An admission + asking JohnMartin for some help

[oxmixmudd]

For the satellite to constantly have the same face directed towards the orbiting earth, the satellite must have a force that causes the satellite to twist in space as the earth orbits the sun. The satellite must act like a ball attached to a string, which is swung around the boys head. As the ball is attached to the string, the same face of the ball is always directed towards the boy at the center of the balls motion. For Helio to account for the satellites having the same face directed towards the earth there must be something like a string attached to every satellite, causing every satellite to twist just at the same rate the earth orbits the sun. Of course there is no force within any model that acts on the satellite like the string acts on the ball.

Alternatively, the satellites must act in a similar manner to the moon, which has the same face directed towards the earth. Helios claim the moon rotates on its own axis just at the required to rate to have the moons face in sync with the earth's daily rotation rate. If a similar principle is applied to the satellites, then those satellites must also rotate at the required rate to be in sync with the earth's yearly orbit. If there is no force available within the Newtonian or Relativist models to account for the required twisting of the satellites, then the satellite problem invalidates the Helio model. Of course, there is no force applied within any model that purports to account for satellite motion around the earth. So the satellite problem does invalidate the Helio model.

For the satellites to work consistently with the supposition of the earth's yearly orbit around the sun, a mindless superstition is required to have all the satellites twist without a force appied as the earth orbits the sun. It seems the satellites show the Helio model to be a mindless superstition.

JM

There are lots of ways to solve this 'problem' john

1) onboard fuel to position the satellite
2) an induced rotation of 24 hours for a geosynchronous satellite on an axis parallel to the Earth's pole
3) gyroscopes
4) magnetic feedback against the earths magnetic field
5) a large mass extended from the satellite making use of the tidal force
6) multiple sensors and/or position gimbals

etc and/or any combination of the above


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


Jim

[JohnMartin]

My cat probably would understand it better than John does ...

Jim

Wait ... how did you know I have a cat ...

My cat understands it better than I do. My cat thinks Jim never produces a water tight argument and has no reason to argue against the scriptural position of Geo. My cat aint gonna budge.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

My cat understands it better than I do. My cat thinks Jim never produces a water tight argument and has no reason to argue against the scriptural position of Geo. My cat aint gonna budge.

JM

The inability to produce a coherent retort is telling ...

That you won't budge is well known. Invincible ignorance is ... well ... Invincible.

[hansgeorg]

Meanwhile, I think I have a solution.

Most Newtonian one : falling objects are in a sense acting like geosynchronous satellites, just that they don't get far enough to compensate for the fall in the eastward vector through the aether.

Like, when I am holding a ball in the hand, it is in an eastward vector through the aether, since the aether has a westward direction around us.

When I drop it, it doesn't drop its eastward vector, which compensates for the westward move of the aether.

And why it drops rather than get in a geosynchronous orbit, well, it is not high enough up for the eastward vector to compensate sufficiently far up in time for the fall.

Remember, eastward vectors are straight velocities, fall is an acceleration. (Have I just said sth very stupid?)

[Roy]

JM has previously inadvertently proved that he is dumber than a squirrel.

Apologies - I misremembered. JM inadvertently proved that he is dumber than a turnip.

[Sparko]

Your cat is smiling whilst standing on the stationary earth. He only believes the earth moves because others think it is so. Maybe you should present a proof for the moving earth, so his belief is confirmed with something more that just human opinion. Then again, you may seek for proof for Helio, but never find it.

In fact, no proof for Helio has ever been presented, for no proof can ever be presented.

JM

You mean no proof can ever be presented that you would accept. We have all provided proof (like geostationary satellites not working on a geocentric universe with a stationary earth) and you merely hand-wave it away and come up with increasingly unbelievable and made-up excuses like magic aether, of which YOU have no proof or even any evidence of. Oh, and Hansgeorg's silly idea of billions of angels with nothing better to do than move things around and hold up satellites to fool people into believing a lie.

[Yttrium]

Gravity is only a centripetal force that acts along the direct line between the centers of mass of two bodies. The centripetal force between 1) the moon and earth, and 2) the satellite and the earth cannot in any way cause the rotation of the moon, or satellite in sync with the earth's motion. Newtonian mechanics does not have a mechanism to cause a torsion force within a gravity model to account for the twisting required of satellites around the orbiting earth.

The models offer gravity as the force that purports to account for the motions of bodies in the solar system, and universe in general. Whether gravity actually works as advertised doesn't change that.

Of course, gravity does work as advertised, it's simply your inability to comprehend fundamentals of physics that is the problem here.

[Roy]

The above phenomena is well illustrated by the following diagram -

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19945[/ATTACH]

The black arrows in the above diagram provide some indication that the earth twists in space relative to the stars over six months. The black arrows point right, but the dark areas on the earth change from left to right over six months. The dark shaded areas of the earth in the top and bottom pictures, relative to the fixed black arrows indicate a different direction of the earths face relative to the fixed stars over six months.

Notice the night sky in the top picture points to a star field left of the earth, and the in the bottom picture, (six months later) the night sky points to the right of the earth. If a satellite faces the earth in the top picture during the night, the rear of the satellite will face in the same star direction as an observer on the earth. For the same satellite to face the earth six months later, the rear of the satellite must point to a set of stars to the right of the earth. The different directions of the satellite face over six months, as implied in the above diagram, infers the Helio modeled earth twists in space relative to the stars over 6 months, and maintains the same face towards the sun over the same six months.

Plumbing new depths of stupidity - JM appears to be unaware not only that in the heliocentric model the Earth rotates, but also that daylight comes from the sun.

[Roy]

Gravity is only a centripetal force that acts along the direct line between the centers of mass of two bodies.

JM demonstrates yet again his ignorance of gravity.

[Roy]

My cat understands it better than I do.

I doubt anyone will disagree.

[Roy]

Meanwhile, I think I have a solution.

Most Newtonian one : falling objects are in a sense acting like geosynchronous satellites, just that they don't get far enough to compensate for the fall in the eastward vector through the aether.

Like, when I am holding a ball in the hand, it is in an eastward vector through the aether, since the aether has a westward direction around us.

When I drop it, it doesn't drop its eastward vector, which compensates for the westward move of the aether.

And why it drops rather than get in a geosynchronous orbit, well, it is not high enough up for the eastward vector to compensate sufficiently far up in time for the fall.

Remember, eastward vectors are straight velocities, fall is an acceleration. (Have I just said sth very stupid?)

Not at all - you've got the right idea. Just replace aether movement with momentum.

[JohnMartin]

The models offer gravity as the force that purports to account for the motions of bodies in the solar system, and universe in general. Whether gravity actually works as advertised doesn't change that.

Of course, gravity does work as advertised, it's simply your inability to comprehend fundamentals of physics that is the problem here.

If gravity causes the torque force to twist the satellites, what then is the model used to determine the force caused by gravity? What are the equations? Please do show them with a link.

Prediction - evasion or a non answer.

JM

[JohnMartin]

You mean no proof can ever be presented that you would accept. We have all provided proof (like geostationary satellites not working on a geocentric universe with a stationary earth) and you merely hand-wave it away and come up with increasingly unbelievable and made-up excuses like magic aether, of which YOU have no proof or even any evidence of. Oh, and Hansgeorg's silly idea of billions of angels with nothing better to do than move things around and hold up satellites to fool people into believing a lie.

So the earth is moving around the sun and the proof for this is the satellites. The same satellites that are modelled as though the earth was not moving around the sun, but only spinning once per day on its own axis. What a joke.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Plumbing new depths of stupidity - JM appears to be unaware not only that in the heliocentric model the Earth rotates, but also that daylight comes from the sun.

Appears?

JM

[Roy]

Plumbing new depths of stupidity - JM appears to be unaware not only that in the heliocentric model the Earth rotates, but also that daylight comes from the sun.

Appears?

Ok, you are unaware that daylight comes from the sun.

"Day/night cycle" and "Sunlight" added to the cluelessness list:


Abiogenesis, accuracy, aeroplanes, algebra, allegory, alliteration, apes, Apollo program, apostrophes, astronomy, atheism, atmospheres, axioms, Baroness Orczy, barycentres, bats, bears, biology, black holes, calculus, chemistry, circumferences, cladograms, common descent, co-ordinate systems, Coriolis forces, currents, cyclones, dark matter, day/night cycle, deduction, degrees and radians, dictionaries, ectropy, English, entropy, equations, error bars, evolution, eyes, experimental equipment, fallacies, field of view, fitness, fossils, Foucault's pendulum, friction, Galileo, genetic drift, geometry, GPS, gravity, history, ibices, iiwis, inertia, integrity, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, jet streams, logic, mass (kg), mathematics, migraine, momentum, music, natural selection, navigation, orbital mechanics, navigation, Occam's razor, orbital parameters, parallax, perspective, poetry, philosophy, physics, precision, prediction, probability, Protestantism, radiodating, redshift, reification, relativity, Reunion, rivers, rockets/thrusters, satellites, science, significant figures and rounding, solstices, sperm, sunlight, symbolic logic, temperature, theology, thermodynamics, thermometers, tides, totem poles, transitional organisms, trigonometry, units, vectors, velocity, Wheatstone bridges, winds.