Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Yttrium]

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.

The whole system moves around the Sun due to the Sun's gravity. Everything in orbit around the Earth is also falling around the Sun. The motions of the Earth and satellites can be calculated and predicted accurately and consistently using our equations. The fact that you can't work your head around this doesn't prevent us from doing so, and we'll continue doing so without your support.

[JonF]

Sounds simple, but the moving focus is the earth as a real body with a real mass.

Sheesh, John, even you should know that the foci are not objects, but rather mathematical massless points. One of them is the barycenter of the system.

[oxmixmudd]

Sheesh, John, even you should know that the foci are not objects, but rather mathematical massless points. One of them is the barycenter of the system.

I'm not sure John can be expected to 'know' anything.

[JonF]

I'm not sure John can be expected to 'know' anything.

Well, he certainly has talked about barycenters enough.

It struck me that one thing he doesn't (and probably can't) realized is that saying "The moon orbits the Earth in an ellipse" implicitly requires a coordinate system attached to the Earth and moving with it. In a sun-based coordinate system the moon's path is much more complex and, of course, not in a plane.

[Leonhard]

Which means you can never be sure that an as yet not invented theory of planetary motion may better physically explain orbits than current theory. Or alternatively, a revealed truth may better explain orbits, even if that truth has been rejected by many.

Exactly, that's the nature of science. Better theories, replace the ones we have if and when they're proposed and they show to be predict things we can test.

Geocentrism predicts nothing. All the results of Heliocenrism, and later modern cosmology, are either denied by Geocentrists because they don't understand them (in your case anything involving math), or they invent ad-hoc concepts like decieving angels or a magical aether wind.

There's no such thing as a modified tychonian geocentric model. No such model exists anywhere. If I asked you to give me a model so I could back and calculate orbits of planets, you would have nothing to give me. Neither would Sungenis for that matter. They live on the import of the more serious scientists.

[Leonhard]

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

The 'moving focus'? The two focii of two-body elliptical orbit don't move, they stay put.

In a three-body system, such as the Sun/Earth/Moon system, the Earth and Moon orbit eachother, and their mutual attraction are stronger than what they experience from the Sun. They can be considered as if they are one object, who's center of mass orbits the Sun. Such a system can be unstable, but as long as the orbital distance between the Earth and the Moon, are less than a certain distance, they can exist in metastable orbit for trillions of years.

I would show you the math, but you can't even do arithmetic and deductive logic.

And if I remember correctly you dismiss Calculus as wrong.

[JonF]

See here


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.


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

Hansgeorg?

[JonF]

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


I'm not forgetting anything.


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


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.

Hansgeorg???

[Leonhard]

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

I'm pointing out that he problem you're proposing not only demonstrates that you have no idea how logic works, you don't understand basic algebra. You're treating algebraic symbols as if it can be treated boolean statements, and then even then you misunderstand what the Law of Conjunction mean, and misapply it again. Then you claim I didn't answer the problem, and yes that's true, because the problem you're describing is pure gibberish.

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.

First of all you're wrong, formal logic doesn't simple by declaring things that have arbitrary values to be 'true' and then if they don't have those values to be 'false'. You can do something like that in formal logic, but hen it would have the following form:

"The relationship that exists between m and r, F of a circular orbit in a Solar System, given by a function f, is true."

Which reduces to the statement.

"A is true."

There's no, B, no C, no D, for which you can decompose the equation into a string of terms. Its correct that m, r and F, are symbolic terms, but they're algebraic terms, not formal logic terms.

[oxmixmudd]

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

JM

Free Fall, Galilean relativity.

[hansgeorg]

Hansgeorg?

Sorry for delay, I had seen a notice the thread was blocked and only just now read it was reopened.

Here are responses for both of yours:

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

Thank you!

I'm not forgetting anything.

We'll see about that.

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

Assuming the aether were affecting it vectorially, rather than being, on top of medium in which light makes waves, the medium in which vectors are effective.

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.

The aether going west (I don't use the word aether wind, since I don't think it affects vectors, only their local outcome) is not vectorially affecting the rocket.

It is locally displacing the upward movement into what locally is a spiral - while vectorially remaining vertical.

Now, when it was still standing on ground, it already had an eastward vector through the moving aether. Its being launched eastward enhances this, and makes for higher speed in the way that counts for stability of orbit, namely vectorially through the aether.

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.

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

The thing is, if there had been cameras, the speeding up and slowing down of the growing delay could be verified as being relative to Earth a local zig zag. Depending on Earth moving in and out of (both directions, perhaps) the origo of trajectory.

Since there are no cameras, the trajectory could be straight line relative to Earth and the speeding up and slowing down of the growing delay woud possibly be due to gravitational lensing by the Sun's gravitation of the radiosignals, both going there and returning.

[hansgeorg]

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.

Considering your take on Bible and angelic movers, you are like, throwing stones within a glass house, or however you say that in English.

[hansgeorg]

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)

*a task trivially accomplished using the main stream model

**reproducable experiments only, no hand waves allowed

Quoting from your link:

Explanation: Looking out the window of an airplane, you might be lucky enough to see "the glory" in the direction directly opposite the Sun. Before airplanes, the phenomenon, known to some as the heiligenschein or the Specter of the Brocken, was sometimes seen from mountaintops. There, when conditions were right, one could look away from the Sun and see what appeared to be the shadow of a giant surrounded by a bright halo. The giant turns out to be the observer, as in the modern version a silhouette of an plane frequently occupies the glory's center. This bright glory was photographed two weeks ago over Michigan from an airplane on approach to O'Hare International Airport. The cause of the glory is still being researched and is relatively complex. Surely, small droplets of water in some way reflect, refract, and diffract sunlight backwards towards the Sun. The phenomenon has similar counterparts in other branches of science including astronomy, where looking out from the Earth in the direction opposite the Sun yields a bright spot called the gegenschein.

Not much bearing on geo-helio, except that it includes a reference to phenomena not being trivially explained by known and observed phenoman, especially also measured one.

The link gives "astronomic picture of the day" and presumably linked to another one yesterday.

[hansgeorg]

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

Some of us actually enjoy the debating more than the attention given to the own person!

[hansgeorg]

*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.

OK, calling others weak mentally and also invoking the concept of giving scandal, of seducing, as if adhering to Geocentrism were some positively abhorrent evil, it strikes me as a bit fanatic.