Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[JohnMartin]

1b) m = Fr2/(GM)

Or

1b) m = f(r)

Or

1b) If m then r.

L - Both F and r in that equation are unknowns that have to be solved for. If you want to determine the mass of a planet using the equation, you'd need to solve.



Not



Otherwise you're making the implicit and false assumption that the force has the same size for all planets, depends only on the radius of their orbit from the Sun, instead of both the radius and their mass.

Your comments are interesting, but not relevant to my argument. Each part of the function is taken into account through the law of conjunction.

Let m= f(r,F,G,M)

Then logically - If m then r and F and G and M

Then in accord with the logical law of conjunctions -

If m then r
If m then F
If m then G
If m then M

Each letter r, F, G, and M are components of the equation. From the law of conjunction, then it follows logically that "If m then r", etc. The solution to the equation is not really required to be analysed in the manner in which you have stated above. The equation is broken down into its parts to show when all the relations are stated as simple sentences, the relevant sentences in equations 1), 2) and 3) can form an invalid syllogism. Hence Newtonian mechanics is invalidated.

JM

[hansgeorg]

Image transfer?

Yes.

Radio signals with identifiable codes are sent from earth and sent back. The images that used to be sent from Voyager 1 have failed, so the only transfer that works is that of radio signals, these being only clue as to its distance from us (c. 18 light hours).

At least those were the last news I had heard.

[Leonhard]

(on Problem 62)Mechanical experiments may verify, but they do not prove Newtonian, or any other form of physical model is true. No matter how much verification is supposedly made, verification does not indicate proof, for proof requires men to know the nature of gravity from within.

There is no proof of any scientific theories. They're demonstrated, and shown to be reliable, and so the assumptions made about them prove trustworthy. They may be falsified if anomalies show up, and then replaced by better theories, such as what happened when Newtonian Mechanics superseded Aristotelian Mechanics, and when Einsteinian Mechanics superses Newtonian Mechanics.

There is no need for proof.

[hansgeorg]

In the English language neither includes the other.
...
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.

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

A proposition can thus be a premiss ("of two or more propositions taken as premises") but also a conclusion ("the inferred proposition of a syllogism").

Meaning, proposition in and of itself cannot be taken as meaning premiss.

[hansgeorg]

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.

No, I can't, I am not a physicist.

Thank you for info, I thought it was a question of friction or of incomplete balance to start with.

[JohnMartin]

on Problem 62)Mechanical experiments may verify, but they do not prove Newtonian, or any other form of physical model is true. No matter how much verification is supposedly made, verification does not indicate proof, for proof requires men to know the nature of gravity from within.

L- There is no proof of any scientific theories. They're demonstrated, and shown to be reliable, and so the assumptions made about them prove trustworthy. They may be falsified if anomalies show up, and then replaced by better theories, such as what happened when Newtonian Mechanics superseded Aristotelian Mechanics, and when Einsteinian Mechanics supersedes Newtonian Mechanics.

There is no need for proof.

If there is no proof then any preference for the Helio model is made without proof. Such preference indicates Helio is preferred over Geo apart from the knowledge that Helio is an objectively realist over Geo. The preference is then only one of opinion without proof.

JM

[Leonhard]

Your comments are interesting, but not relevant to my argument. Each part of the function is taken into account through the law of conjunction.

The law of conjunction... are you kidding me?

Can you seriously not distinguish between mathematical equation, for which the laws of arithmetic are applied, to a first-order logical argument, for which the law of conjunction may be applied?

In the equation you have a relation that relates m, to r, F, G, and M. Of these G and M are fixed with the objects, but m will vary depending on what r and F are. Put in different values and you'll get different values of m.

Each letter r, F, G, and M are components of the equation. From the law of conjunction, then it follows logically that "If m then r", etc. The solution to the equation is not really required to be analysed in the manner in which you have stated above. The equation is broken down into its parts to show when all the relations are stated as simple sentences, the relevant sentences in equations 1), 2) and 3) can form an invalid syllogism. Hence Newtonian mechanics is invalidated.

This is even worse. They're multiplied together for crying out loud. They're not 'if then' sentences.

[hansgeorg]

Good point. The inverse square law is definitely not without some problems.

JM

A mathematical model was provided, and unfortunately my parallel with the water droplets seem to be somewhat failing?

[Leonhard]

If there is no proof then any preference for the Helio model is made without proof.

Only in math do you have proofs. Outside of math, you have demonstrations of various degrees of strength.

The preference is then only one of opinion without proof.

There is no problem of this. A proof would mean a demonstration of complete truth, and certainty. Something less than that can still be more than strong enough to believe in. If proof was required in order to know something, no man could ever be condemned by a court, and we humans could lay claim to no knowledge at all.

[hansgeorg]

And you're forced to deny the existence of satellites because you can't explain them, or resort of mischievous devious angels like hansgeorg here, and do wacky stuff like deny the existence of the Milky Way.

Sorry, but angels were not my definite and final explanation of satellites, an aether moving westward at angular speed of stars works just fine.

The discrepancy I supposed I saw was due to inaccurate analysis of what happens at ground level if I drop an object. Since the object already has eastward momentum through the aether, this eastward momentum will be countering the westward drag of the aether, and so the object drops fairly vertically.

And the reason why it drops and why the satellite stays, I suppose is that the acceleration at the height of geostationary satellites is slower than at ground level, right?

[Leonhard]

Then would you elaborate on what the problem is, as I thought in this statement you gave in Problem 37 "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." You were talking about the problem of treating gravity of a sphere as if coming from the center of the sphere.

The formation of the orbits is relevant to the big picture.

The formation of orbits is irrelevant to orbital mechanics. Unless again by 'Helio model', which you continually refuse to clarify, you mean modern cosmology.

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,

Newton adequately derived his inverse square law from Kepler's laws, using his three laws of motion, and calculus. There are no faults in his logic. Newtonian Mechanics was later superseded by General Relativity. You know this.

[JohnMartin]

All of them, just as I have responded to all of yours, from the beginning of this thread to now.

I'm pretty sure I have. If there are any I have missed you can point them out.

JM

[hansgeorg]

NM is demonstrably false. Physicists everywhere know that. It's a useful approximation.

Will you agree that this is also true of algebra and calculus?

[JohnMartin]

Your comments are interesting, but not relevant to my argument. Each part of the function is taken into account through the law of conjunction.
The law of conjunction... are you kidding me?

Can you seriously not distinguish between mathematical equation, for which the laws of arithmetic are applied, to a first-order logical argument, for which the law of conjunction may be applied?

Pretty sure I can.

In the equation you have a relation that relates m, to r, F, G, and M. Of these G and M are fixed with the objects, but m will vary depending on what r and F are. Put in different values and you'll get different values of m.

All the components of the formula are related logically, not just within a formula. Your comments are not relevant to the problem.

Each letter r, F, G, and M are components of the equation. From the law of conjunction, then it follows logically that "If m then r", etc. The solution to the equation is not really required to be analysed in the manner in which you have stated above. The equation is broken down into its parts to show when all the relations are stated as simple sentences, the relevant sentences in equations 1), 2) and 3) can form an invalid syllogism. Hence Newtonian mechanics is invalidated.

This is even worse. They're multiplied together for crying out loud. They're not 'if then' sentences..

Again, this is irrelevant. If m = f(r, F, G, M) then m is dependent upon r and F and G and M. Hence logically

If m then r and F and G and M.
If m then r
If m then F etc.

JM

[Leonhard]

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.

Newtonian mechanics was considered to be adequately demonstrated, until something even better emerged, namely General Relativity. Newtonian Mechanics still works as a good approximation in many cases.

You'd need to explain how spiral galaxies invalidate Newtonian Mechanics.

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.

That's one of the worst arguments I have ever made. Newtonian mechanics account for 99.9999% of orbital mechanics, with a few minute anomalies, which disappear once orbits are calculated according to General Relativity. The use of Newtonian Mechanics for ease of use, and pedagogy doesn't invalidate whatever it is you're referring to by 'Helio'.

And again modern cosmology, is not Heliocentric. Calling it 'Helio model', or 'Helio' is absurd.

Ask a relativist if he thinks the sun orbits the earth and he will virtually always say no.

I actually have had cordial discussions with people who studied General Relativity, and the various philosophical interpretations that could be given to reference frames. You should get out more. Get some real friends. Stop hanging out in your basement. Get a job.

SR and GR say whatever calculation are done for Helio can be done for Geo.

You still haven't shown that there's a frame of reference where in the Earth's center of mass remains static for all eternity. I'm not sure that's actually possible. Or if it is, then its clear that it violates all notions of parsimony, and for that reason a model with a moving Earth would always be a natural preference in light of General Relativity. Even if we interpret frames of reference as actual frames.

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.

I was referring to the classical models of Geocentrism.

Maybe, but the epicycles were used historically, which infers a common problem to both models.

Modern cosmology does not use epicycles. I don't understand your obsession with them.

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

Both articles give an excellent description of how Euler and Lagrange worked out how the mutual attraction of Jupiter and Saturn were affecting eachother's orbits. This was impressive work on some difficult differential equations. The fact that they had to use fourth-order pertubation calculus do shows how weak and effect it is. However it was fullly account for within Newtonian Mechanics.

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?

Because at apoapsis it is moving slower than what would be required for a circular orbit, and at periapsis it is moving faster. This results in an elliptical orbit. So long as the velocity at periapsis does not exceed escape velocity.