Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Leonhard]

Good. We agree your preference for Helio is only a strongly held opinion.

On the contrary, my opinion is supported by evidence and well-established theories, and so is superior to opinion of Geocentrists, who's opinions are supported by no evidence, and no theories.

Your objection that all scientific opinions are equally valid is you descending into relativism, without even knowing it.

[Leonhard]

Newtonian mechanics says mass is caused by bodies such as planets. The spiral galaxies rotate at velocities which are not in accord with NM, hence MOND was invented to account for the extra mass required to account for the spiral velocities.

You'll still have to add more to this. Dark matter, which has been observationally verified by gravitational lensing, as well as studies of Type II-B Supernovas and the Planck data, adequately accounts for the rotation of galaxies.

That's one of the worst arguments I have ever made. Newtonian mechanics account for 99.9999% of orbital mechanics, with a few minute anomalies, which disappear once orbits are calculated according to General Relativity. The use of Newtonian Mechanics for ease of use, and pedagogy doesn't invalidate whatever it is you're referring to by 'Helio'.

And again modern cosmology, is not Heliocentric. Calling it 'Helio model', or 'Helio' is absurd.

You have ignored my arguments made against NM so it seems.

On the contrary, as anyone can see. You're ignoring my arguments.

If you reject a stationary reference frame then you have rejected GR.

If by 'stationary reference frame' (you tend to be endlessly confused in what you call things) you mean one in which the center of mass of Earth is always at rest, even during collissions? Then no I don't so. Show it.

[hansgeorg]

Dark matter, which has been observationally verified by gravitational lensing, as well as studies of Type II-B Supernovas and the Planck data, adequately accounts for the rotation of galaxies.

So, you believe gravitational lensing exists, fine, then you can't rule out the space probes have been getting outward in straight lines even relative to earth, with the apparent slowing down and speeding up accounted for by gravitational lensing.

This does not mean dark matter is proven.

The things you take as gravitational lensing due to dark matter could be, for instance, angels doing a show.

I think, for instance, of that Hubble smiley. Not sure if that was a fake news or not, but in France it was reported as real news.

[JonF]

So solve the problem in the terms in which the problem has been presented.

JM

Not possible. F = GmM/r^2 does not contain enough information to solve the problem. You need to add F = ma. Then there is no problem because "m" disappears from the problem by cancellation. The orbit of the planet does not depend on "m".

This is math. Not your risible and feeble attempts to support your claim with psuedological gobbledygook.

[JonF]

No, I can't, I am not a physicist.

Thank you for info, I thought it was a question of friction or of incomplete balance to start with.

Well, you don't need to be a physicist to turn a shaft.

You're welcome.

[JonF]

There's the psychological analysis again.

Noting your incredible inability at math and logic is not psychological analysis. It's a conclusion based on many observations.

[JonF]

Yes.

Radio signals with identifiable codes are sent from earth and sent back. The images that used to be sent from Voyager 1 have failed, so the only transfer that works is that of radio signals, these being only clue as to its distance from us (c. 18 light hours).

At least those were the last news I had heard.

The only means of communication with both Voyagers has been radio since they were launched. THe cameras were turned off in 1990 to save power and turning them on is not a priority. At least that's what NASA says. http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html

[JonF]

"Definition of conclusion b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism"

A proposition can thus be a premiss ("of two or more propositions taken as premises") but also a conclusion ("the inferred proposition of a syllogism").

Meaning, proposition in and of itself cannot be taken as meaning premiss.

Very cute! Perhaps a proposition can be taken as a conclusion in that case, but they are not synonyms as you claimed. Not all conclusions are propositions.

[JonF]

Sorry, but angels were not my definite and final explanation of satellites, an aether moving westward at angular speed of stars works just fine.

Except for the many other issues, such as the increased east-west velocity (not upwards velocity) gained by launching rockets from east to west. And the difference in velocity as a function of altitude for satellites orbiting the Earth.

[JonF]

It's a useful approximation.

Will you agree that this is also true of algebra and calculus?

No. In math there is perfection. When the math is used as a model of the real world it is a useful approximation not because of the nature of the math but because we cannot account for all effects (although we almost always can account for the significant ones) , especially those which make no significant difference to the answer.

[hansgeorg]

Very cute! Perhaps a proposition can be taken as a conclusion in that case, but they are not synonyms as you claimed. Not all conclusions are propositions.

All conclusions are propositions, you presumably mean not all propositions are conclusions.

And I was not the one claiming synonimity.

[hansgeorg]

No. In math there is perfection. When the math is used as a model of the real world it is a useful approximation not because of the nature of the math but because we cannot account for all effects (although we almost always can account for the significant ones) , especially those which make no significant difference to the answer.

I was thinking of calculus which (as far as I could gather when someone tried to explain it to me decades ago) explicitly uses approximation.

I was also thinking of algebra, which approximates to the actual definitions, while giving short cuts.

[hansgeorg]

Except for the many other issues, such as the increased east-west velocity (not upwards velocity) gained by launching rockets from east to west.

I hadn't taken the trouble to respond, earlier, but increased velocity is no problem at all, since it is being dragged westward by the aether.

And the difference in velocity as a function of altitude for satellites orbiting the Earth.

I really don't think Geocentrism has a problem with that one. If you think otherwise, be a bit more precise.

[JonF]

All conclusions are propositions, you presumably mean not all propositions are conclusions.

And I was not the one claiming synonimity.

Whoops, looking back you are correct. So if you want to take a conclusion as a proposition you have to justify that.

[hansgeorg]

The only means of communication with both Voyagers has been radio since they were launched. THe cameras were turned off in 1990 to save power and turning them on is not a priority. At least that's what NASA says. http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html

How long is 1990 since after they were launched?

I am not speaking of "radio" as if there could be a telephone communication as well, I am speaking of "radio signals with specified codes" to verify distance by return time of the codes, as opposed to transmission (by radio, no doubt) of images.

If the cameras are turned off, non-Heliocentric and non-Acentric and sphere of fix stars related imagery of stars cannot be shown, and so, the predictions of "Heliocentrism"/Acentrism in this matter cannot be falsified since not viewed when testing.