Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[hansgeorg]

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.

Proficiency in the doctrine of a certain school of thought does not equate to wisdom.

Plus, you are fully free to show a model in which my proposition of the aether is mathematically shown to be wrong - after that I will decide if your model really is dealing with my proposition of the aether or not.

[Roy]

*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.

Angels on roller skates?

[hansgeorg]

*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.

I actually missed this one.

Yes, locally the stars would be going 2pi light days per day.

6.28 light days per day.

Six full days and for the seventh just a "Sabbath journey".

A good theological point in favour of 1 light day's radius.

Now, back to the physical point.

1) I do not subscribe to "no speed may exceed that of the finite speed of light in vacuum";
2) and especially not if the speed in question is only a local speed with the aether westward rather than a vectorial speed in relation to the aether.

[hansgeorg]

There is no known physical mechanism nor any legitimate theory working from known physics that can accomplish this.

Physics is not actually "known" per se.

It is more like guessed.

As to the aether's movement westward, each day, I appeal to a resounding goddidit. Or more properly : God does it.

[JohnMartin]

This thread has long since moved on from my initial 67 problems with Heliocentrism. I have decided to present some more problems below.

Problem 68

Caveat - I'm not certain about this claim from a flat Earther, but I've decided to post it to see the response.

Suns path is said to follow as shown below -

asun4.jpg
Picture 1

The sun moves from low at dawn to high at mid-day, then to low at dusk. The altitude of the sun is highest in the summer and lowest in the winter.

According to the video entitled Proof Heliocentric Model Is False!!!, the author of the video claims the Helio model is invalidated via the location of the sun in the summer and winter.

asun5.jpg
Picture 2

The motion of the sun shown in picture 2 follows the path of the sun as shown in picture 1. The sun's location in the sky is determined by the Earth's axial tilt against the ecliptic plane. At the summer solstice in June the sun's location in the sky as observer from earth is determined by the earth's daily spin on an axis 23.5 degrees to the ecliptic. The earth's motion from top left to bottom right from morning to noon causes the sun to be observed to move higher in the sky over the day, to mid-day, then to fall until its lowest point at dusk.

However, at the winter solstice, the earth's daily motion is no longer from top left to bottom right from morning to noon, but from bottom right to top left, from morning to noon. The inversion of daily motion at summer and winter solstice should show up in the Helio model as an inverted sun motion.


asun7.jpg
Picture 3

asun6.jpg
Picture 4

The inverted sun motion is shown in picture 4, but is claimed not to show up in the Heio model. Hence according to MrThriveAndSurvive, the helio model is debunked.

Problem 69 - Heliocentrism as described by Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent with Newtonian Mechanics.

In Newtonian Mechanics, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

The force of gravity F=GmM/r² describes the forces of gravity as both equal and opposite on the two masses, m and M. Yet in a rotating reference frame, three fictitious forces must be introduced in the Coriolis force, the centrifugal force (described below) and the Euler force. Yet in Is Gravity a Pseudo Force?, these three forces

As the fictitious forces are not subject to any pairing rule, the notions of the Coriolis force, and the centrifugal force as fictitious forces is problematic. After all in Newtonian mechanics, a force requires an equal and opposite reaction, if the force has not equal and opposite reaction, then the force is not a force, and therefore not a fictitious force. The problematic Coriolis force is said to cause the motion of the Foucault pendulum as the earth rotates on its axis.

Furthermore, the Coriolis force acts in the direction perpendicular to the velocity of the weight. When the rotation of the turntable is counterclockwise, the Coriolis force acts to deflect the motion of the weight to the right. Since the line of action of the Coriolis force is different from that of the other forces, the oscillation of the pendulum is no longer linear (1D) but traces out a loop (2D).

Yet the Coriolis force is not subject to an equal-and-opposite Coriolis effect on some other object. Hence the Coriolis force assumed to explain the motion of the Foucault pendulum is itself a force not in accord with Newton's third law. Hence any proposed evidence for the Helio model using the Coriolis force is itself not in accord with Newtonian mechanics. The inconsistency in definition of force used in Newtonian mechanics to that used in the supposed evidence for the Helio model, makes the Helio model most uncertain.

JM

[Yttrium]

Problem 68

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

*gasp*

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That video is hilarious! Thanks, JM!

Oh, it says it can't be refuted. So I won't bother. You just go ahead and assume you've conquered heliocentrism with this.
(By the way, have you noticed that the days are shorter in Winter? Just a coincidence, I'm sure.)

Now I'll just bookmark that video for future entertainment.

[Yttrium]

Problem 69

As the fictitious forces are not subject to any pairing rule, the notions of the Coriolis force, and the centrifugal force as fictitious forces is problematic.

Wait, if they're not fictitious forces, does that mean they're real forces?

*head asplode*

[JohnMartin]

The responses are so far without substance.

JM

[Leonhard]

The responses are so far without substance.

JM

Your problems are without substance.

You don't know basic maths. Whether arithmetic or algebra. You don't know deductive logic. You mix and match technically sounding terms, thinking they make sense, but you're unable to respond to it, or update your thinking.

You're a crank spinning around, and you've got way too much free time.

[Leonhard]

A formula is an algebraic expression of relations of several quantities.

True, what you're saying can be made to make sense.

The relations of quantities can be expressed in a similar manner to that accorded in Boolean algebra to have true and false assignments.

While that too is true, within Boolean Algebra, what you are working with aren't boolean values, you're working with reel numbers belonging to a field. The two are not interchangeable. You can't use boolean logic, which you also failed to use, on reel numbers.

The expression A=B x C is expressed according to truth value assignments that correspond to the formal logic truth table for the conjunction.

No you didn't. At no point did you define a truth table. You simple moved from that to some confused claim that m was proportional to r, which it isn't by the formula given. The fact that you can't see this is kinda disturbing. m depends on the precise value of F and r. m is not a pure function of r.

Similarly, the quantity of m is related to the quantities of r,F,G, and M and is expressed according to truth value assignments that correspond to the formal logic truth table for the conjunction.

[JohnMartin]

Your problems are without substance.

You don't know basic maths. Whether arithmetic or algebra. You don't know deductive logic. You mix and match technically sounding terms, thinking they make sense, but you're unable to respond to it, or update your thinking.

You're a crank spinning around, and you've got way too much free time.

Another post lacking in substance.

JM

[Leonhard]

Another post lacking in substance.

JM

Another post, ignoring the strong objections and answers to your many problems. Heck, right before that one there's a genuine post tackling your mangling of logic and math. And you've yet to answer half of my responses to your problems.

If you were truly interested in dialogue on them, you'd at least casually acknowledge the response.

As such for the majority of the cases your objections and problems have been addressed.

[JohnMartin]

Another post, ignoring the strong objections and answers to your many problems. Heck, right before that one there's a genuine post tackling your mangling of logic and math. And you've yet to answer half of my responses to your problems.

If you were truly interested in dialogue on them, you'd at least casually acknowledge the response.

As such for the majority of the cases your objections and problems have been addressed.

Show me three I haven't addressed specifically on Heliocentrism and I will do so.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Show me three I haven't addressed specifically on Heliocentrism and I will do so.

JM

"Come back so I can bleed on you!!!"

John - you can't (or won't) see your objections have been answered - and you never will. Another round hashing over the same material will not change that fact.

Case in point - you were not able to show there was any real problem with Venus Rotational slowing after I showed the momentum change was in the same ballpark of what we observe for the Earth. But that didn't matter - now did it? Eventually even the most compassionate or patient person realizes there is no real potential for discussion or progress here.

Jim

[TheLurch]

Having read a bit about the history of the topic, a bit of that might be valuable.

After the Copernican system was proposed, it clearly fit the data we had on planetary motions better. But people were able to craft fully geocentric geometries that produced roughly the same results. Those died when Galileo saw the phases of Venus, showing that it must orbit the sun. At that point, new geometries were developed that placed the sun orbiting Earth and all the other planets orbiting the sun. Those worked about as well as the Copernican system, but several things began to go wrong. One is that Keplerian orbits fit the data even better. The second is that better observations consistently produced details that didn't fit with the modified geocentric systems. Again, it was possible to craft geometries where things worked again for a time, but it became a perpetual race to the horizon: better data and more time required constant revision. People just gave up trying to get geocentrism and reality to match up.

By the time our observations were good enough, we detected oddities in Mercury's orbit that couldn't be explained by anything. The only thing that works is relativity, something Einstein himself calculated in order to provide support for his theory. (There's a cool book on this: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...unt-for-vulcan).

Heliocentrism is with us because it works. It accurately reflects reality. No version of geocentrism can. People who believe otherwise are either ignorant or in denial of reality.