Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Yttrium]

It makes perfect sense. The Newtonian derivation of centripetal force formula assumes a fixed focus of the ellipse.

Why?

(Hint: It doesn't.)

[Leonhard]

m = f(r, F, G, M) only requires that each term is included in the expression. That one term is a constant and another is a variable is not relevant to the argument.

I'm pointing out your lack of understanding. That you still insist on using the wrong form shows that you're unable to update your reasoning. You insist on using your own wrong understanding. I'm sure this is the same reason you insist on using the word 'Helio model' in a wildly inconsistent way, even when this has been criticized.

That's the behavior of a crank, which you are.

The argument is based upon the manner by which formal logic reduces sentences down to logical expressions. The terms r, F, G, M are used as symbols like formal logic, then those symbols are applied to the argument using the truth functional value as determined by the law of conjunction.

But these symbols are of quantities. Not of truth/false statements.

Walk me through what you're doing, and why you're doing it, instead of declaring that it makes sense.

If a term has a quantity within the true formula, then each quantity represented by the term is also true.

5 kilogram of something is not the same as 'true'. You can't just interchange wildly different concepts and expect things to make sense.

Yes "m depends on r and F and G and M". Then we use a similar analysis of the other two equations, then apply logic to conclude that Newtonian mechanics (NM) is invalid. Because v is independent of m, then NM is invalid.

You haven't made an argument that Newtonian Mechanics is inconsistent (if that is what you mean by 'invalid'?), secondly your original claim was that by this tortured logic you had shown that the masses of planets were a function of the radius of their orbit, which is what we argued you got wrong. Thirdly you haven't brought up the quantity 'v' until now. Fourthly, yes the velocity of a planet in an orbit is independent of its mass.

A probe weighing 2 kilo and a planet weighing orders of magnitude more, will both go through the same orbit, at the same speed, independently of their mass. That's a feature, not a flaw. That is precisely what we observe.

[JohnMartin]

Why?

(Hint: It doesn't.)

My statements in post 303 are clear enough.

The problem with the Helio model also involves the two claims that

1) within the Helio model the moon's orbit is an ellipse and

2) the moon is seen from earth as an ellipse.

Yet these two claims are incompatible with each other.

If 1) is true, then 2) is false.

The moons orbit cannot be an ellipse against a moving earth for the reasons given above. Hence 1) is false. If the moon is observed from earth as an ellipse. Then 2) is true.

If 2) is true, then 1) is false.

If the moon's orbit is observed from earth to be an ellipse, then 2) is true. But the orbit is in fact not an ellipse in space within the Helio model, for the Helio model of an ellipse does not account for the motions within the month to account for the earths orbit around the sun. Hence 1) is false.

The Helio model cannot hold to both 1) and 2) as both true.

JM

[JohnMartin]

m = f(r, F, G, M) only requires that each term is included in the expression. That one term is a constant and another is a variable is not relevant to the argument.

I'm pointing out your lack of understanding. That you still insist on using the wrong form shows that you're unable to update your reasoning. You insist on using your own wrong understanding. I'm sure this is the same reason you insist on using the word 'Helio model' in a wildly inconsistent way, even when this has been criticized.

That's the behavior of a crank, which you are.

You have failed to address the problem in the terms by which the problem has been couched.

The argument is based upon the manner by which formal logic reduces sentences down to logical expressions. The terms r, F, G, M are used as symbols like formal logic, then those symbols are applied to the argument using the truth functional value as determined by the law of conjunction.

But these symbols are of quantities. Not of truth/false statements.

Walk me through what you're doing, and why you're doing it, instead of declaring that it makes sense.

If a term has a quantity within the true formula, then each quantity represented by the term is also true.

5 kilogram of something is not the same as 'true'. You can't just interchange wildly different concepts and expect things to make sense.

Formal logic applies truth values to terms. If 5 kilogram of something is assigned a truth value of true, then 5 kilogram of something is true. Then not 5 kilogram of something is false. The expression m = f(r,F,G,M) is true. Then each member of the formula is also true. As m is dependent upon r,F,G, and M, then all of the statements associated with the law of conjunction are also true.

Yes "m depends on r and F and G and M". Then we use a similar analysis of the other two equations, then apply logic to conclude that Newtonian mechanics (NM) is invalid. Because v is independent of m, then NM is invalid.

You haven't made an argument that Newtonian Mechanics is inconsistent (if that is what you mean by 'invalid'?), secondly your original claim was that by this tortured logic you had shown that the masses of planets were a function of the radius of their orbit, which is what we argued you got wrong. Thirdly you haven't brought up the quantity 'v' until now. Fourthly, yes the velocity of a planet in an orbit is independent of its mass.

A probe weighing 2 kilo and a planet weighing orders of magnitude more, will both go through the same orbit, at the same speed, independently of their mass. That's a feature, not a flaw. That is precisely what we observe.

Your statements are interesting, but not relevant, because you are not engaging the argument in the manner in which the argument was presented.

JM

[Yttrium]

The problem with the Helio model also involves the two claims that

1) within the Helio model the moon's orbit is an ellipse and

2) the moon is seen from earth as an ellipse.

Yet these two claims are incompatible with each other.

In the model, the Moon's orbit around the Earth is an ellipse, and from Earth we see an ellipse. How is that incompatible? The two things agree! What are you even talking about??

If the moon's orbit is observed from earth to be an ellipse, then 2) is true. But the orbit is in fact not an ellipse in space within the Helio model, for the Helio model of an ellipse does not account for the motions within the month to account for the earths orbit around the sun. Hence 1) is false.

It's still moving in an ellipse around the Earth, so your claim continues to be gibberish, and your problem is nonexistent.

[oxmixmudd]

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

JM

But you haven't posted any problems with it yet!

Jim

[JohnMartin]

In the model, the Moon's orbit around the Earth is an ellipse, and from Earth we see an ellipse. How is that incompatible? The two things agree! What are you even talking about??



It's still moving in an ellipse around the Earth, so your claim continues to be gibberish, and your problem is nonexistent.

The problem has been explained in several ways.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

This is not a problem associated with the topic of Heliocentrism. The thread topic is problems with Helio. If you want to discuss the nature of problem, proof, and demonstration you can start another thread.

Sure it is. Moonbat Martin only posts on heliocentrism because he has cottage cheese for brains.

I'll accept your admission you have no answer to the "Moonbat Martin cottage cheese for brains" problem. The problem remains.

[Yttrium]

The problem has been explained in several ways.

The only problem I can see is your own misinterpretation of Newtonian Mechanics, asserting that an ellipse requires a point that's fixed in space. If that were true, the planetary motion models couldn't have been formed in the first place. Either all physicists on the planet would have to be insane idiots, or you would have to be mistaken. You are mistaken.

[JohnMartin]

The only problem I can see is your own misinterpretation of Newtonian Mechanics, asserting that an ellipse requires a point that's fixed in space. If that were true, the planetary motion models couldn't have been formed in the first place. Either all physicists on the planet would have to be insane idiots, or you would have to be mistaken. You are mistaken.

So how is the moving focus taken into account in the elliptical orbit?

JM

[Yttrium]

So how is the moving focus taken into account in the elliptical orbit?

It's an ellipse around the focus. The focus moves, the ellipse moves with it. Simple.

[Sea of red]

It's an ellipse around the focus. The focus moves, the ellipse moves with it. Simple.

His question is like asking why the Earths rotation doesn't cause balls to move away from someone that is juggling.

[JohnMartin]

It's an ellipse around the focus. The focus moves, the ellipse moves with it. Simple.

Sounds simple, but the moving focus is the earth as a real body with a real mass. As the real body moves through space, the body accelerates. As the accelerating body is the focus of the moon's ellipse, the ellipse must also accelerate along with the earth. The acceleration of the earth along with the moons ellipse means a force must be included within the moon's elliptical orbit, which is systematically ignored if we assume - "The focus moves, the ellipse moves with it. Simple." Not so simple if we want to be consistent with Newtonian mechanics. Hence the problem.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Still You don'T Understand orbits. Amazing. Have you ever thrown a ball into the air? What path does it take? Why?

Have you ever heard of a conic section.

Parabola, hyperbola, ellipse, and circle. These are also all possible free fall paths by a mass - orbits. The ellipse is the most common orbit because to be a circle your velocity vector must be precisely perpendicular to gravity's pull and the velocity must also be exact. One of those isn't quite right and you get an ellipse. Parabola and hyperbola are possible only if you crash into the planet or escape off in space.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

Still You don'T Understand orbits. Amazing. Have you ever thrown a ball into the air? What path does it take? Why?

Have you ever heard of a conic section.

Parabola, hyperbola, ellipse, and circle. These are also all possible free fall paths by a mass - orbits. The ellipse is the most common orbit because to be a circle your velocity vector must be precisely perpendicular to gravity's pull and the velocity must also be exact. One of those isn't quite right and you get an ellipse. Parabola and hyperbola are possible only if you crash into the planet or escape off in space.

Jim

Your comments miss the point again. I am concerned with the moving focus of the elliptical orbit.

JM