Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[oxmixmudd]

The force is determined by G, m, M and r. Not two factors as you say.

Once you define the two objects, the only factors that remain are 'r' and 'G' (and G is not a variable in fact, but it is the other determining factor)

So there are two given the fact I said 'between two objects'.

Force is determined by m as shown in the gravity equation. As you say, that force then defines how much velocity is required for an orbit.



And the forces that balance include the gravity equation, which requires that the mass of the planet be included.

See above ...

Hence Newtonian mechanics is an eclectic mess. So it seems. The planets mass is required to determine the

1) gravity force, F= GmM/r², which is described in terms of m as

1b) m = Fr²/(GM)

which is stated as - If m then r.

Not hardly. The mathematical equation you specify, translated into a logical statement is:

if F, r², 1/G and 1/M, then m


And the logical chain fails here, so we are done.

Try again John.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

And the several possible answers scientists seek to account for the leap second do not include the possibility of the stationary earth, even though the assumptions in the models of the possible solutions cannot prove the earth moves. The solutions proposed for the Venus problem will also no doubt assume the earth rotates, where no proof is ever offered. Helio is just a hunch and that's all it ever will be.

JM

And that (1) means nothing and (2) is totally irrelevant to problem 46 that you mentioned and the problems with 'problem 46' that I have pointed out. But it could be taken as an admission you don't have an answer to the points I've made.

Jim

[One Bad Pig]

No.

You are confusing so much at once that I honestly don't know what point to begin with that would put you on the right track; I doubt it matters, since you've made-up your mind that you've got some wisdom that everyone else doesn't. But doesn't this stuff get old for you? You're posting the same stuff over and over again, page after page, and you make assertions without even trying to back them up. It's like spam.

It seems that the basic idea is to throw so much at your opponent that they give up in disgust, at which point he can claim that his arguments are irrefutable.

[oxmixmudd]

But mass determines the gravity force, which is balanced by the centrifugal force. Both forces include the planets mass, but the planets velocity is determined independent of the planets mass. Hence Newtonian mechanics is logically invalid. It's an indication that gravity is not caused by planets mass, or correctly measured by planets mass. Don't worry, there are other models that actually assume gravity is determined by another mechanism. Newtonian mechanics is a great model, but it seems it is deficient, and can have its weaknesses exposed to permit critical appraisal.

JM

John - the planet's mass is still a factor in the Force equation. But the acceleration 'felt' by the planet is independent of its mass and dependent on the mass of the other object. This is why when the Apollo astronaut dropped the feather and the hammer on the moon, they fell at the exact same rate.

Notice that which objects mass is m and which is M is arbitrary, and the reduction of a seen above applies to both objects, but is MUCH smaller for the object of lesser mass, by the inverse square of the radius in fact.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

It seems that the basic idea is to throw so much at your opponent that they give up in disgust, at which point he can claim that his arguments are irrefutable.

With John It's worse than that. If he can throw out 100 'problems', and you can refute all but 1, he still 'wins'.

And further - as you can see above - his invincible ignorance means that even if you soundly stomp the problem into the proverbial dust, he still wins (In his own mind).

I think I can count on 1 hand the number of times John has been able to recognize one of his errors on these pages.


Jim

[Sea of red]

It seems that the basic idea is to throw so much at your opponent that they give up in disgust, at which point he can claim that his arguments are irrefutable.

Yes, it's the classic Gish gallop.

Honestly, when people go this far off the rails there's not much hope of accomplishing anything with them. Even if they realize just how horribly wrong they are, these kind of people are not ones to admit it to you. I can't say I blame them, considering how embarrassing it's got be to being so arrogant and then realize you've been making a fool of yourself. I know I'd leave in shame and never return to the forum I'd done it on, but these people have no shame.

[JohnMartin]

The force is determined by G, m, M and r. Not two factors as you say.
Once you define the two objects, the only factors that remain are 'r' and 'G' (and G is not a variable in fact, but it is the other determining factor)

So there are two given the fact I said 'between two objects'.

The force equation is what it is, and has G, m, M and r.

Hence Newtonian mechanics is an eclectic mess. So it seems. The planets mass is required to determine the

1) gravity force, F= GmM/r2, which is described in terms of m as

1b) m = Fr2/(GM)

which is stated as - If m then r.
Not hardly. The mathematical equation you specify, translated into a logical statement is:

if F, r2, 1/G and 1/M, then m


And the logical chain fails here, so we are done.

Try again John.

Jim

1b) m = Fr²/(GM)

Or

1b) m = f(r)

Or

1b) If m then r.

Similarly

2b) r = mv²/F

Or

2b) r = f(v)

Or

2b) If r then v

Similarly

3) r = GM/v2, where GM/v2 excludes m.

Or

3) v = (GM/r)^1/2

then

v= f(G,M,r)

Or

v = not f(m)

Or

not f(m) = v

3) If not m then v.

Hence the invalid syllogism -

If m then r.
If r then v.
Therefore not m then v.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It seems that the basic idea is to throw so much at your opponent that they give up in disgust, at which point he can claim that his arguments are irrefutable.

I only propose problems to see what's out there. If nobody answers the problems, then I make no claim about the veracity of the problem. I don't claim the problems or lack of answers to the problems are conclusive either way. Your opinion is only yours which you hold at variance to my intent. The discussion board is open to all ideas under free speech. So I've proposed problems, and now we enter into a dialogue to see what ideas are out there.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

The force equation is what it is, and has G, m, M and r.



1b) m = Fr²/(GM)

Or

1b) m = f(r)

Or

1b) If m then r.

Similarly

2b) r = mv²/F

Or

2b) r = f(v)

Or

2b) If r then v

Similarly

3) r = GM/v2, where GM/v2 excludes m.

Or

3) v = (GM/r)^1/2

then

v= f(G,M,r)

Or

v = not f(m)

Or

not f(m) = v

3) If not m then v.

Hence the invalid syllogism -

If m then r.
If r then v.
Therefore not m then v.

JM

Calvin ball.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

Yes, it's the classic Gish gallop.

Honestly, when people go this far off the rails there's not much hope of accomplishing anything with them. Even if they realize just how horribly wrong they are, these kind of people are not ones to admit it to you. I can't say I blame them, considering how embarrassing it's got be to being so arrogant and then realize you've been making a fool of yourself. I know I'd leave in shame and never return to the forum I'd done it on, but these people have no shame.

Modern physics is an eclectic mess. So when someone claims that Geo is true, based upon the truth contained within the sources of revelation, modern science cannot ever refute that claim. Hence the claims by atheists such as yourself that I am so far gone, when in fact no proof is ever proposed to the contrary of Geo. In fact some reflection upon the physics models shows they are limited in scope, and certitude they bring to the table. There is no proof for Helio from within science. Everyone who knows what science is know this is true. So the claims that I am far gone are only claims that over extend the veracity of science models and project that false judgment into me.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Calvin ball.

Jim

Jim has no answer to the problem posed. This is not the first time, and it wont be the last.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Yes, it's the classic Gish gallop.

Honestly, when people go this far off the rails there's not much hope of accomplishing anything with them. Even if they realize just how horribly wrong they are, these kind of people are not ones to admit it to you. I can't say I blame them, considering how embarrassing it's got be to being so arrogant and then realize you've been making a fool of yourself. I know I'd leave in shame and never return to the forum I'd done it on, but these people have no shame.

The thread is entitled Problems with Heliocentrism and you've been presented with problems with Heliocentrism. Gish gallop is a fallacy proposed by those who don't know what the fallacy is, as opposed to a discussion thread proposed to expose multiple problems with the Helio model.

JM

[Sea of red]

The force is determined by G, m, M and r. Not two factors as you say.

G is a constant in Newtonian mechanics, while mass is represented in the two bodies M and m, and r is the distance between the bodies. The constant never changes, so yes, there really are two factors at play.

Force is determined by m as shown in the gravity equation. As you say, that force then defines how much velocity is required for an orbit.

And it's distance.

Why is that hard for you?

And the forces that balance include the gravity equation, which requires that the mass of the planet be included.

Hence Newtonian mechanics is an eclectic mess. So it seems. The planets mass is required to determine the

The planets are following a geodesic around the sun - which is a straight line in curved space. Gravity is just a geometric feature of space-time, and it's what is responsible for the large scale structure and motion of the universe. General relativity is the true theory of gravity (which I won't get into here) but Newtonian mechanics is a good enough approximation that it can be used most of the time in measuring distances and masses.

[oxmixmudd]

The force equation is what it is, and has G, m, M and r.



1b) m = Fr²/(GM)

Or

1b) m = f(r)

Or

1b) If m then r.

Similarly

2b) r = mv²/F

Or

2b) r = f(v)

Or

2b) If r then v

Similarly

3) r = GM/v2, where GM/v2 excludes m.

Or

3) v = (GM/r)^1/2

then

v= f(G,M,r)

Or

v = not f(m)

Or

not f(m) = v

3) If not m then v.

Hence the invalid syllogism -

If m then r.
If r then v.
Therefore not m then v.

JM

Calvin ball

https://www.google.com/search?q=calv...ATM%3A&xxri=23

This is math john, you have to work with the symbols according to its rules.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

With John It's worse than that. If he can throw out 100 'problems', and you can refute all but 1, he still 'wins'.

And further - as you can see above - his invincible ignorance means that even if you soundly stomp the problem into the proverbial dust, he still wins (In his own mind).

I think I can count on 1 hand the number of times John has been able to recognize one of his errors on these pages.


Jim

Jim is confounded because he knows Newtonian mechanics is illogical and he also knows Helio is problematic and without proof. He knows, so now he has a good old whinge about it all.

JM