Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[HMS_Beagle]

I predict that John Martin will only address a few of my responses and post another batch of responses, probably twenty or fourty of them.

I'm gobsmacked anyone took the time to actually respond to the moonbat's 24 verse song of woo.

[Wally]

I'd also like to add; The declarations of the Catholic (or any other) church, has no impact whatsoever on the scientific reality of the universe.

All they can legitimately do is recognize, not dictate.

[JonF]

Geostationary satellites orbit the Earth at a height where the orbital period matches the sidereal day, meaning relative to an observer on the ground the satellite stays motionless overhead.

<pedant> Not exactly. Geostationary satellites trace a daily path overhead that is some form of analemma and return to the same point every 24 hours. Ignoring pertubations and their corrections, of course.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm gobsmacked anyone took the time to actually respond to the moonbat's 24 verse song of woo.

Leon's got lots of patience

I've done my duty with John, so Leon holds the Baton this time. Plus Leon is RCC, so John can't use the excuse the response is coming from someone he considers godless or a heretic.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

I'd also like to add; The declarations of the Catholic (or any other) church, has no impact whatsoever on the scientific reality of the universe.

All they can legitimately do is recognize, not dictate.

I'd have to agree with you on that one Wally. Not for the same reasons of course (I do think Scripture, the Bible, is inspired etc). But it doesn't take a genius to realize attempts to use the Bible to define what should or should not be true physically (scientifically) have failed miserably in the past and to continue to do so in the present is mostly foolish and invites a significant helping of 'humble pie'.

Jim

[Roy]

As the oldest sundials appear to be about 3500 years old, they'd (if JMmath is correct) be measuring a day that's about 40 seconds shorter, or approximately 0.05%. That's a difference of 1.7 seconds per hour.

Sundials simply aren't that precise.Only if sundials are precise enough to measure the expected difference. They aren't.

[oxmixmudd]

But Earthquakes can also INCREASE the rate of the Earth's spin:

Japan-earthquake-shortened-earth-days.html

oops - back to the drawing board ....


Jim

[JohnMartin]

The Helio model is associated with the assumption of perpetual, local and universal motion. Such an assumption is a weakness within the model, that opens the model to invalidation through only one observation. Yet many observations have been made of apparently stationary objects in globular clusters. Hence the assumed perpetual motion within Helio is an assumption that is not well founded universally and may be false locally. Hence the Helio model is weak.

JM

Further Problems with Heliocentrism

A moving Earth means less economy of motion: bodies would not follow the shortest routes when returning to their natural places, as their routes would be curved rather than linear. According to Newtonian absolute space, a ship travelling in a straight line on earth is actually moving through space in a curved path. Yet all the forces and consequences of curved motion in space are ignored. The moving earth requires the observer to observe straight line motion on earth, but then posit that the line of sight is false, according to the dictates of the theory. The moving earth theory contradicts common experience of straight line motion.

The Helio model requires that all motion is not in accord with observation, but only in accord with theory. Yet the theory is never proven. Hence all observation is reduced to a datum that is only ever assumed to be real within a model, but may not ever be real. Hence the theory is an occasion for confusion over the real nature of motion, and may reduce absolute motion relative to the stationary earth, to relative motion, relative to a hypothetically moving earth. Such a potential for confusion over the nature of motion indicates that the Helio model may adversely affect other areas of physics that depend upon the theory to account for motion.
As such, because of the potential adverse effects of a moving earth theory upon other areas of physics, the Helio model should not be a preferred model, but only one of at least two models that account for the phenomena associated with motion. To remove the Helio model from the status of a preferred model, may in fact benefit physics in general, even for those who believe Helio is true and Geo is false, and thereby provide more explanatory power in physics for moving objects. Hence the Helio model should not have a preferred status within the academy for the good of science.
• Edited by a Moderator •

JM

[Raphael]

Moderated By: Raphael

John, your exceedingly long lists of points are NOT conducive to good debate.
Please keep your posts like this to one or two MAJOR points that can then be discussed before moving on to the next two etc.

As per Campus Decorum:

Post Length Considerations
The maximum post length is 24K characters not including quoted material. Do not use multiple posts to circumvent this restriction. Please keep your points concise and limit the number of major points made in a debate/discussion to 1 or 2 per post max as this encourages discourse. Rebuttal posts get undesirably lengthy from both a writer's and a reader's perspective when there are too many points to address. Additionally, please allow the other person to respond to your post before making additional substantive posts and points directed towards that same person (i.e. back-to-back responses to a single post are not allowed.)

I have edited the post above down to the first two points.

***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.

[Roy]

A tree by the side of a motorway on a stationary Earth has an angular velocity of 0 miles/hr. JohnMartin climbs out of the tree and walks into the motorway. A truck is traveling on the motorway at 50 miles/hr. This is a difference between the truck and the tree of 50 miles/hr. JohnMartin has a walking velocity of 2 miles/hr. This means that JohnMartin could never walk from the tree at the side of the motorway and get hit by a truck.

Hey, JM! Want to demonstrate your theory with a practical experiment?

[JohnMartin]

If the earth moves, then an object moving west to east, with a velocity less than the local angular velocity of the earth, over 24 hours is actually moving west to east and east to west in space over 24 hours. Such motion of an object on earth that requires contradictory motions in space is problematic. For west to east and east to west motion is motion relative to absolute space in Newtonian mechanics. Hence west to east and east to west motion must be accounted for with a real difference of maths expression within Newtonian mechanics. Yet such maths expression is routinely ignored within Newtonian mechanics and thereby ignores any real difference between the motions relative to absolute space. Consequently Helio, which is based upon Newtonian mechanics (NM), both uses NM to obtain maths equations for the planetary orbits, but ignores absolute space in the case of motions on earth that are east-west and west-east over 24 hours. The inconsistent application of NM within the Helio model mitigates against the Helio models veracity.

If the Earth moves, then all motions that appear to be absolute from an earth based observer, are only relative. Then the Helio model infers that all motion observed from earth is only an optical illusion. Such an illusion is antithetical to the creator God who always causes in accord with the real and not illusion. Hence the Helio model is fundamentally, according to the removal of realist motion when observed from earth, antithetical to the realist, God of creation. As creation is true, then Helio is false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Either way, there is no explanation within Newtonian mechanics (NM) for an elliptical orbit. Hence the model is defective. Yes, the same problems applies to both systems, because NM is deficient.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Yep. Same set of arguments over and over again. Explanations are given. They are not understood. Then he goes away. Then he comes back and rewords things a bit and it all starts all over again.

Jim

I have some new arguments if I am permitted to post them.

JM

[JohnMartin]

But the modified tychonian model is heliocentric. In it the Earth is static but its the sun that is the center of the universe.

Correct. The Helio model that I am arguing against is the one that says the sun is the center of the motions of all the solar system planets.

Helio is based upon observation and the inductive method. By using only the inductive method, Helio does not have any access to a divine mind that knows the big picture of the universe. In not knowing the big picture of the universe, Helio must always retain a sober doubt about any of its claims of evidence for its model over and above any other model, such as Geo. As a sober doubt is always inferred in the Helio model, the model is prone to doubt and not certain. Hence the Helio model should not be the preferred model over the Geo model that purports to have a basis in the divine mind and thereby offer some greater certitude over the nature of motions within the universe.

Geo justly claims with sufficient evidence and reason, to be based upon truths granted men from the divine mind. But Helio does not have access to the divine mind for its model. Hence Helio must retain a real doubt about the veracity of all of its claims and predictions. As Helio requires a real doubt, Helio is not the preferred model over Geo.


JM

[JohnMartin]

By "Helio model" I will assume you're only talking about non-geocentric models, rather than Heliocentrism proper.



On the contrary, modern cosmology makes no claim that Earth rotates at an absolutely fixed rate.

Actually for leap second correction of calendars, the drift of the rotation rate due to tectonics is measured.

Do you have a source for this?

JM