Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

The Standard Helio model says the sun is about 150 million km away from the earth. According to the following video - https://youtu.be/Iso0jnWHGBA
the sun looks to be close to the sun for the following reasons.

The Sun produces a hotspot over the earth, indicating the earth is close to and just above the earth. If the sun was 150 million km away from the earth, the sun would produce a hotspot on the far side of the earth, away from the balloon camera. In the picture taken below, the hotspot is close to the camera, away from where the helio model predicts the sun should be.

sun hot spot.jpg
Sun Hot Spot

The shadows caste on the earths surface by the sun above the clouds is indicative of a sun that is close to the earth. The Shadow 1, 2 and 3 photos show the variation in cloud shadow angles on the earth. Shadow 3 photo shows the shadow lines converging on a close sun.

sun cloud 1.jpg
Shadow 1

sun cloud 2.jpg
Shadow 2
sun cloud 3.jpg
Shadow 3
sun cloud 4.jpg
Shadow 4

Perspective 1 shows the difference in motion of the sun in the camera shot between a distant and close sun. The distant sun should move far greater than the close sun.

sun persp 1.jpg
Perspective 1
sun persp 2.jpg
Perspective 2

Thumbnail 1 and 2 show the relatively small variation of the suns position as the camera moves, indicating the sun is relatively close to the earth.

These pictures are indicative of the evidence for a close sun earth distance, which overturns the standard Helio model. The sun's motion does not act like we are told with the Helio model. The sun illuminates a small area of the earth with a small hot spot, unlike the Helio model that expects a uniform illumination over about 1/2 the earth's surface.

The sun produces cloud shadow angles on the earth's surface, which are indicative of a close sun and not parallel cloud shadow lines as expected by a distant sun.

The sun does not move as much as expected in the night sky when the balloon camera rotates, indicating the sun is far closer than the Helio model predicts.

The video is published by a flat earth exponent, hovever these points are directly related to problems with the standard Helio model. I recommend the reader view the above video to get a good understanding of the problems posed.

I am currently a geocentrist, and I am agnostic about the shape of the earth, be it global, flat, or concave.

Happy viewing.

The answers from the Helio's will be most likely evasive.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Poor John. The 'magic force' is called friction.

(Hint) the balloon can only ascend to the point its density is equal to the atmosphere around it

John

Friction in an imaginary atmosphere that rotates with the earth, no matter what direction or velocity the earth moves.

Poor Jim.

JM

[Roy]

So the angular velocity of the rotating atmosphere over the spinning earth increases with height.

So you don't know what angular velocity is.

Does having "velocity" on the cluelessness list cover this, or should I add "angular velocity" as a separate entry? Answers on a potshard please.

Roy

[Roy]

The change in balloon velocity from 1040 to 1066 = 25 miles per/hr

Interesting.

[oxmixmudd]

Do you already have 'trig' on there? Clearly he doesn't quite get that. What about 'friction' and 'buoyancy'? It seems to be lacking there as well, or are they included under a larger category ...


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

arithmetic too it would seem ... though 1065.6-1040.4 = 25.2 each of which rounds to 1066, 1040, and 25 - but then you'd need to add 'proper handling of approximations in calculations'.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Friction in an imaginary atmosphere that rotates with the earth, no matter what direction or velocity the earth moves.

Poor Jim.

JM

Assuming you are a living, BREATHING, human, I would note the atmosphere is NOT imaginary.

Jim

[Roy]

Another Objection 2 - A plane takes off from the equator and heads north. At the equator, the plane has a velocity relative to the earths surface of 0 km/hr. As the plane moves north, the earth will seem to move E-W due to the W-E velocity vector of the plane at the equator, which remains with the plane during its flight. The apparent motion of the earth underneath the plane will increase as the plane approaches the north pole, where the north pole will appear to rotate at about 1000 miles/hr. How does the plane land at the north pole?

1. The plane lands at the north pole because the E-W velocity vector is a fiction and the plane is really taking off from a stationary earth.

2. The plane never lands, because the north pole keeps rotating below the ever moving 1000 mile/hr E-W velocity vector of the plane.

3. The plane lands because the plane somehow magically loses the 1000 mile/hr E-W velocity vector. This of course is ridiculous.

4. The Coriolis effect causes the plane's course to veer eastwards so that it does not travel straight to the north pole.

Another Objection 3 - time lapse photos of Polaris taken away from the poles would show Polaris without a circular orbit and the stars E or W of Polaris with circular orbit paths.

The link shows a time lapse of Polaris. https://youtu.be/vVTLDtaQSL8


If the earth was rotating, and orbiting the sun, and the moon, the time lapse photo of Polaris would include these other motions of the earth.

The distance to Polaris has been measured using the annual change in angle due to parallax from the Earth's orbit.

As usual JM's objections refute only JM's misconceptions.

[JonF]

I spent months trying to show you how to use apostrophes. What a waste of time that was.Celestial winds do not explain the Coriolis force.

Back at the old TWeb John passed on an explanation allegedly from Bennet: rockets launch better west-to-east because of the electromagnetic west-to-east ether wind and Foucault pendulums precess because of the inertial east-to-west ether wind. Nobody ever came up with an explanation of why the rocket doesn't feel the inertial wind and the pendulum doesn't feel the electromagnetic wind, or why a Foucault pendulum started swinging exactly east-west precesses (since there's no component of force perpendicular to the plane of the swing).

[Sparko]

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

derp. The atmosphere keeps moving with the earth due to friction. The higher atmosphere keeps moving due to the lower atmospshere dragging it along. Since the outside of a sphere has to move faster than the inner parts of a sphere to keep up, the air moves faster at the top. If it tried to slow, the atmosphere below moving would speed it up due to friction. Just look at a tire. Why does the rubber part move faster than the hub?

Do you have a problem with even newtonian physics?

[Roy]

Do you already have 'trig' on there? Clearly he doesn't quite get that. What about 'friction' and 'buoyancy'? It seems to be lacking there as well, or are they included under a larger category ...

Trig is in there, as are atmosphere, wind, parallax and orbital parameters, and of course gravity. Buoyancy and friction aren't (yet).

Here's the current list:

Abiogenesis, accuracy, algebra, alliteration, apes, apostrophes, astronomy, atheism, atmospheres, axioms, Baroness Orczy, barycentres, bats, bears, biology, black holes, calculus, chemistry, circumferences, cladograms, common descent, co-ordinate systems, dark matter, deduction, degrees and radians, ectropy, English, entropy, equations, error bars, evolution, eyes, experimental equipment, fallacies, fitness, fossils, Foucault's pendulum, Galileo, genetic drift, geometry, gravity, history, ibices, iiwis, inertia, integrity, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, logic, mathematics, migraine, momentum, music, natural selection, orbital mechanics, orbital parameters, parallax, poetry, philosophy, physics, precision, prediction, probability, radiodating, redshift, reification, relativity, satellites, science, significant figures and rounding, sperm, symbolic logic, theology, thermodynamics, tides, totem poles, transitional organisms, trigonometry, units, velocity, Wheatstone bridges, winds.

[Sparko]

The second objection is new.

JM

um so how does the space station stay up above the earth without falling down?

Also how do you explain geostationary satellites? How can they stay over one spot on the earth without falling?

[Sparko]

Friction in an imaginary atmosphere that rotates with the earth, no matter what direction or velocity the earth moves.

Poor Jim.

JM

derp.

The earth only moves one way, rotationally. If you put a spoon in a cup of coffee and spin it around in the center, soon all of the coffee will be rotating around the cup. Friction is real.

[Roy]

um so how does the space station stay up above the earth without falling down?

Also how do you explain geostationary satellites? How can they stay over one spot on the earth without falling?

Magical aether of course. Does exactly what is needed to simulate the effects of an actual heliocentric system.

[HMS_Beagle]

AAAARRRGGGH!

I.
Must.
fight.
urge.
to.
respond.
to.
Moonbat.