherwise it is just another hand-wave to not have to give a cogent answer to the problems you have been presented with.

how would you like it if everyone just responded to your questions by telling you to purchase an article or book dealing with the question instead of actually answering you. Your threads would all be one page long.

[Roy]

JM_maths^TM strikes again:

Center of mass = (5.9736 x 10^24 x 0 + 7.346 x 10^22 x 384,400)/(5.973 x 10^24+7.346 x 10^22) = 2.8209 x 10^28/6.046 x 10^22 = 4,665 km29,296 km which is 980 s = 27.24 minutes behind the earth.

The whole of physics and mathematics being overturned by some-one who can't work out how many minutes there are in 980 seconds?

[JohnMartin]

I am not going to fund their idiocy by buying their book. If you want to use their explanation as yours then you need to present it in your posts. otherwise it is just another hand-wave to not have to give a cogent answer to the problems you have been presented with.

how would you like it if everyone just responded to your questions by telling you to purchase an article or book dealing with the question instead of actually answering you. Your threads would all be one page long.

Fair enough. But I don't intend to write out swathes of text from the book either. If you want an explanation, you know where to go.

JM

[JohnMartin]

JM_maths^TM strikes again:The whole of physics and mathematics being overturned by some-one who can't work out how many minutes there are in 980 seconds?

It sure does. Man was that bad. Anyway the point remains. The model is in trouble.

JM

[Roy]

The whole of physics and mathematics being overturned by some-one who can't work out how many minutes there are in 980 seconds?

It sure does. Man was that bad.

That was typical. All your attempts at maths and physics contain such obvious errors. All of them.

Anyway the point remains. The model is in trouble.

The point remains that the model isn't in trouble because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[Yttrium]

If we check what Newton says in the Prinicipia we see the observations I have made concerning the concepts used in Newtonian mechanics are correct.

Well, at least I see now where you're drawing your straw man from. I like that you take the time to do some research, even if your conclusions are fundamentally flawed. Yes, you could say that the original concept of Newtonian Mechanics is incompatible with Relativity. That concept has been disproved. However, that doesn't mean we throw out Newtonian Mechanics. It just needed to be modified a bit. Newtonian Mechanics still stands as a solid approximation when speeds are relatively slow, with the understanding that it falls short when the speed cranks up.

You just need to update your physics to the modern textbooks, and not get mired in outdated stuff. Newton didn't know anything about relativistic effects. If he would have known about them, he would have included them.

[Sparko]

Fair enough. But I don't intend to write out swathes of text from the book either. If you want an explanation, you know where to go.

JM

if you read the book, post the explanation in your own words and post small quotes that back you up. dont just say something like "superpositon of the aether" and "go read the book if you want to know more. "

[JohnMartin]

That was typical. All your attempts at maths and physics contain such obvious errors. All of them.The point remains that the model isn't in trouble because you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

The model is in trouble because of the reasons previously given, which have not been rebutted.

JM