Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[JohnMartin]

I don't really believe you're being serious. The way you keep posting endless equations of pure gibberish again and again, tells me you're trying to beat us down so we'll quit and you can claim victory. I don't know who you think you're fooling, but it's not anyone in this thread. My hunch is that you know this stuff is invalid but you're enjoying this game too much to quit.

There's the psychological analysis again. No science answers are necessary for the convinced Helio. Just focus on the man and avoid the problem. You have even admitted you wont answer the problem in post 208. It's quite funny to watch the Helio fall apart over so many problems with their model.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

I am referring to the recent problem which has been elaborated in posts 161, 172, and 201 concerning the logical invalidation of Newtonian mechanics. Your answer to problem 46 was a decent effort, which I personally find to have some content, but falls short of demonstrating your conclusion. You may think you have solved the problem, but the author at the universe Today thinks the problem is real and remains unresolved by the academy. I currently side with another persons opinion on this matter.

JM

I will explain this once more. You have framed the problem as an inconsistency in 'helio' as you call it- BECAUSE the Venus rotation change is so far askew from anything even apparently (from your point of view) detected or predicted for the Earth. What I have shown is that the amount of momentum change is well within what could be expected within the dynamics of a planet with an atmosphere 90 times that of the Earth and a mass and size slighly less than the Earth and a rotation rate 243 times slower than the Earth. We see momentum changes in the Earth from the atmosphere that are in the range of 1/5 the momentum change observed on venus. But Venus atmosphere is 90 times as massive as the Earths, and therefore it should be able to impart significantly larger momentum changes to Venus than our own atmosphere is capable of imparting to the Earth. Therefore, the change seen is not outside what is plausible or reasonable within the 'helio' model as you call it. Therefore it is not a problem for 'helio'. That fact remains true regardless of whether or not a definitive answer for why the momentum change has occurred can be deduced. It is well within what could be expected in the 'helio' model. Therefore, I have shown it is not actually a problem for 'helio'. It's just something heretofore unexpected and something that needs to be investigated and understood.


Jim

[JohnMartin]

I will explain this once more. You have framed the problem as an inconsistency in 'helio' as you call it- BECAUSE the Venus rotation change is so far askew from anything even apparently (from your point of view) detected or predicted for the Earth. What I have shown is that the amount of momentum change is well within what could be expected within the dynamics of a planet with an atmosphere 90 times that of the Earth and a mass and size slighly less than the Earth and a rotation rate 243 times slower than the Earth. We see momentum changes in the Earth from the atmosphere that are in the range of 1/5 the momentum change observed on venus. But Venus atmosphere is 90 times as massive as the Earths, and therefore it should be able to impart significantly larger momentum changes to Venus than our own atmosphere is capable of imparting to the Earth. Therefore, the change seen is not outside what is plausible or reasonable within the 'helio' model as you call it. Therefore it is not a problem for 'helio'. That fact remains true regardless of whether or not a definitive answer for why the momentum change has occurred can be deduced. It is well within what could be expected in the 'helio' model. Therefore, I have shown it is not actually a problem for 'helio'. It's just something heretofore unexpected and something that needs to be investigated and understood.


Jim

So you say. But then again an investigation would have to be carried out to check all of your reasoning to see if the problem is more complex than you have described above. So as I said previously. You have made an attempt which contains some content but you even admit that further investigation is required to solve the problem. So the problem is not yet resolved within the Helio model. And further investigation may provide more questions than answers. Some currently think the problem is perplexing, so it is a problem of note for the Helio model.

And Newtonian mechanics remains invalidated.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

So you say. But then again an investigation would have to be carried out to check all of your reasoning to see if the problem is more complex than you have described above. So as I said previously. You have made an attempt which contains some content but you even admit that further investigation is required to solve the problem. So the problem is not yet resolved within the Helio model. And further investigation may provide more questions than answers. Some currently think the problem is perplexing, so it is a problem of note for the Helio model.

And Newtonian mechanics remains invalidated.

JM

So - because you don't understand what has been said the problem still remains? Well I suppose that about sums it up then.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

So - because you don't understand what has been said the problem still remains? Well I suppose that about sums it up then.

Jim

Alternatively you are similar to what you portray me as being. My answer was given which justifies my position and you have made yet another content free swipe at the man, rather than my statement made.

JM

[rogue06]

Magellan004 made JM look like a genius in comparison. JM¹ atleast hasn't been claiming electromagnets are illegal in Australia.



___________
1. Even if he can't understand simple and clear instructions

Or that horses gained longer legs by having one leg get longer at a time

Magellan HorseMutation1.jpg
m004's diagram


Or that if you find something in your pocket that it doesn't falsify the premise that the item is in a desk drawer


Or that evolutionary theory claims that starfish are the result of stars breeding with fish (this one caused Lao to start addressing him as "starfish").

[Leonhard]

It seems that the basic idea is to throw so much at your opponent that they give up in disgust, at which point he can claim that his arguments are irrefutable.

The infamously Gish Gallop: The opponent spews forth a torrent of problems, hoping anything sticks, and since the apologist rarely answers all the problems, the opponent proclaims himself victorious.

JohnMartin was well underway to do this in this thread, blasting away around twenty more problem after the first set had been responded to. No doubt he would have continued ad nauseum, if the moderators hadn't forced him to actually participate in the debate, and even then he tried to circumvent that by posting one response, and then three more problems.

[Leonhard]

1b) m = Fr²/(GM)

Or

1b) m = f(r)

Or

1b) If m then r.

Both F and r in that equation are unknowns that have to be solved for. If you want to determine the mass of a planet using the equation, you'd need to solve.



Not



Otherwise you're making the implicit and false assumption that the force has the same size for all planets, depends only on the radius of their orbit from the Sun, instead of both the radius and their mass.

[Leonhard]

So the claims that I am far gone are only claims that over extend the veracity of science models and project that false judgment into me.

I second the opinion of Sea of Red, you're a crank.

[JohnMartin]

The infamously Gish Gallop: The opponent spews forth a torrent of problems, hoping anything sticks, and since the apologist rarely answers all the problems, the opponent proclaims himself victorious.

JohnMartin was well underway to do this in this thread, blasting away around twenty more problem after the first set had been responded to. No doubt he would have continued ad nauseum, if the moderators hadn't forced him to actually participate in the debate, and even then he tried to circumvent that by posting one response, and then three more problems.

You are more than welcome to point out any of your responses you wish me to respond to.

JM

[Leonhard]

I only propose problems to see what's out there. If nobody answers the problems, then I make no claim about the veracity of the problem. I don't claim the problems or lack of answers to the problems are conclusive either way. Your opinion is only yours which you hold at variance to my intent. The discussion board is open to all ideas under free speech. So I've proposed problems, and now we enter into a dialogue to see what ideas are out there.

JM

This doesn't explain your behavior of blasting problems. You only started discussing responses the moment the moderators forced you to do so. And even then you alternated between a single response, and posting three new problems. That's not the behavior of someone interested in a frank discussion.

[Leonhard]

Jim admits one truth of the problem, then blathers on about other truths that are not directly relevant to the matter at hand. The balance of the centrifugal an centripetal forces involves an invalid syllogism. Newtonian mechanics is invalid.

JM

What centrifugal force are you talking about?

[Leonhard]

I (and others) already did. You were unable to comprehend the responses. That's what's so fascinating to me.

Somehow he hasn't gotten the idea into his head that if Geocentrism is false, then his faith in the Catholic Church is in vain.

[Leonhard]

You made some insightful comments on the Venus-Earth problem. Well done. But you did not solve the problem and nobody has. So the problem is real and remains substantially unresolved.

One can answer the problem in two ways. One, in this case by explaining the change of rotation in Venus, two, by showing that there being a rotation is not something that couldn't be explained by the theory.

You failed to address his response.

[Leonhard]

You are more than welcome to point out any of your responses you wish me to respond to.

All of them, just as I have responded to all of yours, from the beginning of this thread to now.