Tweet
Presented below are a series of problems concerning the theory of Heliocentrism. The various problems attempt to show some of the weaknesses within the Heliocentric theory.
Local evidence suggests other planets have variable rotation rates. For example, Saturn also has a reduced rotation rate.
Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.
Helio1.jpg
Helio 2.jpg
The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.
heli 3.jpg
The Helio model of Copernicus requires epicycles to account for Keplers orbital laws. The epicycles are required to account for non-uniform motion of the planets around the sun. As the epicycles have no physical mechanism, and are adverse to Newtonian mechanics, the Copernican model is not a preferred model according to and physical mechanism, or the models compatibility with Newtonian mechanics. Any reference to the Helio model as a preferred model is only based upon a misunderstanding of the complexity and what is assumed within the model.
helio 4.jpg
The sun as the local mass that dominates the planetary orbits, does so to provide stability to the model. Yet stability is only relative to the local system, and largely unrelated to the mass of the universe. As stability is determined by the dominant forces provided by the sun, the Helio model is said to be preferable over the Geo model. Yet the Geo model states the stability within its model is provided for by the perpetual inertia of the rotating universe which remains unchanging. As the motion and mass of the universe provides far more stability than the local sun within the Helio model, the Geo model is the preferred model according to the stability provided within the model.
The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). The GS which are purportedly designed to have an orbit based upon the Newtonian inverse square law and the daily rotation of the earth. In using this approach, the Helio model is actually shown to be eclectic and therefore either not realist, or poorly constructed. For the purported method used to design the GS orbits 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. But ignores the satellites change in direction via the annual rotation around the sun. By ignoring such motions, the Helio model is shown to have weak evidential support.
The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). Yet to promote the Helio model over the Geo model infers the Geo model cannot account for the GS. But relativity says the GS motions can be accounted for through the principle of equivalence. So the Helio model is not preferred over the Geo model for any satellite motions. Hence the GS is not evidence for either Helio or Geo.
The Helio model is evidenced via the inductive method. The Geo model is evidenced via the deductive and inductive methods. The deductive method (i.e. God has revealed the earth is stationary, therefore the earth is stationary), always concludes to certitude regarding the nature of the universe. Yet because Helio does not use the deductive method to demonstrate the Helio model, the Helio model is always the weaker model. For a model that is not based upon the certitude of the deductive method is always weaker than another model that is based upon the deductive method. Therefore Helio is always a weaker model than Geo. Hence Geo is always the preferable model.
The Helio model is based upon the assumed physical modelling using Newtonian mechanics (NM). Yet NM has its own inherent weaknesses such as gravity described through 1) mass attraction and 2) instantaneous action at a distance. Yet both 1 and 2 are problematic and are actually rejected by other models. Hence Helio is based upon a notion of physics that is both problematic and rejected by other models, which infers Helio is a weakly founded model.
Problem 21 - The Helio model assumes the motion of the sun and planets, and assumes the focus of motion around the sun makes the model stable. Yet the model has all bodies in motion, which implies the model is unstable. For when all bodies are in motion, at large velocities will inevitably degenerate at orbits decay. Such makes the Helio model unstable, contrary to the implied stability as observed in long term data from sun dials that show the motion of the earth is stable.
The Helio model is associated with the assumption of perpetual, local and universal motion. Such an assumption infers the there is no local or any point of rest within the universe. The assumed motion of all things within the universe is not provable through observation, for not all bodies have been observed, and not all motions have been observed. Hence the assumption of perpetual motion is not provable, but open to invalidation. What is not provable, but possibly invalidated is a weak assumption. As Helio is based upon a weak assumption the model is weak.
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
Local evidence suggests other planets have variable rotation rates. For example, Saturn also has a reduced rotation rate.
Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.
Helio1.jpg
Helio 2.jpg
The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.
heli 3.jpg
The Helio model of Copernicus requires epicycles to account for Keplers orbital laws. The epicycles are required to account for non-uniform motion of the planets around the sun. As the epicycles have no physical mechanism, and are adverse to Newtonian mechanics, the Copernican model is not a preferred model according to and physical mechanism, or the models compatibility with Newtonian mechanics. Any reference to the Helio model as a preferred model is only based upon a misunderstanding of the complexity and what is assumed within the model.
helio 4.jpg
The sun as the local mass that dominates the planetary orbits, does so to provide stability to the model. Yet stability is only relative to the local system, and largely unrelated to the mass of the universe. As stability is determined by the dominant forces provided by the sun, the Helio model is said to be preferable over the Geo model. Yet the Geo model states the stability within its model is provided for by the perpetual inertia of the rotating universe which remains unchanging. As the motion and mass of the universe provides far more stability than the local sun within the Helio model, the Geo model is the preferred model according to the stability provided within the model.
The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). The GS which are purportedly designed to have an orbit based upon the Newtonian inverse square law and the daily rotation of the earth. In using this approach, the Helio model is actually shown to be eclectic and therefore either not realist, or poorly constructed. For the purported method used to design the GS orbits 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. But ignores the satellites change in direction via the annual rotation around the sun. By ignoring such motions, the Helio model is shown to have weak evidential support.
The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). Yet to promote the Helio model over the Geo model infers the Geo model cannot account for the GS. But relativity says the GS motions can be accounted for through the principle of equivalence. So the Helio model is not preferred over the Geo model for any satellite motions. Hence the GS is not evidence for either Helio or Geo.
The Helio model is evidenced via the inductive method. The Geo model is evidenced via the deductive and inductive methods. The deductive method (i.e. God has revealed the earth is stationary, therefore the earth is stationary), always concludes to certitude regarding the nature of the universe. Yet because Helio does not use the deductive method to demonstrate the Helio model, the Helio model is always the weaker model. For a model that is not based upon the certitude of the deductive method is always weaker than another model that is based upon the deductive method. Therefore Helio is always a weaker model than Geo. Hence Geo is always the preferable model.
The Helio model is based upon the assumed physical modelling using Newtonian mechanics (NM). Yet NM has its own inherent weaknesses such as gravity described through 1) mass attraction and 2) instantaneous action at a distance. Yet both 1 and 2 are problematic and are actually rejected by other models. Hence Helio is based upon a notion of physics that is both problematic and rejected by other models, which infers Helio is a weakly founded model.
Problem 21 - The Helio model assumes the motion of the sun and planets, and assumes the focus of motion around the sun makes the model stable. Yet the model has all bodies in motion, which implies the model is unstable. For when all bodies are in motion, at large velocities will inevitably degenerate at orbits decay. Such makes the Helio model unstable, contrary to the implied stability as observed in long term data from sun dials that show the motion of the earth is stable.
The Helio model is associated with the assumption of perpetual, local and universal motion. Such an assumption infers the there is no local or any point of rest within the universe. The assumed motion of all things within the universe is not provable through observation, for not all bodies have been observed, and not all motions have been observed. Hence the assumption of perpetual motion is not provable, but open to invalidation. What is not provable, but possibly invalidated is a weak assumption. As Helio is based upon a weak assumption the model is weak.
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
Comment