Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[JonF]

(I don't use the word aether wind, since I don't think it affects vectors, only their local outcome) is not vectorially affecting the rocket.

You are going to have to define affecting "their local outcome".

It is locally displacing the upward movement into what locally is a spiral - while vectorially remaining vertical.

The issue is eastward movement, not upward movement. WTF is "what locally is a spiral"?

Now, when it was still standing on ground, it already had an eastward vector through the moving aether.

According to you, it had no eastward vector sitting on the allegedly stationary Earh while the aether moves past it east-west.

Its being launched eastward enhances this, and makes for higher speed in the way that counts for stability of orbit, namely vectorially through the aether.

You just said the aether does not affect objects vectorially. Now it does. Please at least try to avoid contradicting yourself within a message.

Please explain in detail how launching eastward in an aether that is moving east-west increases a rocket's original zero horizontal velocity in the eastward direction. And how the heck does a rocket sitting on the allegedly stationary earth start out with an eastward motion? "Enhancing" zero velocity seems to result in zero velocity.

Since there are no cameras, the trajectory could be straight line relative to Earth and the speeding up and slowing down of the growing delay would possibly be due to gravitational lensing by the Sun's gravitation of the radiosignals, both going there and returning.

Evidence, sonny, especially for the existence of the effects you claim are possible. (Oh, and the Sun hasn't enough gravity to lens significantly, almost all the time the Sun is not in a position to lens Voyager's signals, and the behavior of the signals does not fit the pattern that lensing would produce).

Fantasies are not appropriate in a science forum. There are an infinite number of fantasies one could make up. Voayger could be hidden behind the Moon by invisible space walruses who can fake all the photos and radio transmissions.

[JohnMartin]

Well, he certainly has talked about barycenters enough.

It struck me that one thing he doesn't (and probably can't) realized is that saying "The moon orbits the Earth in an ellipse" implicitly requires a coordinate system attached to the Earth and moving with it. In a sun-based coordinate system the moon's path is much more complex and, of course, not in a plane.

The coordinate system attached to the Earth and moving with it is another way of alluding to the problem of the moving focus in space. As the moving coordinate system moves with the earth, the moving focus problem is removed as I have stated it. But the problem manifests itself in another manner whereby the sun's motions relative to the moving earth require extra forces to account for the motions. Anyway a moving coordinate system is just a measure of location and does not remove the problem of the moving focus relative to space. The moon orbits the moving earth in space. So the focus must move in space as well. Hence the moon's elliptical orbit accelerates in space, which infers an extra force is required to account for the elliptical orbit in addition to the standard elliptical equations used in Newtonian mechanics.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Exactly, that's the nature of science. Better theories, replace the ones we have if and when they're proposed and they show to be predict things we can test.

Geocentrism predicts nothing. All the results of Heliocenrism, and later modern cosmology, are either denied by Geocentrists because they don't understand them (in your case anything involving math), or they invent ad-hoc concepts like decieving angels or a magical aether wind.

There's no such thing as a modified tychonian geocentric model. No such model exists anywhere. If I asked you to give me a model so I could back and calculate orbits of planets, you would have nothing to give me. Neither would Sungenis for that matter. They live on the import of the more serious scientists.

Mathematical models have been proposed by professional physicists which model the universe with a stationary earth, so Geocentrists do have models that predict, or can predict orbits. The modified tychonian geocentric model is real and it accounts for what modern science has observed in the universe.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Your comments miss the point again. I am concerned with the moving focus of the elliptical orbit.

The 'moving focus'? The two focii of two-body elliptical orbit don't move, they stay put.

In a three-body system, such as the Sun/Earth/Moon system, the Earth and Moon orbit each other, and their mutual attraction are stronger than what they experience from the Sun. They can be considered as if they are one object, who's center of mass orbits the Sun. Such a system can be unstable, but as long as the orbital distance between the Earth and the Moon, are less than a certain distance, they can exist in metastable orbit for trillions of years.

I would show you the math, but you can't even do arithmetic and deductive logic.

And if I remember correctly you dismiss Calculus as wrong..

The focus moves in space as the earth moves in space. As the earth accelerates the focus accelerates.

JM

[JohnMartin]

You have failed to address the problem in the terms by which the problem has been couched.

I'm pointing out that he problem you're proposing not only demonstrates that you have no idea how logic works, you don't understand basic algebra. You're treating algebraic symbols as if it can be treated boolean statements, and then even then you misunderstand what the Law of Conjunction mean, and misapply it again. Then you claim I didn't answer the problem, and yes that's true, because the problem you're describing is pure gibberish.

Formal logic applies truth values to terms. If 5 kilogram of something is assigned a truth value of true, then 5 kilogram of something is true. Then not 5 kilogram of something is false. The expression m = f(r,F,G,M) is true. Then each member of the formula is also true. As m is dependent upon r,F,G, and M, then all of the statements associated with the law of conjunction are also true.

First of all you're wrong, formal logic doesn't simple by declaring things that have arbitrary values to be 'true' and then if they don't have those values to be 'false'. You can do something like that in formal logic, but hen it would have the following form:

"The relationship that exists between m and r, F of a circular orbit in a Solar System, given by a function f, is true."

Which reduces to the statement.

"A is true."

There's no, B, no C, no D, for which you can decompose the equation into a string of terms. Its correct that m, r and F, are symbolic terms, but they're algebraic terms, not formal logic terms.

A formula is an algebraic expression of relations of several quantities. The relations of quantities can be expressed in a similar manner to that accorded in Boolean algebra to have true and false assignments.

Basic operations[edit]
The basic operations of Boolean calculus are as follows.
AND (conjunction), denoted x∧y (sometimes x AND y or Kxy), satisfies x∧y = 1 if x = y = 1 and x∧y = 0 otherwise.

The expression A=B x C is expressed according to truth value assignments that correspond to the formal logic truth table for the conjunction. Similarly, the quantity of m is related to the quantities of r,F,G, and M and is expressed according to truth value assignments that correspond to the formal logic truth table for the conjunction.

Hence Newtonian Mechanics is invalid as shown previously.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The standard elliptical orbit model has a fixed focus. The Helio model requires the earth to move through space with changes in velocity and distance to the sun. Hence the Helio model requires a non fixed focus to the earth as the focus of the moon's elliptical orbit. A non fixed focus of an elliptical orbit is not in accord with the model of the elliptical orbit with a fixed focus. Hence the moon cannot be consistently modeled as being an ellipse and seeing from Earth the accelerations and decelerations expected of an elliptical orbit.

John, sorry, but in Tychonian Geocentrism we have the same thing going on with Sun and Mars, Sun and Venus, Sun and Mercury, Sun and Jupiter, Sun and Saturn, Sun and Neptune and so on.

Same problem for both models then.

JM

[JohnMartin]

A Request - This thread is focused upon Heliocentrism and not Geocentrism. Please keep the focus on topic. If Geocentrism is to be discussed, it can be done on another Geocentrism thread.

No doubt I will be ignored.

JM

[JohnMartin]

m = f(r, F, G, M) only requires that each term is included in the expression. That one term is a constant and another is a variable is not relevant to the argument.

I think it is relevant to the argument that m would only give one of the items r, F, G, M if all the other ones were fixed. Known in advance.

Logic only demands that the relation of m to the other terms be known. The terms as fixed or variable do not impact upon the logic and hence the truth value of each term.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Massive error made: m is a quantity of mass, not a Boolean True/False value. m is never 'True'.

Boolean Algebra seems to indicate otherwise.

JM

[JohnMartin]

JM fails to present any problems for the 'helio' model, demonstrating as usual only his own incompetence.

Roy fails to provide evidence, not demonstrating as usual only his own vacuous claims.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Mathematical models have been proposed by professional physicists which model the universe with a stationary earth, so Geocentrists do have models that predict, or can predict orbits. The modified tychonian geocentric model is real and it accounts for what modern science has observed in the universe.

JM

They do not have models, they have rube goldberg machines that imitate what is known at best (and mostly not even that). There is no geocentric model that could get a proble to pluto, and certainly not one that would have been able to predict and make use of a gravitational slingshot to get the probe there significantly faster. The only reason you can say what you say John is you just don't understand the huge difference between real science and the stuff you've signed on to.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

You are going to have to define affecting "their local outcome".


The issue is eastward movement, not upward movement. WTF is "what locally is a spiral"?


According to you, it had no eastward vector sitting on the allegedly stationary Earh while the aether moves past it east-west.


You just said the aether does not affect objects vectorially. Now it does. Please at least try to avoid contradicting yourself within a message.

Please explain in detail how launching eastward in an aether that is moving east-west increases a rocket's original zero horizontal velocity in the eastward direction. And how the heck does a rocket sitting on the allegedly stationary earth start out with an eastward motion? "Enhancing" zero velocity seems to result in zero velocity.


Evidence, sonny, especially for the existence of the effects you claim are possible. (Oh, and the Sun hasn't enough gravity to lens significantly, almost all the time the Sun is not in a position to lens Voyager's signals, and the behavior of the signals does not fit the pattern that lensing would produce).

Fantasies are not appropriate in a science forum. There are an infinite number of fantasies one could make up. Voayger could be hidden behind the Moon by invisible space walruses who can fake all the photos and radio transmissions.

I like that. Big fat alien walruses have taken over the space program from afar and are scheming to decieve us all. They just don't want us to know that we really are just a nuisance bit of ground soon to be removed for their new space beach and condo corporation.

And I can be assured that none of you, not even Hans, can prove me wrong on that. So there! It must be a good theory if none of you smart guys can prove me wrong!

Jim

[JonF]

Boolean Algebra seems to indicate otherwise.

JM

Oooh, how darling! Lil' John thinks if it's got "algebra" in the name they are all the same!

The formula under discussion is not a Boolean algebra statement. The values are not restricted to 0 or 1 (or equivalent labels). The operations of multiplication, division, and exponentiation do not exist in Boolean algebra.

Never change, Johnny.

[JonF]

I must confess invisible space walruses were originated by Opus the penguin in Bloom County.

[JohnMartin]

They do not have models, they have rube goldberg machines that imitate what is known at best (and mostly not even that). There is no geocentric model that could get a proble to pluto, and certainly not one that would have been able to predict and make use of a gravitational slingshot to get the probe there significantly faster. The only reason you can say what you say John is you just don't understand the huge difference between real science and the stuff you've signed on to.

Jim

Use GR with a fixed earth.

JM