Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[hansgeorg]

Thank you, will have a look.

I did have a look:

http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m106.pdf

Can you ask Peter Signell to derive the orbits of the water droplets around the charged knitting needles, so that one may realise why in one case the orbits go on and on, and in the other stick to the knitting needle after 5 - 20 orbits?

[hansgeorg]

Your system is a deception and no careful observation can ever uncover the truth because in your system God 'fixes' it so that no matter how close you look, the truth of what is there will be hidden from you.

I'd say in your system the problem is no obvious observation can uncover the truth, because in your system God is counting on your sophistication.

Besides, I am waiting what will happen when Voyager I gets 1 light day away.

It is conspicuous the image transfer has failed - perhaps voluntarily, as images from where it is would concur too much with a sphere of fixed stars and too little with your predictive thesis that constellations around ecliptic are only locally visible from our angle.

[JonF]

I think we differ on what the word "proposition" means.

In the English language neither includes the other.

Proposition:
(1) : something offered for consideration or acceptance : proposal (2) : a request for sexual intercourse
b : the point to be discussed or maintained in argument usually stated in sentence form near the outset
c : a theorem or problem to be demonstrated or performed
(2)
a : an expression in language or signs of something that can be believed, doubted, or denied or is either true or false
b : the objective meaning of a proposition
3
: something of an indicated kind to be dealt with <the farm was never a paying proposition>

Definition of conclusion
1 :
a : a reasoned judgment : inference
b : the necessary consequence of two or more propositions taken as premises; especially : the inferred proposition of a syllogism

Redefining words is a common practice among you and your ilk, but all it does is inhibit communication and ease your avoidance of the issues.

[JonF]

I did have a look:

http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m106.pdf

Can you ask Peter Signell to derive the orbits of the water droplets around the charged knitting needles, so that one may realise why in one case the orbits go on and on, and in the other stick to the knitting needle after 5 - 20 orbits?

You can't?

Water molecules are polar; each one is not neutrally charged. Droplets of water moving in any electromagnetic field will generate their own small electric and magnetic fields, just like any electric generator. I suppose you do accept that electricity can be generated by a moving charged rotor in the electromagnetic field of a stator?

The induced electromagnetic field of the water molecules "pushes" against the electromagnetic field of the needles. This force decreases the velocity of the water molecules, generating a very small amount of heat. Eventually the water molecules run into the knitting needles and are slighly warmer.

Grab an old motor or generator using permanent magnets and try to turn the shaft. The drag you feel is exactly the same.

[JohnMartin]

No.

In Newtonian mechanics, the centrifugal force is an inertial force (also called a 'fictitious' or 'pseudo' force) directed away from the axis of rotation that appears to act on all objects when viewed in a rotating reference frame.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Helio may be promoted as a preferred model, based upon its apparent simplicity of explanation, such as its explanation for annual parallax. Yet the Helio model contains much that is not simple, but complex. Therefore, because the Helio model is complex, any claims of simplicity are only relative to a select number of phenomena, which entails a complexity of maths equations. The mixture of simplicity and complexity within the model indicates the model is not as robust as some may think. Hence the preference for Helio over Geo is not well founded.

The Helio model assumes Newtonian mechanics as the mathematical basis for local motions of the planets and of the galaxies. The model assumes a cumulative effect of gravity acting on all bodies according to the inverse square law, where no such proof is ever offered for such an effect being real. In fact, if the cumulative effect of gravity is required within the Helio model, then spiral galaxies which do not conform to Newtonian gravity, indicate Newtonian gravity is false. As Newtonian gravity is false, then the Helio model has no valid mathematical model to predict any motions in the local system. Hence Helio is invalidated.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The fact that the academy thinks the earth orbits the sun and not the sun orbits the earth means the academy does not take Relativity theory seriously. To assert the motion of one body past another only infers (according to relativity theory) the motion of the later past the former is also possible. It is also possible until one speaks to a Geocentrist, who thinks the sun does the orbiting and not the earth. Then Helio must be true and Geo must be false, even though modern model theory infers that such dogmatism is unmerited.

[JohnMartin]

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderated By: Sparko

You were told to stop spamming the thread until each small couple of points were addressed and answered. Do it again and we might just close the thread.

***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.

[JohnMartin]

[JohnMartin]

The conjunction of planets produces a torque force on the planets affecting change to planet rotation rates and planet atmospheric motions. The application of a torque force in planets at conjunction indicates that the forces between planets are more complex than suggested by Newtonian Mechanics. As the torque force between the planets is not explained by Newtonian mechanics, the phenomenon provides some indication that the Newtonian based Helio model is not certain and possibly not realist. Hence the Helio model may be abandoned or modified for models that grant a better explanation of local torque forces between the planets.

The Helio model requires a precision of forces to cause the orbits we observe. The precision of causes is required among highly complicated combination of equations that cannot easily be solved for the local system. The complexity of the Helio model makes improbable the precision required for each planetary orbit to remain stable over a long time period. Hence the probable inherent instability within the Newtonian based Helio model indicates the model is not realist and should be abandoned in favor of a more stable model.

[JohnMartin]

So we have different numbers from different authors. Hence the problem is currently unresolved.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The Helio model assumes an elliptical orbit for the planets, whereby the ellipse is said to be accounted for through the application of the inverse square law applied to the gravitational force acting along the line between an ellipse focus located inside the sun, and the planets center of mass. Yet to apply only a single gravitational (centripetal) force between the planet and sun, the second focus of the ellipse located outside the sun can never causally explain the elliptical shape of the planets orbit.

Such an explanation is contrary to the manner by which ellipses are drawn via tension in a string attached simultaneously to both foci of the ellipse. The Newtonian explanation of an elliptical orbit is then antithetical to clear local demonstrations of the nature of an elliptical path which is dependent upon the transfer of forces directed along the two string lines acting simultaneously between each of the ellipses foci and the moving body. Hence because the Newtonian explanation of the elliptical orbit path of planets is not demonstrated in practice locally, the theory does not align with local experiments conducted with moving pencils (like moving planets) governed by tension forces in the string attached to both foci of the ellipse. By using the simple sting experiment, two forces are demonstrated to be required to account for elliptical orbits, rather than the singular analogous centripetal force used by Newtonian mechanics. So what is not able to be demonstrated locally should not be applied universally to explain planetary orbits, as required within the Helio model. Such is a problem within the Newtonian based Helio model.

[JohnMartin]

JM

[JohnMartin]

Helio assumes the local system and Milky Way is not in a preferred location in the universe. If there is evidence that the local system is in a preferred location, the Helio model is unsound according to an assumed principle. Varshni discovered quasars located in spherical shells, concentric around the earth (Astrophysics and Space Science, 43:(1)(1976). Other studies have also come to the same conclusion. Hence the quasars in spherical shells focused on the earth is a falsification of the Copernican principle and the Helio model.

Helio assumes the local system and Milky Way is not in a preferred location in the universe. If there is evidence that the local system is in a preferred location, the Helio model is unsound according to an assumed principle. According to a study performed by Paul Schechter, he found a cancelling of galactic motion centered upon the earth based observer. Hence the study concluded that the sum total of motions in the universe was zero at the local system. (On the Solar Motion with Respect to External Galaxies, Astronomical Journal, vol 82, Aug 1977, 569-77). The galaxy motions with a zero sum in the local system is a falsification of the Copernican principle and the Helio model.

Helio assumes the local system and Milky Way is not in a preferred location in the universe. If there is evidence that the local system is in a preferred location, the Helio model is unsound according to an assumed principle. William Tifft observed Galaxy redshift periodicity inferring galaxies are located at distinct distances centered on the earth. (Tifft , Global Redshift Periodicities and Variability, The Astrophysical Journal, 485: 465-83.) The galaxy locations around the central earth is a falsification of the Copernican principle and the Helio model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

We also we large binary stars orbiting each other. So there is evidence within the universe for large objects that move towards, around and stationary relative to each other. Hence a local large mass does not necessitate the smaller objects orbit the larger. For if larger objects are indifferent to motion to other large objects, then smaller objects may also be indifferent to a larger object.
JM