Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Leonhard]

(John Martin responds to my response to his Problem 14 - Whether galactic clusters disprove orbital mechanics)

But in such a cluster the galaxies are similar in size, and are at any rate not moving in orbits relative to eachother. Quite a few are on collision course, just as the Milkyway will collide with our nearest neighbour Andromeda in several billion years.

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.

And I repeat, galaxies are not in orbit of each other. They are very similar to each other in size, and are not moving at orbital velocities. Many are in fact on collision course. Like our galaxy and Andromeda.

The fact that two stars can orbit a common center of mass is irrelevant.

[Leonhard]

The sun provides a forcevector, acting on the center of gravity of the planet towards the sun. In a circular orbit, this vector is perpendicular to the velocity of the planet. In an elliptical orbit it will at times be slightly off center, and so can be decomposed into a force vector acting perpendicular to the velocity of the planet, and a force vector decelerating or accelerating the planet.

Hence there is no problem.

As Problem 53, Problem 54 and Problem 55 all start with the same mistake as this problem, then per St. Thomas Aquinas manner of deduction, they too are answered, and need not be dealt with.

[Leonhard]

And again, as Newtonian Mechanics is used only as an approximation of General Relativity, there is nothing to explain here and no problem with them having incommensurable notions.

[Leonhard]

While a frame can be chosen where in the Earth's center of mass is static at a certain point in time, I'm not sure a frame can be chosen where in Earth's center of mass remains static, even through all collissions etc... if such a frame can be chosen, then it would violate all notions of parsimony, and for that reason again the idea that the Earth moves would be epistemologically preferred.

[Leonhard]

(JohnMartin's response to my response of his Problem 16)

I'll skip his conspiracy theories about satellites being made up in order to support 'Helio model'. That's just a bit too woowoo for me to bother about.

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.

No need to introduce the Sun into that mix, unless you're talking about the effect of the sun on the precession of the satellites orbit?

Hence you have proposed a model that 1) includes the daily rotation, but excludes the annual orbit around the sun, and 2) includes the daily change in satellite direction, by the satellite rotating with the earth.

It includes the annual orbit around the sun. The satellite need not rotate in response to the sun. It need only rotate to keep its face lined up with Earth, and orbit it in such a way that its orbital period, matches the sidereal day. That's it. That's what geostationary satellites do.

When they do that, they face the Earth, and appears from the perspective of a person standing on Earth, as if they were hovering roughly 30 thousand kilometers overhead.

There is no problem here.

[Leonhard]

This is a contradiction of terms. Kepler's laws are descriptive, derived from epistemological observations. Orbits described by Kepler's laws, can be derived both from Newtonian mechanics, assuming the inverse square law, or from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Furthermore what reference frame the measurements were made in, basically doesn't matter.

Usually by complex you mean its difficult to understand, for you, so I'll ignore this objection.

You do realize that Kepler's laws were derived before Newton proposed his Principia Mathematica? Actually, I'm not sure that you do.

Problem 59 and 60 make the same confused conflation, demand for simplicity (according to what pleases JohnMartin) as well as an 'assurance' I'm not sure what is in this case. So again, they're answered by this response to problem 58.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

Image transfer?

[TheLurch]

(John Martin responds to my response to his Problem 14 - Whether galactic clusters disprove orbital mechanics)



And I repeat, galaxies are not in orbit of each other. They are very similar to each other in size, and are not moving at orbital velocities. Many are in fact on collision course. Like our galaxy and Andromeda.

Small clarification: most galaxies, including the Milky Way, have dwarf galaxies orbiting them. These are small remnants where most of the gas and stars have been stripped off during a collision with the galaxy they orbit.

[JohnMartin]

[Yttrium]

blah blah Newtonian Mechanics blah blah

JM, you really need to get over your obsession with Newtonian Mechanics. NM is demonstrably false. Physicists everywhere know that. It's a useful approximation. Even if science were in the habit of proving things to be true, which it isn't (outside of math), NM obviously isn't going to be proven true, since it's false. You can't seem to grasp that we're using General Relativity these days. When things are moving relatively slowly, we can use the Newtonian equations as approximations.

[JohnMartin]

JM - Newton did some calculations, to arrive at an inverse square law, but the law assumes only one centripetal force from the planets center of mass along the line of the solar system center of mass.

L -On the contrary, this is not an assumption, but a conclusion from Newtonian Mechanics, where in the inverse square law is proposed as acting between all bits of matter.

Then from the spherical symmetry of the Earth we get that the combined contributions from all those small bits of matter on Earth, are summed together as one force vector acting on the body of the satellite. Or with the Sun, acting on the center of the Earth. And vice versa as per the Third Law of motion.

A detailed derivation is available here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem

JM -

The formation of the orbits is relevant to the big picture. If there is no strong theory to account for where the orbits came from through natural causes, then a supernaturalist model is preferable. As the Helio model is closely associated with the error of naturalism, then the lack of clear, strong theory of orbit formation points to an alternate theory, such as Geo, which is supernaturalist based. The formation of orbits is not a problem for the Geo model, but it is a problem for the Helio model. Hence the Geo model is better in this regard.

Originally Posted by JohnMartin
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.

L - Copernicus and Galileo didn't assume Newtonian mechanics, as that wasn't available when these models were created.

As for Modern Cosmology it does not assume Newtonian mechanics, as has been pointed out to you a hundred times. It is based on General Relativity, and the make up of the universe comes from the Standard Model of Cosmology. The reason Newtonian Mechanics is used to describe how planets orbit, is because it explains most of it.

Problem 37 is not concerned with the history of the model, but rather the application of Newtonian mechanics to the Helio model. You have admitted above that NM is used to explain most of the Helio model. So NM is applicable to the Helio model. So if there is no proof for the inverse square law and there are instances when Newtonian mechanics is invalidated, then Helio is based upon an understanding of physics that is false. Hence the Helio model is false.

Relativity theory is also false, making Helio false as well.

JM

[JohnMartin]

JM, you really need to get over your obsession with Newtonian Mechanics. NM is demonstrably false. Physicists everywhere know that. It's a useful approximation. Even if science were in the habit of proving things to be true, which it isn't (outside of math), NM obviously isn't going to be proven true, since it's false. You can't seem to grasp that we're using General Relativity these days. When things are moving relatively slowly, we can use the Newtonian equations as approximations.

The Helio model does have slow motions relative to light. So Newtonian mechanics should dominate any explanations of the Helio model. As NM is false, then the Helio model is also false. Relativity theory is also false, making Helio model false as well. General relativity theory is for another time.

JM

[Yttrium]

The Helio model does have slow motions relative to light. So Newtonian mechanics should dominate any explanations of the Helio model. As NM is false, then the Helio model is also false.

Your insane troll logic is always entertaining.

[One Bad Pig]

The formation of the orbits is relevant to the big picture. If there is no strong theory to account for where the orbits came from through natural causes, then a supernaturalist model is preferable. As the Helio model is closely associated with the error of naturalism, then the lack of clear, strong theory of orbit formation points to an alternate theory, such as Geo, which is supernaturalist based. The formation of orbits is not a problem for the Geo model, but it is a problem for the Helio model. Hence the Geo model is better in this regard.

How is the Geo model supernaturalist based? It is merely the Ptolemaic model modified by the Christian theory of origins (i.e., creatio ex nihilo in place of eternal matter). The helio model, your well-poisoning notwithstanding, is no less valid given the assumption of creation; Kepler and Newton were certainly not anti-supernaturalists.

One would think that on a purely objective level, the success of Voyager 1 and 2 would be proof positive of the Newtonian mechanics used to determine their flight paths.

[JohnMartin]

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.

Newtonism indeed has as one of its basic postulates about forces in general, that their acts are cumulative. I don't understand what is being asked for. The demonstration of the correctness of Newtonian Mechanics, was surely how much more accurate it was than previous models, even though it too was later superseded by General Relativity.

The assumption of a cumulative effect of the force of gravity within Newtonian mechanics is never proven, but is invalidated through the observation of spiral galaxies. Such galaxies do not act as though the gravity force is cumulative. Hence Newtonian mechanics is invalidated, along with the Helio model.

Your claim that GR is used to explain Helio is correct, but irrelevant to the argument at hand. If NM is used to explain Helio, then Helio is false, because NM is false. If GR is then used to further explain Helio, beyond that of NM, then Helio is false, because NM and GR are false.

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.
No, because such statements depend on a choice of reference frame. However, as there is no true reference frame, we can always use one over the other in any given circumstance. However there is no choice of reference frame you can choose wherein the Earth remains static, taking into account collisions by meteors etc... or even the solar wind, without violating all notions of parsimony. All evidence would reasonable point to a moving Earth, even if you started with one that was static at a certain point in time.

The problem was that the Helio model requires epicycles, which are had in common with Ptolemy's model.
There are no epicycles in modern cosmology. Epicycles were introduced as an attempt to salvage the classical cosmologies with perfect circular orbits, in order to account for the apparent retrograde motions of planets. Copernicanism solves that problem far more easily by introducing the Earth as one of the planets in motion.

Geo solves the problem quite easily by positing that Mars retrograde motion is caused by Mars orbiting the moving sun. The phenomenon is not a problem for Geo.

However even with epicycles in it motion is still off, as even though epicycles can mimic these effects, and even account slightly for elliptical orbits. You can't produce Keplarian orbits with epicycles. How would you account for a planet slowing down when it gets closer to its apoapsis and speeding up when it is getting closer to its periapsis.

In the epicycle drawing you gave, it would move at the same rate at the two points.

Maybe, but the epicycles were used historically, which infers a common problem to both models. Modern Geo does not use epicycles either. The matter of epicycles is part of the Helio story, whereby Helio is portrayed as the better model, because in part, of the epicycles. The story about epicycles is not a compelling story.

The Great Inequality of Jupiter and Saturn: from Kepler to Laplace, Curtis Wilson, Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 33, No. 1/3 (1985), pp. 15-290.

The great inequality of Jupiter and Saturn

The motion of the planet is modeled, based upon one singular centripetal force from the focus near or in the sun. When the planet approaches apoapsis the centripetal force will always decrease, allowing the planet to continue on its course away from the sun. There is no additional force that causes the planet to return. The additional force is like that of the centripetal force acting from the second focus of the ellipse which lies far away from the sun. Because of the incongruity of the Newtonian explanation of elliptical orbits, the gravity law is inadequate to account for planetary orbits. A similar problem arises when the planet approaches apoapsis.

Perhaps another example will highlight the problem with elliptical orbits. When a planet is at apoapsis or periapsis, the planet moves with a velocity perpendicular to the gravity force. At these two points the planet moves as though its in a circular orbit around the sun, and can easily be modeled as such. How then does the planet move from apoapsis or periapsis in an elliptical orbit, rather than a circular orbit, when all the forces acting on the planet at apoapsis or periapsis are accounted for within a circular orbit? The problem is unresolvable for there is no additional force within the model to account for the elliptical orbit as anything other than a circular orbit. The lack of additional force continues throughout the model of the elliptical orbit.

JM