Problems with Heliocentrism

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The closer a body is to a heat source, the hotter the body becomes. Get a red hot iron and stand 10m from it, then 5m, then place the iron up to your face. As you get closer to the source, your face will become hotter. The same principle applies with the earth-sun. The closer the earth is to the sun, the hotter the earth becomes. Helio must ignore fundamentals of heat source physics.

Get a red-hot iron and stand 10 meters from it. Then stand 9.85 meters from it. That's a more apt analogy, considering the Earth's distance from the Sun at aphelion is not 50% of the Earth's distance from the sun at perihelion.

You can also use electro-magnetic forces with a moving metal object. This commentator claims electro magnetic effects account for the FP - https://youtu.be/y4SkcMK94yw?t=514

Also the gravity theory is so poor that the moon apparently causes the motion of the tides, but has no influence on a swinging bob.

So, then, you can't provide any mathematics to back up your claims?

Once again, the FP shares the same changes in angular velocity about the Sun as does the Earth. So, again, what are you saying that we should expect to observe in the FP which we do not?

[oxmixmudd]

So - not one mention of seasons in here, just a 'gish gallop' list of other things to discuss. All wrong. So I guess I killed the seasons objection

But for fun, let's talk about the balloon.

The balloon sent vertically above the earth's surface must travel at a greater horizontal angular velocity due to the extra distance required to keep with the earths rotation. The change in angular velocity requires a horizontal force placed on the balloon. The greater the height above the earth's surface, the greater the force required. The force does not exist. Therefore the Helio, rotating earth model is invalidated whenever a balloon is sent into the sky.

No - it's not. To see why answer these questions:

1) WLoG, assume a balloon ascends from the ground to 1 mile in altitude in 30 minutes. Assuming there is no atmosphere (to negate all but the effect of the higher rotational velocity at 1 mile of altitude), what is the change in position of the balloon relative to the ground assuming the earth rotates once on its axis per day at 30 degrees north latitude?

2) the balloon does not ascend in a vacuum, but in the atmosphere. Does the balloon weigh more or less than the air it displaces? What will happen to the balloon if it moves into an air stream at a higher velocity that it currently maintains?

3) which of these three will be the dominant force of lateral displacement of the balloon during it's ascent

(1) atmospheric winds,
(2) the difference in density between the balloon and the air around it, or
(3) the velocity difference between the ground and 1 mile of altitude


Answer those questions, and if you are still wondering why a balloon's ascent as observed does not violate 'helio', then we can discuss it a little more.

The earths orbit velocity varies from 35km/s to 30km/s around the sun. The earth both moves through space closer and further from the sun and has variable velocity. The variable position and velocity of the earth relative to the sun is simply not transferable to the moon without adding forces to the moon. When the earth changes from 30km/s to 35km/s the earth accelerates and therefore has a force applied to the earth. As the moon travels with the earth in the Helio model, the moon must also have a force acting on the moon at the same time, to have the moons orbit velocity around the sun also change from 30 to 35 km/s.

So -

A force is required to accelerate the moon when the earth accelerates from 30 to 35km/s.

A force is required to decelerate the moon when the earth decelerates from 35 to 30km/s.

A force is required to accelerate the moon towards the sun when the earth accelerates towards the sun in the earth's elliptical path around the sun.

A force is required to accelerate the moon away from the sun when the earth accelerates away from the sun in the earth's elliptical path around the sun.

These forces do not exist.

And this one is so, so silly! The Earth moon SYSTEM is in orbit around the sun. Both the Earth AND the moon experience almost exactly the same changes in velocity over that orbit, the only acceleration or deceleration the moon experiences that differ from the Earth itself are the result of Tidal forces - i.e. differences in the suns attraction of the moon relative to the earth as the moon orbits the Earth due to the fact the moon may be 240,000 miles closer or farther from the sun at different times during that orbit. Those differences are small and are easily overcome by the Earth/Moon gravitational attraction within the Earth/Moon system itself.


Jim

[Mikeenders]

I don't believe we currently know what the cause of the force is. We do know the geo universe has been revealed by God.

Bible literalist here John. Inerrant in the originals from cover to cover.Loathed by the regulars for rejecting Darwinsm and Neo- darwinism and not embracing their (the "christian" here ) liberalism a and contortions of the Bible. I'd welcome a clarification of "revealed by God" if you mean biblically because in the Bible I just don't see that. Should you get to flat earth at some time I even find the Bible opposes that.

[Roy]

The earths orbit...

I spent months trying to show you how to use apostrophes. What a waste of time that was.

The sun moves in the geo model due to celestial winds.

Celestial winds do not explain the Coriolis force.

[Sparko]

This is all so silly. It doesn't matter which model you use, he seasons are accounted for by the same two primary variations:

1) (MAJOR) the shift in the relative position of the sun and the surface of the Earth
2) (MINOR) the shift in the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

The difference between the two is that:

1) in the Heliocentric model these shifts result from the axial tilt of the Earth's rotational axis and the change in distance from the sun as the Earth orbits the sun.
2) In the geocentric model there are actual shifts in the orbit of the Sun around the Earth both in its radius and its track.

Either way, the seasons come from the changes in the relative insolation of the given land mass due to the change in angle of incidence moderated by (northern hemisphere) or exaggerated by (southern hemisphere) changes in the relative distance of the sun.

If the geocentric model does not contain changes in distance (91.4 to 94.5 million miles) and changes in angle of incidence (corresponding to the observed analemma created by photographing the sun at the same time of day over the course of a year) then it is a failed model (it can't produce what is observed). And if it does produce those same motions as observed from the Earth's surface, than that is how the seasons are accounted for in that model as well.

In summary, the cause of the seasons is the same for both models - periodic changes in insolation over the course of the year. The problem for the geocentric model is causation - WHY does the sun move like that. There is no known physics that would cause that kind of motion, whereas the physics that produces those same observed changes in the heliocentric model is trivial - gravity as an attractive force, an elliptical orbit, and an axial tilt with rotation.

Jim

that is what i was thinking, and why i asked him about the seasons in the geocentric model. he just gave me some useless weblink, which shows me he had no idea how to account for seasons in the geocentric model.

[Sparko]

The sun moves up and down relative to a stationary earth. The sun moves in accord with celestial winds (from memory).

JM

in other words the seasons change due to the angle of the sun relative to the earth. the same as in the heliocentric model. therefore all of your arguments are invalid.

[Sparko]

does john realize that the atmosphere moves with the earth and it move faster the higher you go? just like a guy swinging a ball around in a circle. the string (atmosphere) moves fasteer at the outside edge than close to the center. heck he can stir a cup of coffee and observe the liquid move with the stirring motion and moving faster at the edge of the cup than at the center. or a bathtub draining.

[Raphael]

does john realize that the atmosphere moves with the earth and it move faster the higher you go? just like a guy swinging a ball around in a circle. the string (atmosphere) moves fasteer at the outside edge than close to the center. heck he can stir a cup of coffee and observe the liquid move with the stirring motion and moving faster at the edge of the cup than at the center. or a bathtub draining.

indeed, this site has brilliant animations of the current wind conditions:
http://earth.nullschool.net/

by clicking one "earth" in the bottom left, it brings up a menu that allows you to change, amongst other settings, the altitude.


very fun site to play with

[klaus54]

in other words the seasons change due to the angle of the sun relative to the earth. the same as in the heliocentric model. therefore all of your arguments are invalid.

As the YEC apologists say "Same evidence, different conclusions."

[klaus54]

...

The motion of the sun around the earth.

JM

Wouldn't that necessitate the entire Cosmos zinging around Earth once a day?

BTW, what's the "celestial wind"?

[JohnMartin]

does john realize that the atmosphere moves with the earth and it move faster the higher you go? just like a guy swinging a ball around in a circle. the string (atmosphere) moves fasteer at the outside edge than close to the center. heck he can stir a cup of coffee and observe the liquid move with the stirring motion and moving faster at the edge of the cup than at the center. or a bathtub draining.

So the angular velocity of the rotating atmosphere over the spinning earth increases with height. The change in angular velocity means the atmosphere is accelerated with height. The acceleration means the atmosphere is subject to a force which changes with height above the earths surface. What is this force acting within the atmosphere according to Newtonian mechanics?

I put it to you that you will have to either ignore the problem, or invent a force that does not exist.

Newtonian mechanics does not account for the spinning ball model earth as we observe the apparent rotation of the atmosphere with the earth.

Either Helio and/or Newtonian mechanics is invalidated by the lack of force within the atmosphere.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Wouldn't that necessitate the entire Cosmos zinging around Earth once a day?

BTW, what's the "celestial wind"?

you can buy the relevant book by Sungenis and find out for yourself. This thread is discussing the problems with Helio.

JM

[JohnMartin]

indeed, this site has brilliant animations of the current wind conditions:
http://earth.nullschool.net/

by clicking one "earth" in the bottom left, it brings up a menu that allows you to change, amongst other settings, the altitude.


very fun site to play with

The animation is a good example with the Helio model. The weather patterns show no evidence of earth rotation. All the motions of the atmosphere are local, with no evidence of universal rotation of the earth. Hence no evidence of the atmosphere's motion relative to the rotating earth. This remains unexplained by the Helio model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Bible literalist here John. Inerrant in the originals from cover to cover.Loathed by the regulars for rejecting Darwinsm and Neo- darwinism and not embracing their (the "christian" here ) liberalism a and contortions of the Bible. I'd welcome a clarification of "revealed by God" if you mean biblically because in the Bible I just don't see that. Should you get to flat earth at some time I even find the Bible opposes that.

Private approved revelation via Hildegard of Bingen. Approved by the Catholic magisterium.

JM

[Mikeenders]

Private approved revelation via Hildegard of Bingen. Approved by the Catholic magisterium.

JM

Oh brother....You are off the deep end in every regard. So the motley crew here on Tweb has distorted yet again. Every time I have heard about you it was like you were some over the top but still typical YEC but they are mostly biblical bound not into extra biblical revelations without any merit.