Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[JonF]

I was thinking of calculus which (as far as I could gather when someone tried to explain it to me decades ago) explicitly uses approximation.

I was also thinking of algebra, which approximates to the actual definitions, while giving short cuts.

Neither is true. In math there is perfection. Algebra does not approximate the definitions of algebra. Calculus uses approximation (in some formulations) as a path to exactness. All calculations follow inexorably and exactly from the inputs. If the inputs are abstract the result is exact. If the inputs are measurements of the real world the exactness of the result is a function of the exactness of the measurements.

[hansgeorg]

Algebra does not approximate the definitions of algebra. Calculus uses approximation (in some formulations) as a path to exactness.

Algebra approximates the definitions of what it is non-algebraically about.

Example a: "(a - b)sqd = asqd - 2ab + bsqd" is fine enough arithmetically, but in geometry we are usually rather dealing with asqd - ab - b(a - b).
Example b: exponents of fractional type do not make sense at all arithmetically, unless taken as algebraic simplification of sth else like "a^x/y=b" really means a^x=b^y (exactly or in logarithms more usually approximately).

You admitted my memory was not totally off, whether my understanding back then was so or not. Calculus uses approximation - if only as a means to exactitude.

[JonF]

I really don't think Geocentrism has a problem with that one. If you think otherwise, be a bit more precise.

You claimed to have an answer earlier.

If you launch a rocket to the east it has higher velocity relative to the center of the Earth than is it had been launched to the west. Since launching east requires less fuel to achieve the desired velocity, all rockets going to orbit are launched east except for a few special cases.

The amount of increase in east-west velocity depends on latitude, it's maximum at the equator and zero at the poles. There's a reason why almost all US satellite launches go from Cape Canaveral, which is almost as close to the equator as you can get within the continental US. (There are other reasons as well). The French launch east from Guiana. The Russians launch east from Baikal.

Your east-to-west wind would produce the opposite result, retarding satellites launched to the east and accelerating satellites launched to the west. That's why Dr. Bennett (according to JM) came up with the ridiculous ad-hoc idea of two opposed aether winds.

[hansgeorg]

If you launch a rocket to the east it has higher velocity relative to the center of the Earth than is it had been launched to the west. Since launching east requires less fuel to achieve the desired velocity, all rockets going to orbit are launched east except for a few special cases.

The amount of increase in east-west velocity depends on latitude, it's maximum at the equator and zero at the poles. There's a reason why almost all US satellite launches go from Cape Canaveral, which is almost as close to the equator as you can get within the continental US. (There are other reasons as well). The French launch east from Guiana. The Russians launch east from Baikal.

Your east-to-west wind would produce the opposite result, retarding satellites launched to the east and accelerating satellites launched to the west. That's why Dr. Bennett (according to JM) came up with the ridiculous ad-hoc idea of two opposed aether winds.

You are sure it is TO the east they are launched?

You might be forgetting tangentiality.

If you launch it to the East, this involves a higher velocity eastward through the aether. It adds to the velocity still standing objects have eastward through the aether. As long as it only goes very horizontally, which is not for long, this is decelerated as to actual place by the aether. But when it goes out along the tangent, it is more and more vertical, and it is therefore a better velocity upward.

[JonF]

Algebra approximates the definitions of what it is non-algebraically about.

I.e you agree that algebra does not approximate its definitions; it's only when we try to apply it to measured numbers that approximation comes in.

Example a: "(a - b)sqd = asqd - 2ab + bsqd" is fine enough arithmetically, but in geometry we are usually rather dealing with asqd - ab - b(a - b).

Both of which are exact until real-world numbers are substituted.

Example b: exponents of fractional type do not make sense at all arithmetically, unless taken as algebraic simplification of sth else like "a^x/y=b" really means a^x=b^y (exactly or in logarithms more usually approximately).

False premise. The meaning of exponents of fractional type is inherent in the fundamental definitions of arithmetic. Oh, and "a^x/y=b" does not mean "a^x=b^y", although if it did it would do so exactly. It means "raise a to the xth power and take the yth root of the result" (or the opposite order of approximations). That's absolutely exact. For some choices a values of a, x, and y we cannot calculate the exact numerical value of the answer, but the relationship is still exact.

[Raphael]

Moderated By: Raphael

The previous decision has been reversed on appeal.

JohnMartin has been released from the Matrix.

The previous restrictions on posting apply and will be strictly enforced.

***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]

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

1b) m= Fr2/(GM)

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

The error is here: "Then logically - If m then r and F and G and M"

No, rather "if m, then r, F, G and M have the same relation".

Which means that any given term will not lead to a given value of each other term, but to a table of correlated values.

If m = f(r, F, G. M)

then

m is dependent on r, F, G, M

then

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

The value of the terms need not be known. Only the truth value of each terns a T, need by known from If m = f(r, F, G. M).

If m is true. Then f(r, F, G. M) is true.

then m is true, and r is true, F is true, G is true, and M is true.

Hence

If m then r is true.
If m then F is true.
If m then G is true.
If m then M is true.

No error made.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No, you can't. You're a crank.

This is the Law of Conjunction.

"A and B" is true only if A is true and B is true.



Does not mean

"If m is true, then r is true and F is true."

Or even less (as this is not at all what the Law of Conjunctions says)

"If m has a certain value, then r has a certain value and F has a certain value. Ergo r has a certain value."

Which is what you're claiming. It is a ridiculously bad application of logic. No wonder you're wrong all the time about everything.

The Law of Conjunction or the truth table of conjunctions says if A and B is true, then A is true and B is true.

Likewise if m = f(r, F, G, M) is true.

then

m is dependent on r, F, G, and M is true.

then

If m then r and F and G and M is true.

then

If m then r is true
If m then F is true
If m then G is true
If m then M is true

The numerical values need not be known. Only the truth functional value need be known for the argument to show Newtonian mechanics is logically invalid.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Good. We agree your preference for Helio is only a strongly held opinion.

On the contrary, my opinion is supported by evidence and well-established theories, and so is superior to opinion of Geocentrists, who's opinions are supported by no evidence, and no theories.

Your objection that all scientific opinions are equally valid is you descending into relativism, without even knowing it.

Well my opinion is supported by local physics evidence for a stationary earth and remote physics evidence for a universe centered upon the local Galaxy and possibly the local system. Geocentrism has models to account for what is observed.

Science does include an element of relativism due to the deficiency in the inductive method. Geo solves the problem of relativism in part by acknowledging the revealed truths concerning the nature of the universe.

Because you have either 1) rejected the truths contained in the sources of revelation concerning the structure of the universe, or 2) you claim no truths are contained within the sources of revelation with regard to the nature of the universe, then you can only ever fall back on theories that contain mutually contrary, and contradictory notions. Such as the many differences between Newtonian mechanics and Relativity theory. As such, you don't have the certitude you think you have concerning the Helio model. For all you know, relativity theory's claim of a space-time continuum is a complete fiction which has caused physics science to fall backwards in its understanding of the nature of gravity and planetary motions.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The force vector decelerating or accelerating the planet is unknown to be realist, for the singular centripetal force from the planet to the sun is unknown to be realist. Hence the accelerations and decelerations ascribed to the centripetal force may well be entirely fictional.

They're not. There's a single vector pointing towards the sun. It's just not perpendicular to the velocity of the planet. This results both in the centripetal force you're speaking of, and an accelerating/decelerating force.

Still you don't know that the centripetal force is realist. We know the two string demonstration of elliptical orbits has some realism, because we can see the causes of the forces acting on the pencil We do not see the causes of gravity as a centripetal force as Newtonian physics posits, so we do not know that the force is realist. The entire Newtonian model may well be a good imitation of what occurs, but at the same time, a non realist, fiction. for all you know, the planetary motions are caused by celestial winds as seen by St Hildegard von Bingen.

Your comments about galaxies are irrelevant. The binary stars show only one aspect of what occurs when large objects are close to each other. Again, you have missed the point I made.

Half the time I'm not sure you even know what point you're trying to make.

Iv'e noticed.

This is a good example of academic blindness. NM and R theory are so different, any association they have with each other is only through quantity. The contrary theories show how weak modern theory really is. Any preference for the Heio over the Geo model must ignore this reality.

While its true that there are aspects of the theories that are incommensurable, their results can still be compared to eachother. This is not controversial.

The many contrary notions within the two theories seems to make any comparison like apples and oranges.

Quote Originally Posted by JohnMartin
Quote Originally Posted by 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 collisions 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.

Then GR theory is destroyed, for GR says there is no preferred reference frame and any frame can be considered as stationary.

No, it says that all these frames of reference act the same way. However you're making more of a statement than that. You're saying "One of these frames is actually the real one", which in and of itself is not a philosophical position people need hold. Secondly you're saying we should prefer one over the others. Thirdly you're saying that there's a frame of refernce wherein the center-of-mass of the Earth is static, even during collisions.

You can chose a stationary frame in GR that is always stationary, contrary to your statement above.

What I'm saying is that either such a frame of reference is impossible, or if you could show how the Earth's center of mass could remain static during a collision with a meteor, this is going to be a hyper-finetuned and highly selective frame of reference, lacking any notion of epistemological simplicity. To be rejected by Occham's Razor, unless good reasons for doing otherwise is supplied.

As you have no good reason, a moving Earth will always be preferred.

But I do have good reason. Revelation contains the truth that the earth is and always will be stationary. You simply reject the clear witness of scriptural texts by hand waving away the content of the texts with the claim of phenomena. That's your choice you made for your own reasons.

JM

[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.
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.

Which means you can never be sure that an as yet not invented theory of planetary motion may better physically explain orbits than current theory. Or alternatively, a revealed truth may better explain orbits, even if that truth has been rejected by many.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Problem 68 - The phases of the moon and the Earth's Orbit around the sun are Incompatible with the Heliocentric Model.

The moon phases are portrayed as consistent over a lunar cycle. The cycle is based upon the moons elliptical orbit around the earth as one focus of the ellipse.

lunar.jpg

Part A

Yet the Earth orbits the sun, like the helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter.

lunar 3.jpg

lunar 4.jpg

The motion of one helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter produces a spiral shape. This spiral shape of the orbiting helicopter indicates an acceleration and deceleration of the helicopter relative to the straight line helicopter. Comparatively the moon orbits the moving earth and should produce accelerations and decelerations observed on earth that are not compatible with an elliptical orbit. Yet the Helio model claims the moon orbits the moving earth in an ellipse. The incompatibility of the Helio claim of the elliptical moon orbit with a spiral path of the moon against the moving earth invalidates the Helio model.

The nature of a elliptical orbit of the moon as an ellipse is incompetent to account for the motion of the moon around the earth. For every time the moon moves with the earth's orbit, the moon must accelerate, and when the moon orbits against the earth's orbit, decelerateto account for the observed lunar cycle. An elliptical orbit is simply incompatible with an orbiting earth.

The problem becomes worse when we note the moons elliptical orbit processes, which means over a period of time the moons perihelion and aphelion rotate in space around the earth. The rotation of the perihelion and aphelion means the Helio model cannot account for the moon as an elliptical orbit around the earth. For the moons orbit with its ever processing perihelion and aphelion cannot consistently provide for the accelerations and decelerations on a monthly basis in relation to the earth's orbit. Every month the moon must accelerate on the far side of the sun-earth-moon alignment and decelerate on the close side of the sun-moon- earth alignment. Theses accelerations and decelerations are not consistent with an elliptical orbit.

The symmetry of the lunar cycle shown above is incompatible with the spiral motion expected of the moon orbiting the earth is space as indicated above. If the moon orbits the earth via an ellipse, we should observe a non symmetrical shadow on the moon over the lunar cycle. There should be light on the moon for a long time when the sun-earth-moon alignment, and a lighter for a shorter time with the sun-moon-earth alignment.

Part B

lunar 5.jpg

The earth orbits the sun and the moon phases should swap every six months, but do not. Hence the Helio claim that the moon orbits an orbiting earth seems to be invalid.

Pictures taken from a video entitled Flat Earth and fake ball earth magic.

JM

[Sea of red]

Yep, you're not back a few hours and you're Gish Galloping.

Like I said before, this is not a conversation. It's the same stuff page after page, thread after thread, day after day.

You simply flood the thread with a dozen or so responses, covering a wide range of different issues that are usually unrelated, and never settle on one point and discuss that for a bit. It's like a marathon the way you keep repeating yourself. My hunch is that your plan is to just keep going until there's nobody left, so you can declare yourself the winner and tell all your crank buddies how you defeated everyone. It's really immature, even for people like you.

You're not here to talk, you're here to convert.

[JonF]

If m = f(r, F, G. M)

then

m is dependent on r, F, G, M

then

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

The value of the terms need not be known. Only the truth value of each terns a T, need by known from If m = f(r, F, G. M).

If m is true. Then f(r, F, G. M) is true.

then m is true, and r is true, F is true, G is true, and M is true.

Hence

If m then r is true.
If m then F is true.
If m then G is true.
If m then M is true.

No error made.

JM

Repeating non-mathematical gibberish is not discussion.

[JonF]

Problem 68 - The phases of the moon and the Earth's Orbit around the sun are Incompatible with the Heliocentric Model.

The moon phases are portrayed as consistent over a lunar cycle. The cycle is based upon the moons elliptical orbit around the earth as one focus of the ellipse.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20179[/ATTACH]

Part A

Yet the Earth orbits the sun, like the helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20181[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20183[/ATTACH]

The motion of one helicopter orbiting the moving helicopter produces a spiral shape. This spiral shape of the orbiting helicopter indicates an acceleration and deceleration of the helicopter relative to the straight line helicopter. Comparatively the moon orbits the moving earth and should produce accelerations and decelerations observed on earth that are not compatible with an elliptical orbit. Yet the Helio model claims the moon orbits the moving earth in an ellipse. The incompatibility of the Helio claim of the elliptical moon orbit with a spiral path of the moon against the moving earth invalidates the Helio model.

The nature of a elliptical orbit of the moon as an ellipse is incompetent to account for the motion of the moon around the earth. For every time the moon moves with the earth's orbit, the moon must accelerate, and when the moon orbits against the earth's orbit, decelerateto account for the observed lunar cycle. An elliptical orbit is simply incompatible with an orbiting earth.

The problem becomes worse when we note the moons elliptical orbit processes, which means over a period of time the moons perihelion and aphelion rotate in space around the earth. The rotation of the perihelion and aphelion means the Helio model cannot account for the moon as an elliptical orbit around the earth. For the moons orbit with its ever processing perihelion and aphelion cannot consistently provide for the accelerations and decelerations on a monthly basis in relation to the earth's orbit. Every month the moon must accelerate on the far side of the sun-earth-moon alignment and decelerate on the close side of the sun-moon- earth alignment. Theses accelerations and decelerations are not consistent with an elliptical orbit.

The symmetry of the lunar cycle shown above is incompatible with the spiral motion expected of the moon orbiting the earth is space as indicated above. If the moon orbits the earth via an ellipse, we should observe a non symmetrical shadow on the moon over the lunar cycle. There should be light on the moon for a long time when the sun-earth-moon alignment, and a lighter for a shorter time with the sun-moon-earth alignment.

Part B

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20182[/ATTACH]

The earth orbits the sun and the moon phases should swap every six months, but do not. Hence the Helio claim that the moon orbits an orbiting earth seems to be invalid.

Pictures taken from a video entitled Flat Earth and fake ball earth magic.

JM

You're doing it again.