Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[JohnMartin]

The argument is focused upon the rather large variation in the rotation rate of Venus, which is not observed on Earth. Hence the large differences in rotation rate variation is an indicator that the Earth is not like other planets as assumed in the Helio model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It is surmised that birds flying south to north in the southern hemisphere, or north to south in the northern hemisphere will encounter similar problems to that of the C-141B Starlifter presented in the above problem. If true, and birds do migrate south to north and north to south in the respective hemispheres, then the rotating earth has been invalidated.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The inverse square gravitational attraction doesn't provide a reason for the planet to accelerate or decelerate.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The Helio model posits that the natural order of things requires that objects be in perpetual motion through space. Such an assumption about the nature of bodies indicates that it is natural for bodies to be in motion rather than stationary. Yet many bodies on earth are observed to be stationary, thereby indicating it is natural for bodies to be stationary, and moving bodies tend towards being stationary. So local evidence is that bodies on earth tend towards the stationary as a natural manner of existing, yet Helio posits the local system, and perhaps most other systems tend towards local motions.

The observation of many bodies tending towards local stagnation is a tendency that must be ignored by Helio for the local system. By ignoring local observations the Helio model must assume a motion in the local system that is against a local tendency towards stagnation. Hence the Helio model has some implied evidence against its assumption of perpetual, natural motion, which in turn mitigates against the explanatory power of the model. Hence there is some reason to tend towards another model that notes local bodies stagnate, in conformity with locally stationary earth.

Helio has no proof and is therefore a preferred model, only on the basis of personal belief, or upon an education system that promotes one model over another and thereby exercises undue influence over the personal preference. Such indicates the Helio is only a preferred model based upon the rejection of any divine revelation that indicates a divine mandate for a preference for the Geo model over the Helio model. The implied naturalism within the Helio model indicates that personal preference, or an education that rejects revelation of a created universe, is a preference made in either ignorance or false education based judgment. Hence the preference for the Helio model is false, and should be abandoned.

JM

[Raphael]

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

JM

Moderated By: Raphael

Let there be some actual discussion and interaction and debate before you post the next set.

***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.

While is disagree with your position John, I don't mind you discussing it. But posting long lists of "objections", followed by another long list tends to not make people not take you with any sort of seriousness.

[Yttrium]

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.

Well, that's a bit disingenuous. There is an explanation in the textbooks. You don't accept the explanation. You could say that the explanation is unacceptable to you, but the explanation exists, so it's not appropriate to say that there's no explanation.

[HMS_Beagle]

The inverse square gravitational attraction doesn't provide a reason for the planet to accelerate or decelerate.

JM

The acceleration of gravity doesn't cause acceleration. Just when you thought it couldn't get any moonbattier.

[oxmixmudd]

The Helio model posits that the natural order of things requires that objects be in perpetual motion through space.

I thought it might be interesting to walk through your statements John. First in any sort of logical argument - if the premise itself if is false, the conclusion is true, or more sensically, meaningless. It might be true, or it might not, the result is basically random and not related at all to the associated premise.

John, you do a lot of that in these little chains of words you call 'Problems'. In this first sentence, 'Helio' doesn't in fact posit any such thing. In fact, 'Helio' itself doesn't even exist in modern scientific theory, except as a simplification of the known motions of the Solar system. What does exist are theories about the properties of masses that include a force of attraction called gravity and Newton's three laws (among others) and observations consistent with them. The premise being false thus implies whatever you say after essentially doesn't matter, it is meaningless in terms of its correlation to the above. But let us continue:

Such an assumption about the nature of bodies indicates that it is natural for bodies to be in motion rather than stationary.

Again - we start with a false premise, however, due to the nature of gravity and the universe, it is in fact unlikely for any two free bodies not to be in motion relative to each other, unless they are also physically in contact with each other. Your observation then that 'bodies' as you call them tend to be in motion relative to each other is more or less correct, though not as a consequence of the stated premise, and even though you fail to comprehend much about relative motion as we will see in the next sentence.

Yet many bodies on earth are observed to be stationary,

Ooops. No John, many bodies on Earth are observed to be stationary relative to the physical surface of the Earth. But they are not at all stationary. They move with the surface. The components of the motion of these 'stationary' objects includes the rotation of the Earth, the orbit of the Earth around the Sun, the orbit of the Sun around the Galaxy, and the motion of the Galaxy through the local galactic group, and the motion of the entire group against the CMB. The sum of all these motions would describe a fairly complex path against all entities except the surface of the Earth itself, where they 'appear' stationary.

thereby indicating it is natural for bodies to be stationary,

Actually, not indicating any such thing. What is true is that it is natural for a mass to maintain whatever state of motion it is in unless acted upon by some force. This is called an inertial frame of reference. Changing a frame of reference requires an input of energy. That energy can be added/subtracted (depending on the target frame of reference)

and moving bodies tend towards being stationary.

Nope, moving bodies tend towards maintaining their motion. On the Earth moving bodies tend toward the rest frame of the surface of the Earth (which is in fact in motion) only because of energy transfer between the Earth(that is, all parts of the Earth including its atmosphere) and the object through friction.

So local evidence is that bodies on earth tend towards the stationary as a natural manner of existing,

Wrong as discussed above, which means this phrase becomes yet another false premise ...

yet Helio posits the local system, and perhaps most other systems tend towards local motions.

And thus yet another meaningless conclusion - in this case that some sort of contradiction exists when in fact it does not.


Jim

[hansgeorg]

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

However, one can also be Tychonian ... and have Earth static as well as sphere of fixed stars static, accepting the Riccioli modification, but not taking the phenomena of 1725 or 1838 as aberration or parallax, but as a choreography, a dance or ballet, of the stars led by the angels.

[hansgeorg]

The physical mechanism you're looking for is the inverse square gravitational attraction. Newton showed how given this force between the Earth and Sun, the Earth would move in Keplerian orbits.

I'd like to know the details, and especially on why the orbit lasts.

Have you seen the water droplets of Don Pettit?

[hansgeorg]

That's the first I've ever heard if it. Why does it require a centrifugal force?

Do you mean the inverse square law?

Not centripetal force, centrifugal.

In Helio model that would be inertia.

@John Martin, the centrifugal force is not supposed to be radially centrifugal, but tangentially so.

[hansgeorg]

However unlike classical geocentrism that modelled the motion of planets as happening on crystal spheres, and so where forced to use epicycles. Newtonian motion naturally gives Keplerian orbits.

And while its true two epicycles can match an ellipse, can you also show that the orbits obey Keplers rules?

Even with epicycles Ptolomy's model would always be off.

So, your "classical geocentrism" ends before Riccioli? A good Catholic and a good astronomer - who took Keplerian laws and ellipses into account in his Almagestum Novum.

[hansgeorg]

Again you seem to be mixing the model of Copernicus together with modern cosmology. Which one are you addressing.

The model of Copernicus doesn't even address tides.

And in modern cosmology they are not "assumed" they are derived from the gravitational effect of the moon on the ocean for the lunar tides, and the sun on the sun on the ocean for the solar tides.

Not quite. As mentioned above the days grow longer now and then according to tidal effects and tectonic motions.

And on top of that the tides are not even a straight reflex of gravitation pulling ocean up more than earth or earth up more than ocean on other side. That just accounts for tidal forces, these being concerned with the difference of pull, not with the strength of pull per se, and the tidal forces are not straightaway translated into tides, but are so to speak a constant agitation on the oceans, which finally react and do so in ways not quite foreseeable simply by sun and moon, and then this translates even more irregularly into portal tides - the ones we measure.

Unless lately oceanic tides can also be measured by satellites.

But in sum, the tides we can best measure are the tides which are least regularly or directly connected to sun and moon. There is no doubt there is some connection, but it could as well be spirits of the waters dancing in honour of sun and moon.

[hansgeorg]

However it is true that geostationary satelittes are a problem to modified tychonian magical angelic aether flow models that you and hansgeorg keep proposing.

As are retrograde orbiting satellites. Moving the opposite direction of the other satellites supposedly caried along on the aether flow.

I think you were careless in reading what I actually proposed.

a) satellite is kept up by going AGAINST the aether flow
b) in the case of geostationary ones, this eastward movement excatly matches the westward movement of the aether.

Are the retrograde satellites not also going against the aether flow? Did I miss sth?

I was willing to accept angels as a last resort if the aether model should fail - note that satellites are manmade and I like manmade things to be working in fairly materialistic laws of nature.

But Roy solved the dilemma for me, at least in an approximate way.

Angels and aether, though both part of my world view, are not synonymous and are not doing the exact same things.

[hansgeorg]

Furthermore according to Verbum Domini of the Second Vatican Council, the Church csn only infallible interpret in regards to matters of faith and morals.

As cosmology relates exclusively to the domain of natursl philosophy, the Church makes no claim on it.

If so, can the Church then claim to be interpreting the Bible?