Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[JohnMartin]

Oooh, how darling! Lil' John thinks if it's got "algebra" in the name they are all the same!

The formula under discussion is not a Boolean algebra statement. The values are not restricted to 0 or 1 (or equivalent labels). The operations of multiplication, division, and exponentiation do not exist in Boolean algebra.

Never change, Johnny.

Boolean Algebra assigns truth and false to algebra expressions, similar to what ha done.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Use GR with a fixed earth.

JM

GR only says that from the reference frame of a stationary in space but rotating earth, our observations would be the same. It does not provide any mechanism where by that could actually be the case.

Put another way, GR says that if I pick a reference frame where my house moves up and down and side to side under my feet I can consider my position fixed and the house moving under my feet to get me upstairs. The observations are the same. But the physics is not. Me moving is by far and away the only likely explanation.


Plus, you hate GR anyay and argue against it as much as anything else.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Boolean Algebra assigns truth and false to algebra expressions, similar to what ha done.

JM

John - you are proving the point I made about you not knowing what you don't know. The real numbers constitute what in the mathematics of abstract algebras is called a Field. A generalized Boolean Algebra does not*. You can't equate an equation in the reals over + and * with any useful boolean algebra. Hence you can't just take the expression you've been mangling and turn its variables into elements of a boolean algebra and preserve any useful portion of its meaning, let alone derive a meaningful conclusion from it thus transformed!

Jim

*There is a degenerate form of a boolean algebra that actually is a field, but its pretty much useless. That is, only in a boolean algebra with two elements can one have a Field.

[JohnMartin]

GR only says that from the reference frame of a stationary in space but rotating earth, our observations would be the same. It does not provide any mechanism where by that could actually be the case.

Put another way, GR says that if I pick a reference frame where my house moves up and down and side to side under my feet I can consider my position fixed and the house moving under my feet to get me upstairs. The observations are the same. But the physics is not. Me moving is by far and away the only likely explanation.


Plus, you hate GR anyay and argue against it as much as anything else.

Jim

Yep I think SR and GR are both in error. Yet GR apparently works for the academy in any reference frame. So you can pick the stationary earth reference frame within the theory. You only think the earth moves because you believe God has not said anything truthful about cosmology. Church history is a strong witness against your position.

Dr Popov has developed a model in his paper - A Newtonian-Machian Mathematical Analysis of Neo-tychonian Model of Planetary Motions

The calculation of the trajectories in the Sun-Earth-Mars system will be performed in two different models, both in the framework of Newtonian mechanics. First model is well-known Copernican system, which assumes the Sun is at rest and all the planets orbit around it. Second one is less-known model developed by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), according to which the Earth stands still, the Sun orbits around the Earth, and other planets orbit around the Sun. The term "Neo-tychonian system" refers to the assumption that orbits of distant masses around the Earth are synchronized with the Sun's orbit. It is the aim of this paper to show the kinematical and dynamical equivalence of these systems, under the assumption of Mach's principle.

JM

[hansgeorg]

Boolean Algebra assigns truth and false to algebra expressions, similar to what ha done.

No, Boolean uses algebra to assign truth or falsehood to couples of statements.

Not to couples of quantities, which are infinitely more variable than "yes" and "no" statements.

[hansgeorg]

You are going to have to define affecting "their local outcome".

Local as opposed to vectorial, the locally moving aether being the medium of vectorial movement.

The issue is eastward movement, not upward movement. WTF is "what locally is a spiral"?

Every locally stationary thing is vectorially moving eastward since doing so through an aether which is moving westward. If the aether at ground level at equator is moving west at 0.4629629 km/s, this means that any stationary thing at the equator has an eastward vectorial velocity through the aether of 0.4629629 km per second. (This is somewhat slower than the real one, since I approximated solar day instead of stellar day when calculating).

Also, a vector upward through a rotating aether will have a local outcome as a spiral.

According to you, it had no eastward vector sitting on the allegedly stationary Earh while the aether moves past it east-west.

Sorry, it has precisely as fast an eastward vector when stationary, as the local linear speed of the aether is westward, since the vectorial speed is through the aether.

You just said the aether does not affect objects vectorially. Now it does. Please at least try to avoid contradicting yourself within a message.

I didn't contradict myself. I said that aether is moving objects westward rotation around Earth's axis non-vectorially.

I am also saying that vectors work relative to the aether, so that any stationary object has an eastward vector in relation to the aether.

Please explain in detail how launching eastward in an aether that is moving east-west increases a rocket's original zero horizontal velocity in the eastward direction. And how the heck does a rocket sitting on the allegedly stationary earth start out with an eastward motion? "Enhancing" zero velocity seems to result in zero velocity.

The object has vectorially a non-zero velocity in eastward direction, since stationary when exposed to aether's rotation means eastward vector in relation to aether. At Equator, this is somewhat faster than 0.4629629 km/s.

In other words, aether moving westward around stationary earth and earth moving eastward within void are vectorially speaking equivalent.

Evidence, sonny, especially for the existence of the effects you claim are possible. (Oh, and the Sun hasn't enough gravity to lens significantly, almost all the time the Sun is not in a position to lens Voyager's signals, and the behavior of the signals does not fit the pattern that lensing would produce).

Fantasies are not appropriate in a science forum. There are an infinite number of fantasies one could make up. Voayger could be hidden behind the Moon by invisible space walruses who can fake all the photos and radio transmissions.

First, I am not your sonny.

Second, the number of "fantasies" or potentialities which fit known facts is for each of them not infinite, while some can be ruled out.

Third, what you say about gravitational lensing may be correct, in that case, I might have to settle for sun producing a movement of aether other than the daily one, to account for parallax of rocket - though I would prefer not to extand that to the stars, while extending it to stars is what Sungenis and Bennett are doing.

[hansgeorg]

Same problem for both models then.

And if one of them is true, not an insurmountable one.

[Roy]

Boolean Algebra seems to indicate otherwise.

'Boolean algebra' added to cluelessness list.

[Roy]

John - you are proving the point I made about you not knowing what you don't know. The real numbers constitute what in the mathematics of abstract algebras is called a Field. A generalized Boolean Algebra does not*. You can't equate an equation in the reals over + and * with any useful boolean algebra. Hence you can't just take the expression you've been mangling and turn its variables into elements of a boolean algebra and preserve any useful portion of its meaning, let alone derive a meaningful conclusion from it thus transformed!

[JonF]

Use GR with a fixed earth.

JM

Since you deny the foundational principles of GR, you may not use anything derived from those foundational principles unless and until you demonstrate it's compatible with your foundational principles. (It isn't)

So you are stuck deriving a new model from your foundational principles. Hop to it!

[JonF]

Boolean Algebra assigns truth and false to algebra expressions, similar to what ha done.

JM

Context. Ponder context.

Yes, Boolean algebra does that. No, it's not relevant to any element of this discussion. The formula is not a Boolean formula. Any unqualified reference to algebra is a reference to the basic algebra in which that formula is cast.

[JonF]

Local as opposed to vectorial, the locally moving aether being the medium of vectorial movement.

Vectorial is local. By definition. A vector originates at a mathematical point and yuo can't get more local. Try again.

I suspect you do not know what a vector is. You still haven't defined "vectorially" in terms of other known terms.

Every locally stationary thing is vectorially moving eastward since doing so through an aether which is moving westward. If the aether at ground level at equator is moving west at 0.4629629 km/s, this means that any stationary thing at the equator has an eastward vectorial velocity through the aether of 0.4629629 km per second. (This is somewhat slower than the real one, since I approximated solar day instead of stellar day when calculating).

You are mixing coordinate systems without doing the required transformations. Your "moving eastward" is relative to a coordinate system moving with the aether. The eastward velocity we are discussing is relative to a coordinate system fixed to the Earth.

"Moving vectorially" is redundant. Motion is along the direction of a vector. I suspect your "vectorially" dears no relationship the the vectors of mathematics.

Also, a vector upward through a rotating aether will have a local outcome as a spiral.

Define your coordinate system and show your calculations.

Upward velocity is not relevant. We are discussing eastward velocity relative to a coordinate system fixed to the Earth.

Sorry, it has precisely as fast an eastward vector when stationary, as the local linear speed of the aether is westward, since the vectorial speed is through the aether.

Switching coordinate systems without doing the requisite transformations. Again. Stick with a coordinate system fixed to the Earth. No other is necessary or convenient. The rocket sitting on the launch pad has zero velocity in an Earth-fixed coordinate system.

I didn't contradict myself. I said that aether is moving objects westward rotation around Earth's axis non-vectorially.

You said "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." To me "vectorially" does not mean "non-vectorially". And I still don't know what "vectorially" means.

I am also saying that vectors work relative to the aether, so that any stationary object has an eastward vector in relation to the aether.

When you switch coordinate systems do the transformations. Yes, if you work with an aether-fixed coordinate system. So what?

The object has vectorially a non-zero velocity in eastward direction, since stationary when exposed to aether's rotation means eastward vector in relation to aether. At Equator, this is somewhat faster than 0.4629629 km/s.

In other words, aether moving westward around stationary earth and earth moving eastward within void are vectorially speaking equivalent.

But not equal, since the coordinate systems are different. The directions are opposite.

Please work only in an Earth-fixed coordinate system or do the necessary transformations when switching.

Second, the number of "fantasies" or potentialities which fit known facts is for each of them not infinite, while some can be ruled out.

That's my point. Yours can be ruled out by not matching observations.

Third, what you say about gravitational lensing may be correct, in that case, I might have to settle for sun producing a movement of aether other than the daily one, to account for parallax of rocket - though I would prefer not to extand that to the stars, while extending it to stars is what Sungenis and Bennett are doing.

OK, let's see the math.

[hansgeorg]

Vectorial is local. By definition. A vector originates at a mathematical point and yuo can't get more local. Try again.

In the physics I am proposing, a vector originates at a mathematical point of the moving aether, and not at a mathematical point of local space.

So, vectorial movement may locally be cancelled out by aether movement or not be so cancelled out.

And local movement with aether is not vectorial.

I suspect you do not know what a vector is. You still haven't defined "vectorially" in terms of other known terms.

I was told in physics class, at least.

You are mixing coordinate systems without doing the required transformations. Your "moving eastward" is relative to a coordinate system moving with the aether. The eastward velocity we are discussing is relative to a coordinate system fixed to the Earth.

"Moving vectorially" is redundant. Motion is along the direction of a vector. I suspect your "vectorially" dears no relationship the the vectors of mathematics.

If he relevant cooredinate system for vectors is moving, then there is a difference between moving with the system, and moving in it vectorially.

Define your coordinate system and show your calculations.

Upward velocity is not relevant. We are discussing eastward velocity relative to a coordinate system fixed to the Earth.

And I am saying there is an eastward velocity relative to a coordinate system which is rotating westward around earth, and that this is the correct coordinate system for physical motion, for vectorial motion.

Switching coordinate systems without doing the requisite transformations. Again. Stick with a coordinate system fixed to the Earth. No other is necessary or convenient. The rocket sitting on the launch pad has zero velocity in an Earth-fixed coordinate system.

Er, no.

There is a local coordinate system which has no bearing on the physics, and there is a vectorial coordinate system which is not fixed to the earth.

You said "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." To me "vectorially" does not mean "non-vectorially". And I still don't know what "vectorially" means.

Since aether is moving westward, any direction "eastward to aether", whether locally eastward or locally fixed to earth or even locally westward, but slower than movment of aether is "vectorially eastward through the aether".

An object moving with same speed as aether at the height above earth and latitude westward is moving non-vectorially, with the aether.

When you switch coordinate systems do the transformations. Yes, if you work with an aether-fixed coordinate system. So what?

The so what lies in aether being THE substantial (and non-void) coordinate system relevant for physics.

But not equal, since the coordinate systems are different. The directions are opposite.

Please work only in an Earth-fixed coordinate system or do the necessary transformations when switching.

The point is, if your cosmology is right, a coordinate system of the void not moving is rather irrelevant, and you can have any coordinate system you want.

If mine is right, aether is moving about the vectorial and physical coordinate system, though not the local one.

Either way, the maths are pretty much the same.

That's my point. Yours can be ruled out by not matching observations.

I defy you to name one which it doesn't match, if you don't botcher the point about vectorial vs non-vectorial motion.

OK, let's see the math.

I gave the definitions, and leave the maths to you, as being an equivalent math.

I am a philosopher, not a scientist.

[oxmixmudd]

In the physics I am proposing, a vector originates at a mathematical point of the moving aether, and not at a mathematical point of local space.

.
.
.



I defy you to name one which it doesn't match, if you don't botcher the point about vectorial vs non-vectorial motion.



I gave the definitions, and leave the maths to you, as being an equivalent math.

I am a philosopher, not a scientist.

Then you should be proclaiming equivalences that you do not have the capability of validating, nor should you be dismissing the corrections of those that do have those capabilities. It is a fool that rejects the council of the wise. In this case you speaking as fact that which you wish/hope to be true, and rejecting the council of those that know what you do not know that is counter to what you wish/hope to be true.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Yep I think SR and GR are both in error. Yet GR apparently works for the academy in any reference frame. So you can pick the stationary earth reference frame within the theory. You only think the earth moves because you believe God has not said anything truthful about cosmology. Church history is a strong witness against your position.

Dr Popov has developed a model in his paper - A Newtonian-Machian Mathematical Analysis of Neo-tychonian Model of Planetary Motions


JM

Handwaving away the fact that the proposed system requires that even relatively nearby objects are moving faster than the speed* of light in their orbits 'synchronized with the sun'. There is no known physical mechanism nor any legitimate theory working from known physics that can accomplish this.


Jim

*this is actually also a problem for Hans' 'model' of a sphere holding little teeny tiny fake stars and galaxies 1 light day distant. Such a sphere, to account for the daily motion of the stars across the sky, must travel a distance of 2*pi light days per day, and so must be moving at 2*pi*c or a little over 6x the speed of light.