Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Roy]

Mass determines planet distance.

Trivially refuted by noting that the planets when listed in order of distance from the Sun are not also listed in order of mass. There is no correlation between planets and asteroids vs their orbit's distance from the Sun.

[TheLurch]

No one has attempted to do so, because nobody can do it. No physics model can ever be proven.

[oxmixmudd]

This one I find a bit interesting of itself, but I feel it also necessary to point out the serious flaws in logic and physics that this represents.

Failure #1: The earth does in fact change its rotation rate. We periodically are required add a leap second to the day to account slight changes in rotation rate due to various factors. These changes are due to tidal interactions with the moon, the sun, changes in circumference due to Earthquakes, and atmospheric phenomena. The physical change in rotation rate is typically very small however - milli-seconds or less.

Failure #2: The span of time is actually 16 years, not 10

Failure #3: Making a direct comparison to the Earth.

Venus 'day' or period of rotation is slightly more than 243 DAYS, or more simply, 243 times as slow as the Earths. So a change in 6.5 minutes is roughly equivalent, as measured by percentage, in a change in the Earths day of about 1.6 SECONDS.

Venus Atmosphere is roughly 90 times the mass of the Earth's atmosphere. So it has the potential of imposing 90 times the drag force on Venus as that of the Earth's atmosphere.
so a similar atmospheric activity the Earth could only produce about 1/100 the change as it does on Venus => .016 seconds equivalent change on the Earth

Venus is only about .815 times as massive, and only about .95 the diameter, which means any force acting on the planet to change its rotation rate has significantly more effect on Venus than it does on the Earth. Taking only the mass into account, our .016 seconds moves to .013, but the momentum effect of the change in radius is relative to its square, so we end up with another .9 reduction of the effect on the Earth, or about .0117.

Venus is about 1.4 times closer to the sun than the Earth, but due to the inverse square law as it relates to light, it receives almost 2 times the energy as the EArth from the sun. That in turn means there is potentially at least 2 times the power available to affect the Venusian atmosphere. So again, we can say a similar interaction might then only be expected to produce about half the variation on the Earth so we can compare that 6.5 minute change to something more on the order of .0056 seconds.

These are just seat of the pants adjustments, and of course we are only theorizing the change in rotation was atmospherically induced.

Nevertheless, you can NOT directly compare a change of 6.5 minutes in the rotation of venus with a 6.5 minute change in the Earths rotation rate. Venus is less massive, It rotates 243 time slower, its atmosphere is more massive, it has a smaller radius and it receives almost 2x the energy from the sun. The same forces which created this change, operating on the Earth, cold be expected to produce a significantly smaller difference.

Further, Venus is ALMOST tidally locked. In fact - it rotates in reverse of all the other planets in the solar system and its day is actually longer than its year! So there are significantly greater potential that tidal forces can affect its rotation far more than the same can affect the Earth.

But using my admittedly simple normalizations, it would make more sense to compare that Venus' change of 6.5 minutes over 16 years to a change over a similar time-frame in the Earth's rotation of a few 10's of milliseconds, all things being equal. That is still a good bit more than the Earth experiences, nevertheless does not imply there is something ridiculously different going on (like say, the Earth doesn't move at all). A something that likely has a reasonable physical cause related to the oddness of Venus rotation period vs its year, dense atmosphere, and proximity to the Sun.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

As a follow up to this 'seat of the pants look', I knew I wasn't taking into account what the real difference would be in terms period and angular momentum becuase the effect is non-linear. So I actually ran the calculations for the change in angular momentum associated with a 6.5 minute rotation change on venus and then derived the period change in seconds of that same angular momentum change in the Earth:

It works out to: .004754 seconds. So even without factoring in Atmospheric mass densities or proximity to the sun, we are talking about an equivalent change in rotational period for the Earth given the same change in angular momentum of only about 5 milli-seconds.

Here is a snapshot of my spreadsheet. Using (2/5)*m*r² for the moment of inertia for a rotating sphere. 2pi/p where p is the period in seconds for omega, L=Iomega for Angular momentum. I checked my derived angular momentum for the rotating Earth against published figures.


Change in Earth Period.JPG


Jim

This one I find a bit interesting of itself, but I feel it also necessary to point out the serious flaws in logic and physics that this represents.

Failure #1: The earth does in fact change its rotation rate. We periodically are required add a leap second to the day to account slight changes in rotation rate due to various factors. These changes are due to tidal interactions with the moon, the sun, changes in circumference due to Earthquakes, and atmospheric phenomena. The physical change in rotation rate is typically very small however - milli-seconds or less.

Failure #2: The span of time is actually 16 years, not 10

Failure #3: Making a direct comparison to the Earth.

Venus 'day' or period of rotation is slightly more than 243 DAYS, or more simply, 243 times as slow as the Earths. So a change in 6.5 minutes is roughly equivalent, as measured by percentage, in a change in the Earths day of about 1.6 SECONDS.

Venus Atmosphere is roughly 90 times the mass of the Earth's atmosphere. So it has the potential of imposing 90 times the drag force on Venus as that of the Earth's atmosphere.
so a similar atmospheric activity the Earth could only produce about 1/100 the change as it does on Venus => .016 seconds equivalent change on the Earth

Venus is only about .815 times as massive, and only about .95 the diameter, which means any force acting on the planet to change its rotation rate has significantly more effect on Venus than it does on the Earth. Taking only the mass into account, our .016 seconds moves to .013, but the momentum effect of the change in radius is relative to its square, so we end up with another .9 reduction of the effect on the Earth, or about .0117.

Venus is about 1.4 times closer to the sun than the Earth, but due to the inverse square law as it relates to light, it receives almost 2 times the energy as the EArth from the sun. That in turn means there is potentially at least 2 times the power available to affect the Venusian atmosphere. So again, we can say a similar interaction might then only be expected to produce about half the variation on the Earth so we can compare that 6.5 minute change to something more on the order of .0056 seconds.

These are just seat of the pants adjustments, and of course we are only theorizing the change in rotation was atmospherically induced.

Nevertheless, you can NOT directly compare a change of 6.5 minutes in the rotation of venus with a 6.5 minute change in the Earths rotation rate. Venus is less massive, It rotates 243 time slower, its atmosphere is more massive, it has a smaller radius and it receives almost 2x the energy from the sun. The same forces which created this change, operating on the Earth, cold be expected to produce a significantly smaller difference.

Further, Venus is ALMOST tidally locked. In fact - it rotates in reverse of all the other planets in the solar system and its day is actually longer than its year! So there are significantly greater potential that tidal forces can affect its rotation far more than the same can affect the Earth.

But using my admittedly simple normalizations, it would make more sense to compare that Venus' change of 6.5 minutes over 16 years to a change over a similar time-frame in the Earth's rotation of a few 10's of milliseconds, all things being equal. That is still a good bit more than the Earth experiences, nevertheless does not imply there is something ridiculously different going on (like say, the Earth doesn't move at all). A something that likely has a reasonable physical cause related to the oddness of Venus rotation period vs its year, dense atmosphere, and proximity to the Sun.


Jim

[JohnMartin]

The problem has been ignored. By calling the problem a feature you have failed to recognize the inconstancy within the model. Mass is critical to the orbit distance, but irrelevant to the orbit velocity, which is closely associated with orbit distance. Mass determines planet distance. Distance determines planet velocity. But mass does not determine planet velocity.

M = planet mass
D = planet orbit distance to the sun.
V = planet velocity.

Which is logically formulated as -

If M then D.
D then V.
Therefore M then V.

But Newtonian mechanics invalidly says

If M then D.
D then V.
Therefore not M then V.

Newtonian mechanics is invalid, which means Newtons gravity as mass attraction is probably not a true model of gravity. For Newtonian mechanics is only valid when -

If not M then D.
D then V.
Therefore not M then V.

Which means the orbit distance is not determined by the mass of the planet. Yet Newtonian mechanics says the orbit distance is determined by the mass of the planet according to the universal law of gravity. There is a very real problem here with Newtonian mechanics.

JM

Trivially refuted by noting that the planets when listed in order of distance from the Sun are not also listed in order of mass. There is no correlation between planets and asteroids vs their orbit's distance from the Sun.

Mass determines planet distance according to the gravity force equation. F= GmM/r²

JM

[JohnMartin]

Because a theory can only ever be verified but never proven, any claims made about the results of a model will always be a provisional, guide which provides some insights into the physical world. But the insights never provide the certitude that many think is provided. Any claim of the Helio's must then be tempered with a sober realism that all of their claims are made within the circumstance of models that are mutually contrary and come to diverse conclusions about the nature of the physical world. No model ever proves the claims the Helios make.

For example, I have said several times on another thread that SR's claim of time dilation is really only a maths fiction. Others claim that my position is arrogant for the academy has embraced the notion of time dilation and I have no authority to hold to an opinion that has been accepted. Yet at the same time the academy embraces Newtonian mechanics, which says time is universal and absolute. So the academy has embraced two models, where one says time is local and dilates, and another which says time is universal and absolute. So any claim made within those models is only ever relative to that specific model and cannot come to a conclusion beyond the models assumptions. The allegation that I am arrogant is therefore really only a false projection based upon a misguided understanding of what a model is and does. A model is not a sure guide to reality, and model will never attain certitude of the nature of the physical world.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Mass determines planet distance according to the gravity force equation. F= GmM/r²

JM

no silly. Distance is one of two factors that determines the amount of force between the two objects. That force then defines how much velocity is required for an orbit. The planets orbit at the distance and velocity required to balance the force between them and the sun. But any planet can orbit the sun at any distance if you make the corresponding change in velocity (up to a point. Too close, tidal forces tear them apart, too far, they fall prey to a passing star of sufficient mass)


Jim

[Yttrium]

Mass determines planet distance according to the gravity force equation. F= GmM/r²

No, it doesn't.

In fact, the acceleration of the planet due to gravity doesn't depend on its mass.

F = ma = GmM/r²

a = GM/r²

Just look at the masses of the planets. They're obviously not in order of mass.

[Sea of red]

Mass determines planet distance according to the gravity force equation. F= GmM/r²

JM

No.

You are confusing so much at once that I honestly don't know what point to begin with that would put you on the right track; I doubt it matters, since you've made-up your mind that you've got some wisdom that everyone else doesn't. But doesn't this stuff get old for you? You're posting the same stuff over and over again, page after page, and you make assertions without even trying to back them up. It's like spam.

People have really tried to help you understand these very simple and basic scientific principles that humanity has known for centuries, and it seems like you've already decided you've found all these hidden realities that have somehow, remained hidden for the worlds greatest minds for almost half a millennium. I realized the moment you registered on this forum what you wanted, and I've avoided talking to you until now. But I think you should come clean to all the people that have tried to have an honest interaction with you, and let them know that they are wasting their time trying to talk to you, and this that is not a discussion anymore.

It's the least you can do after soaking up so many peoples time.

[JohnMartin]

The milli second or less claim is false because the models are not accurate enough to determine such changes. The claim of the leap second is only a claim concerning the difference between earth rotation rate and time kept by atomic clocks. That claim assumes -

1) The earth rotates, but no proof is ever presented that the assumption is true.

2) The universe does not rotate, but no proof is ever presented that the assumption is true.

3) The difference between atomic time and earth rotation rate is real, but no proof is ever presented that the assumption is true.

4) Even if there is a real difference between atomic time and rotation rate, no proof is ever given that the difference is only caused by atomic clock time and rotation rate.

Hence the claim that a leap second is added to the clocks every so often is only another claim made within models that make unprovable claims based upon unprovable assumptions. The addition of the leap second can also be accounted for by assuming -

1) the earth is stationary and the universe rotates.

2) the atomic clock time is only one possible measure of time that can include a universal drift.

3) the universe rotates with a drift.

4) the local measure of time by atomic clocks is not consistent with local time via atomic clocks in other parts of the universe. Atomic clocks are only a local measure of time that may be affected by local causes that produce local drifts.

Hence any difference between atomic clock time and universe rotation rate is accounted for by diverse outcomes such as clock drift, or universe rotation rate drift, or local causes.

Failure #2: The span of time is actually 16 years, not 10

The universe today says about 10 years.

But a change of 6.5 minutes over a little more than a decade is a huge variation.

Same problem. The large difference in Venus rotation rate is incompatible with Helio's claim that the earth is just another orbiting planet around the sun. If the Helio claim is true, the Helio's need to come up with a reason why Venus changes rotation rate so drastically and the earth does not.

Failure #3: Making a direct comparison to the Earth.

Venus 'day' or period of rotation is slightly more than 243 DAYS, or more simply, 243 times as slow as the Earths. So a change in 6.5 minutes is roughly equivalent, as measured by percentage, in a change in the Earths day of about 1.6 SECONDS.

I don't think this follows. The universe today says the scientists don't have the answer.

Other effects could also be at work, including exchanges of angular momentum between Venus and the Earth when the two planets are relatively close to each other. But the scientists are still working to figure out the reason for the slow down.

Venus Atmosphere is roughly 90 times the mass of the Earth's atmosphere. So it has the potential of imposing 90 times the drag force on Venus as that of the Earth's atmosphere. so a similar atmospheric activity the Earth could only produce about 1/100 the change as it does on Venus => .016 seconds equivalent change on the Earth

You assume too much in this. Potential does not necessitate an actual outcome.

Venus is only about .815 times as massive, and only about .95 the diameter, which means any force acting on the planet to change its rotation rate has significantly more effect on Venus than it does on the Earth. Taking only the mass into account, our .016 seconds moves to .013, but the momentum effect of the change in radius is relative to its square, so we end up with another .9 reduction of the effect on the Earth, or about .0117.

But scientists don't know what that force is. So you are speculating.

Venus is about 1.4 times closer to the sun than the Earth, but due to the inverse square law as it relates to light, it receives almost 2 times the energy as the Earth from the sun. That in turn means there is potentially at least 2 times the power available to affect the Venusian atmosphere. So again, we can say a similar interaction might then only be expected to produce about half the variation on the Earth so we can compare that 6.5 minute change to something more on the order of .0056 seconds.

Gravity will not change the rotation rate. As far as I know, there is no gravity theory that models a torque force on a planet.

These are just seat of the pants adjustments, and of course we are only theorizing the change in rotation was atmospherically induced.

Yes there are some differences between Venus and the Earth, but you are very far from an answer with any certitude.

Nevertheless, you can NOT directly compare a change of 6.5 minutes in the rotation of venus with a 6.5 minute change in the Earths rotation rate. Venus is less massive, It rotates 243 time slower, its atmosphere is more massive, it has a smaller radius and it receives almost 2x the energy from the sun. The same forces which created this change, operating on the Earth, cold be expected to produce a significantly smaller difference.

But you don't know what the force is that causes the change, so your reasoning is not without its problems.

Further, Venus is ALMOST tidally locked. In fact - it rotates in reverse of all the other planets in the solar system and its day is actually longer than its year! So there are significantly greater potential that tidal forces can affect its rotation far more than the same can affect the Earth.

So you say, but then again, the scientists don't have an answer. Neither do you.

But using my admittedly simple normalizations, it would make more sense to compare that Venus' change of 6.5 minutes over 16 years to a change over a similar time-frame in the Earth's rotation of a few 10's of milliseconds, all things being equal. That is still a good bit more than the Earth experiences, nevertheless does not imply there is something ridiculously different going on (like say, the Earth doesn't move at all). A something that likely has a reasonable physical cause related to the oddness of Venus rotation period vs its year, dense atmosphere, and proximity to the Sun.


Jim

Some think the good bit more than the Earth is a good bit to show the Helio's a problem with their model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Mass determines planet distance according to the gravity force equation. F= GmM/r²

JM

no silly. Distance is one of two factors that determines the amount of force between the two objects.

The force is determined by G, m, M and r. Not two factors as you say.

That force then defines how much velocity is required for an orbit.

Force is determined by m as shown in the gravity equation. As you say, that force then defines how much velocity is required for an orbit.

The planets orbit at the distance and velocity required to balance the force between them and the sun.

And the forces that balance include the gravity equation, which requires that the mass of the planet be included.

But any planet [of any mass] can orbit the sun at any distance if you make the corresponding change in velocity (up to a point. Too close, tidal forces tear them apart, too far, they fall prey to a passing star of sufficient mass)


Jim

Hence Newtonian mechanics is an eclectic mess. So it seems. The planets mass is required to determine the

1) gravity force, F= GmM/r², which is described in terms of m as

1b) m = Fr²/(GM)

which is stated as - If m then r.

and

2) centrifugal force, F = mv²/r,

2b) r = mv²/F

which is stated as - If r then v.

So the force system requires the planets mass in the above equations. Yet the distance r is not dependent upon the planets mass as defined by

3) r = GM/v², where GM/v² excludes m.

which is described as - not m then r.

So we have the following invalid syllogism of Newtonian mechanics -

If m then r.
If r then v.
Therefore not m then v.

which is opposed to the valid syllogism of

If m then r.
If r then v.
Therefore m then v.

Hence Newtonian mechanics is invalid. Consequently if m is independent of v, then 2) F = mv²/r contains two variables m and v that are independent of each other with respect to r, which makes formula 2) a collection of unrelated variables.

A criticism of Newtonian mechanics related to this problem is as follows - The centripetal force F= GmM/r² balances the centrifugal force, F = mv²/r. The centrifugal force is dependent upon the planets velocity, v. Yet the centrifugal force generated by a velocity v, is a force vector, perpendicular to v in a circular orbit, hence the centrifugal force must always be zero. Therefore according to force equation/force geometry used to model circular orbits

1) F_centrifugal = mv²/r has a positive value.

But according to the force vector geometry, whereby the force vector is perpendicular to the planets velocity v,

2) F_centrifugal = 0.

The quantity obtained in Newtonian vector geometry 2) contradicts the positive quantity required to balance the centripetal force 1).


JM

[JohnMartin]

No.

You are confusing so much at once that I honestly don't know what point to begin with that would put you on the right track; I doubt it matters, since you've made-up your mind that you've got some wisdom that everyone else doesn't. But doesn't this stuff get old for you? You're posting the same stuff over and over again, page after page, and you make assertions without even trying to back them up. It's like spam.

People have really tried to help you understand these very simple and basic scientific principles that humanity has known for centuries, and it seems like you've already decided you've found all these hidden realities that have somehow, remained hidden for the worlds greatest minds for almost half a millennium. I realized the moment you registered on this forum what you wanted, and I've avoided talking to you until now. But I think you should come clean to all the people that have tried to have an honest interaction with you, and let them know that they are wasting their time trying to talk to you, and this that is not a discussion anymore.

It's the least you can do after soaking up so many peoples time.

It's just a discussion board where we throw around ideas. Have some fun.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No, it doesn't.

In fact, the acceleration of the planet due to gravity doesn't depend on its mass.

F = ma = GmM/r²

a = GM/r²

Just look at the masses of the planets. They're obviously not in order of mass.

But mass determines the gravity force, which is balanced by the centrifugal force. Both forces include the planets mass, but the planets velocity is determined independent of the planets mass. Hence Newtonian mechanics is logically invalid. It's an indication that gravity is not caused by planets mass, or correctly measured by planets mass. Don't worry, there are other models that actually assume gravity is determined by another mechanism. Newtonian mechanics is a great model, but it seems it is deficient, and can have its weaknesses exposed to permit critical appraisal.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

The milli second or less claim is false because the models are not accurate enough to determine such changes. The claim of the leap second is only a claim concerning the difference between earth rotation rate and time kept by atomic clocks. That claim assumes -

1) The earth rotates, but no proof is ever presented that the assumption is true.

2) The universe does not rotate, but no proof is ever presented that the assumption is true.

3) The difference between atomic time and earth rotation rate is real, but no proof is ever presented that the assumption is true.

4) Even if there is a real difference between atomic time and rotation rate, no proof is ever given that the difference is only caused by atomic clock time and rotation rate.

Hence the claim that a leap second is added to the clocks every so often is only another claim made within models that make unprovable claims based upon unprovable assumptions. The addition of the leap second can also be accounted for by assuming -

1) the earth is stationary and the universe rotates.

2) the atomic clock time is only one possible measure of time that can include a universal drift.

3) the universe rotates with a drift.

4) the local measure of time by atomic clocks is not consistent with local time via atomic clocks in other parts of the universe. Atomic clocks are only a local measure of time that may be affected by local causes that produce local drifts.

Hence any difference between atomic clock time and universe rotation rate is accounted for by diverse outcomes such as clock drift, or universe rotation rate drift, or local causes.



The universe today says about 10 years.



Same problem. The large difference in Venus rotation rate is incompatible with Helio's claim that the earth is just another orbiting planet around the sun. If the Helio claim is true, the Helio's need to come up with a reason why Venus changes rotation rate so drastically and the earth does not.



I don't think this follows. The universe today says the scientists don't have the answer.





You assume too much in this. Potential does not necessitate an actual outcome.



But scientists don't know what that force is. So you are speculating.



Gravity will not change the rotation rate. As far as I know, there is no gravity theory that models a torque force on a planet.



Yes there are some differences between Venus and the Earth, but you are very far from an answer with any certitude.



But you don't know what the force is that causes the change, so your reasoning is not without its problems.



So you say, but then again, the scientists don't have an answer. Neither do you.



Some think the good bit more than the Earth is a good bit to show the Helio's a problem with their model.

JM

Go back and read the addenda where I calculated the actual expected change in the Earth's rotation rate given the same absolute change in angular momentum as reqired for a 6.5 minute change in rotational period for Venus.

It's about 5 milliseconds. The Earth experiences periodic changes in its own rotation rate of about 1 millisecond from its own atmospheric winds.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard...0rotation.html

The Atmosphere on Venus is 90 times the mass of the Earth's. There is nothing truly anomalous about the rotation change - it can be accounted for by several mechanisms, some of which I mention above. That they don't have the 'answer' doesn't mean there isn't one, or that they don't have some good ideas.

Unlike how you approach the problem, the scientists investigating the problem will explore several possible solutions and let the evidence including current and future measurements guide them to the most likely explanation for the change.


Jim

[JohnMartin]

Go back and read the addenda where I calculated the actual expected change in the Earth's rotation rate given the same absolute change in angular momentum as reqired for a 6.5 minute change in rotational period for Venus.

It's about 5 milliseconds. The Earth experiences periodic changes in its own rotation rate of about 1 millisecond from its own atmospheric winds.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard...0rotation.html

The Atmosphere on Venus is 90 times the mass of the Earth's. There is nothing truly anomalous about the rotation change - it can be accounted for by several mechanisms, some of which I mention above. That they don't have the 'answer' doesn't mean there isn't one, or that they don't have some good ideas.

Unlike how you approach the problem, the scientists investigating the problem will explore several possible solutions and let the evidence including current and future measurements guide them to the most likely explanation for the change.


Jim

And the several possible answers scientists seek to account for the leap second do not include the possibility of the stationary earth, even though the assumptions in the models of the possible solutions cannot prove the earth moves. The solutions proposed for the Venus problem will also no doubt assume the earth rotates, where no proof is ever offered. Helio is just a hunch and that's all it ever will be.

JM