Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Sparko]

Moderated By: Sparko

John, just a reminder, post a point or two, WAIT for reasonable discussion to resolve that point, THEN you can post more points. do not just wait and say "well nobody addressed that point so I went on" - if they don't address the point, then keep waiting. If nobody addresses it, then the thread dies. Don't just move on, unless someone ASKS you to post your next point, or the discussion on the last point is finished.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[JonF]

How long is 1990 since after they were launched?

See here

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.

Oh, now I understand. Yes, they are verifying the time signals take to travel. They send a command, eventually they get a response, both with timestamps by the local clock and a code that identifies the conversation.

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.

Still, it takes a long time for signals to travel to it and the same long time for the reply.

[JonF]

You are sure it is TO the east they are launched?

And they say there are no stupid questions! Yes, it's TO the east. See here.

You might be forgetting tangentiality.

I'm not forgetting anything.

If you launch it to the East, this involves a higher velocity eastward through the aether.

Yup. And since the aether affects the rocket, it would produce drag and reduce the eastward velocity. That's not what we see.

It adds to the velocity still standing objects have eastward through the aether. As long as it only goes very horizontally, which is not for long, this is decelerated as to actual place by the aether. But when it goes out along the tangent, it is more and more vertical, and it is therefore a better velocity upward.

Do you ever think? The rocket does not go horizontal until the end of the flight. Initially its velocity is purely vertical.

As long as the rocket is in an east-west aether wind and is moving eastward (and up) it will be pushed westward by that wind, reducing its eastward velocity tangential to the surface of the Earth. If the rocket were launched to the west the wind would increase its westward velocity tangential to the surface of the Earth. But we observe the opposite.

The aether wind can only affect the component of velocity tangent to the surface of the Earth. It has no vertical component.

[oxmixmudd]

Problem 68 - The phases of the moon and the Earth's Orbit around the sun are Incompatible with the Heliocentric Model.

The moon phases are portrayed as consistent over a lunar cycle. The cycle is based upon the moons elliptical orbit around the earth as one focus of the ellipse.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20179[/ATTACH]

Part A

Yet the Earth orbits the sun, like the helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20181[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20183[/ATTACH]

The motion of one helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter produces a spiral shape. This spiral shape of the orbiting helicopter indicates an acceleration and deceleration of the helicopter relative to the straight line helicopter. Comparatively the moon orbits the moving earth and should produce accelerations and decelerations observed on earth that are not compatible with an elliptical orbit. Yet the Helio model claims the moon orbits the moving earth in an ellipse. The incompatibility of the Helio claim of the elliptical moon orbit with a spiral path of the moon against the moving earth invalidates the Helio model.

The nature of a elliptical orbit of the moon as an ellipse is incompetent to account for the motion of the moon around the earth. For every time the moon moves with the earth's orbit, the moon must accelerate, and when the moon orbits against the earth's orbit, decelerateto account for the observed lunar cycle. An elliptical orbit is simply incompatible with an orbiting earth.

The problem becomes worse when we note the moons elliptical orbit processes, which means over a period of time the moons perihelion and aphelion rotate in space around the earth. The rotation of the perihelion and aphelion means the Helio model cannot account for the moon as an elliptical orbit around the earth. For the moons orbit with its ever processing perihelion and aphelion cannot consistently provide for the accelerations and decelerations on a monthly basis in relation to the earth's orbit. Every month the moon must accelerate on the far side of the sun-earth-moon alignment and decelerate on the close side of the sun-moon- earth alignment. Theses accelerations and decelerations are not consistent with an elliptical orbit.

The symmetry of the lunar cycle shown above is incompatible with the spiral motion expected of the moon orbiting the earth is space as indicated above. If the moon orbits the earth via an ellipse, we should observe a non symmetrical shadow on the moon over the lunar cycle. There should be light on the moon for a long time when the sun-earth-moon alignment, and a lighter for a shorter time with the sun-moon-earth alignment.

Part B

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20182[/ATTACH]

The earth orbits the sun and the moon phases should swap every six months, but do not. Hence the Helio claim that the moon orbits an orbiting earth seems to be invalid.

Pictures taken from a video entitled Flat Earth and fake ball earth magic.

JM

UGH! How many times and ways can you show us you don't have a clue John! And how many different ways can you object to the idea of the complex motions associated with basic multi-body orbits in 3 dimensions? There is nothing in this post that is a 'problem' for the main stream model. The only 'problem' here is that you don't understand how gravity works nor do you understand Galilean relativity (i.e. the same thing that makes a ball appear to bounce vertically up and down in the cab of a moving train).

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Yep, you're not back a few hours and you're Gish Galloping.

Like I said before, this is not a conversation. It's the same stuff page after page, thread after thread, day after day.

You simply flood the thread with a dozen or so responses, covering a wide range of different issues that are usually unrelated, and never settle on one point and discuss that for a bit. It's like a marathon the way you keep repeating yourself. My hunch is that your plan is to just keep going until there's nobody left, so you can declare yourself the winner and tell all your crank buddies how you defeated everyone. It's really immature, even for people like you.

You're not here to talk, you're here to convert.

I'm not sure why john is here, but one thing is clear, John is a classic case of Dunning-Kruger*. He is absolutely convinced he knows what others can't understand, all the while demonstrating over and over again his own complete incapactity to understand any of the topics he attempts to refute. He is never phased by any error he makes. I'm not sure he ever actually becomes consious of the errors he makes. He is the classic 'black knight' from "search for the holy grail". And the comparison has been made numerous times.


Jim

*

[oxmixmudd]

Problems with Geocentrism:

Please explain the following video from a geocentric perspective using only known and measured physical properties* (These MUST be properties confirmable** by direct experiment and whose mathematical representations are clearly and rigorously defined)


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html


Jim

*a task trivially accomplished using the main stream model

**reproducable experiments only, no hand waves allowed

[Sea of red]

I'm not sure why john is here, but one thing is clear, John is a classic case of Dunning-Kruger*. He is absolutely convinced he knows what others can't understand, all the while demonstrating over and over again his own complete incapactity to understand any of the topics he attempts to refute. He is never phased by any error he makes. I'm not sure he ever actually becomes consious of the errors he makes. He is the classic 'black knight' from "search for the holy grail". And the comparison has been made numerous times.


Jim

*

I think that he doesn't really care if he's right or wrong. He really enjoys the attention that he gets from this.

This is a place where he is taken seriously and gets to live out his complex of being some visionary. There is no way he's getting to let go until he is shown the door, or people just stop giving him attention for the sport of it.

[oxmixmudd]

I think that he doesn't really care if he's right or wrong. He really enjoys the attention that he gets from this.

This is a place where he is taken seriously and gets to live out his complex of being some visionary. There is no way he's getting to let go until he is shown the door, or people just stop giving him attention for the sport of it.

Yeah perhaps. Motivation is always a tricky thing - In my later years I've tried to strear clear of identifying motives without clear evidence ("The Donald" being one where there is clear evidence ...). In this case there is obviouly something wrong upstairs*, but it may not be totally self-centered as in your assessment. I see it as equally likely (from my perspective) that he is 'cult syndrome' motivated, in that he just can't see his religious faith as justified unless all this baggage he carries with him is also true. So from that perspective I try to keep it more or less civil and will deal with things he brings up if I find them interesting in and of themselves (like the physical implications of the apparent shift in the rotation rate on Venus of the last 16 years or so).

Jim

*given John's obvious weaknesses mentally, I would tend to put at least some of the blame on those that have taught him - perhaps Sungenis as they seem at least aware of each other - though I'm not sure he's all there either - and I'd think Jesus analogy of the millstone might well apply.

[JonF]

given John's obvious weaknesses mentally, I would tend to put at least some of the blame on those that have taught him - perhaps Sungenis as they seem at least aware of each other - though I'm not sure he's all there either - and I'd think Jesus analogy of the millstone might well apply.

He has claimed contact with Dr. Bennett (Sungenis' co-author). Back in the old days he proffered Bennett's supposed answer to the problem of east-west aether wind retarding rockets launched to the East. The risible answer JM offered as from a PhD (earned) in physics was that there are two aether winds, the electromagnetic and the inertial. One blows east-west and the other blows west-east. Apparently only one affects each particular object, and apparently you decide which affects a particular object by the answer you want.

[JohnMartin]

Yep, you're not back a few hours and you're Gish Galloping.

Like I said before, this is not a conversation. It's the same stuff page after page, thread after thread, day after day.

You simply flood the thread with a dozen or so responses, covering a wide range of different issues that are usually unrelated, and never settle on one point and discuss that for a bit. It's like a marathon the way you keep repeating yourself. My hunch is that your plan is to just keep going until there's nobody left, so you can declare yourself the winner and tell all your crank buddies how you defeated everyone. It's really immature, even for people like you.

You're not here to talk, you're here to convert.

I'm here to present problems with Heliocentrism. Hence the presentation of 68 problems with Heliocentrism.

JM

[JohnMartin]

UGH! How many times and ways can you show us you don't have a clue John! And how many different ways can you object to the idea of the complex motions associated with basic multi-body orbits in 3 dimensions? There is nothing in this post that is a 'problem' for the main stream model. The only 'problem' here is that you don't understand how gravity works nor do you understand Galilean relativity (i.e. the same thing that makes a ball appear to bounce vertically up and down in the cab of a moving train).

Jim

Jim has failed to answer the moon ellipse problem on post 282.

JM

[Yttrium]

Jim has failed to answer the moon ellipse problem on post 282.

No real need to. Frankly, that "problem" of yours (like most of your problems) is practically self-refuting. For example, the line:

Comparatively the moon orbits the moving earth and should produce accelerations and decelerations observed on earth that are not compatible with an elliptical orbit.

No. Why would it? You haven't established that at all.

[Leonhard]

Lets break this down into bits.

The Law of Conjunction or the truth table of conjunctions says if A and B is true, then A is true and B is true.
Likewise if m = f(r, F, G, M) is true.

You're correct. Though G and M are constants, so they're not part of the funktion proper. The two variables are r and F.



And this relationship, if we assume that 'f' is the one given by the formula you gave a while back, is true. The relationship actually holds.

m is dependent on r, F, ...

This will be the last statement here that makes any sense.

If m then r and F and G and M is true.

If 'mass of the planet' then 'radius' and 'Force of planet towards Sun' and 'Gravitional constant' and 'Mass of the Sun' is true.

First of all that doesn't make sense even as a sentence, much less an equation, and in no way as a deduction. You're just stringing words together and calling it logic, but you don't have any clue what you're doing. It is bordering on thought salad.

These variables, r and F are quantities. They're not 'truth', 'false' values.

I'm really trying to understand what you mean in all your confusion. And my best guess is that you're saying that "m depends on r and F and G and M", at best that's what I can get your statement into to make it make sense. And in that cause you can't assume that m is dependent on r, independently of F. If you have the orbit of a planet, you need to know both r and F, to estimate its mass m.

Hence the planets need not be ordered by mass in the Solar System.

[oxmixmudd]

Jim has failed to answer the moon ellipse problem on post 282.

JM

One must try in order to fail. And why would I try when there isn't a problem which needs an answer? The only problem that exists relative to that post is that you just don't understand the basic concepts.

Concepts I've been familiar with and have understood since grade school.


Jim

[JohnMartin]

Problems with Geocentrism:

Please explain the following video from a geocentric perspective using only known and measured physical properties* (These MUST be properties confirmable** by direct experiment and whose mathematical representations are clearly and rigorously defined)


http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html


Jim

*a task trivially accomplished using the main stream model

**reproducable experiments only, no hand waves allowed

You can start your own thread on Geocentrism. Your question is not on topic. This thread is concerned with discussing problems with Heliocentrism.

JM