Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

The Earth's gravity is still there moonbat. The Earth/satellite barycenter is still in an elliptical orbit around the sun.

We have progress. Now the earth is not moving around the sun in an ellipse, but the E-M barycenter is moving around the sun in an ellipse.


Remove the sun from the problem. The problem remains. The earth has variable positions in space and velocities relative to space. Those positions and velocities are not transferred to the satellites by gravity. If you think so, remove your seat belt and stop the car suddenly. You will continue to move at the same velocity prior to the car stopping.


JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Hey moonbat: Mars has two moons, Deimos and Phobos. Phobos orbits Mars once every 7 hours, Deimos takes 30 hours. Both are visible from telescopes on Earth so we know they're real.

You say Mars orbits around the stationary Earth. Mars' orbital velocity is about 11,000 MPH.

How in your Geo model does Mars manage to keep its two moons while Mars is zipping around the Earth at such a speed? Where does the force come from?

Watch the moonbat run from this question.

[oxmixmudd]

I certainly don't ignore. I read and reply very often.





So you can ignore the sun. But cannot ignore the earth's velocity change in space, nor the earths position in space, which varies by millions of km/year. The lack of force from the sun is irrelevant to the objection. The Helio model that requires the earth to move, change position in space and velocity relative to space, is also ignored with the standard Helio explanations. Just like you have ignored them in your examples.



All very interesting, but unrelated to the problems posed. Ignoring the sun, or including the sun does nothing to answer the problem.

Earth at point A v=29.29km/s

Earth at point B 5 million km from point A, with v=30.29km/s

These changes in the Earth position and velocity are ignored in the standard treatment of the Helio explanation for the satellites.

I simply cannot make it any more simple ti understand. The Helio model is a botch job.

JM

John just was not able to understand the explanation of all his objections targetted at anout the 7th grade level.

Sigh.

Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

Remove the sun from the problem. The problem remains. The earth has variable positions in space and velocities relative to space. Those positions and velocities are not transferred to the satellites by gravity. If you think so, remove your seat belt and stop the car suddenly. You will continue to move at the same velocity prior to the car stopping.

JM

Hey moonbat, if you're driving in a car going 65 MPH and you drop your Starbuck's coffee cup, why does if fall straight down and not smash into the back window at 65 MPH?

Do the neurons in your brain ever fire?

[JohnMartin]

Hey moonbat: Mars has two moons, Deimos and Phobos. Phobos orbits Mars once every 7 hours, Deimos takes 30 hours. Both are visible from telescopes on Earth so we know they're real.

You say Mars orbits around the stationary Earth. Mars' orbital velocity is about 11,000 MPH.

How in your Geo model does Mars manage to keep its two moons while Mars is zipping around the Earth at such a speed? Where does the force come from?

Watch the moonbat run from this question.

Already told you this is a Helio thread. All motions in the Geo model are caused by aether flow. The Mars moons only show a repeat of the problem in the Helio model. We observe motions of moons around other planets, but the Helio model doesn't explain them. Newtonian physics simply doesn't have enough forces to account for moons orbiting a moving planet, such as Mars. Likewise the Helio model doesn't have enough forces to account for satellite motion around a moving earth.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

John just was not able to understand the explanation of all his objections targetted at anout the 7th grade level.

Sigh.

Jim

I saw that Jim. It was a good, well written explanation. A noble effort on your part but I'm afraid we're dealing with this.

3219785465_c18dcd5b78.jpg

[JohnMartin]

Hey moonbat, if you're driving in a car going 65 MPH and you drop your Starbuck's coffee cup, why does if fall straight down and not smash into the back window at 65 MPH?

Do the neurons in your brain ever fire?

You mean why am I fastened into the car so I don't go through the front wind screen as the car decelerates? Newtons first law. The same law being ignored by the Helios on this thread, followed by ad hominems.

Lets ignore the sun in this example, because it has no affect on the car. The car still slows from say 90km/hr to 0km/hr. Lets ignore the sun in the satellite example, the earth moves from 30.29 to 29.29km/s which is equivalent to 3,600km/hr to zero km/hr (relative to the moving satellite). The satellite is not fastened to the earth, but somehow manages to have the same relative deceleration.

The Helio model is truly amazing to watch!

It all about gravity . . . and ignoring Newtons first law.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

All motions in the Geo model are caused by aether flow.

If Mars is embedded in the aether revolving around earth then how do the Martian moons manage to orbit it too?

Newtonian physics simply doesn't have enough forces to account for moons orbiting a moving planet, such as Mars.

Back up this claim with some calculations.

Then grow a spine and explain why geo satellites don't fall directly to Earth. I think I'll keep rubbing your moonbat nose in that question until you answer.

[HMS_Beagle]

You mean why am I fastened into the car so I don't go through the front wind screen as the car decelerates? Newtons first law. The same law being ignored by the Helios on this thread, followed by ad hominems.

No moonbat, I asked what force keeps your dropped coffee cup from smashing into the back window. But being the coward you are of course you avoided the question.

[HMS_Beagle]

. The satellite is not fastened to the earth, but somehow manages to have the same relative deceleration.

JM

The satellite is fastened to the Earth by gravity. The Earth/satellite system has one elliptical orbit that it follows.

Why don't geo satellites fall straight to the ground?

[JohnMartin]

If Mars is embedded in the aether revolving around earth then how do the Martian moons manage to orbit it too?



Back up this claim with some calculations.

Then grow a spine and explain why geo satellites don't fall directly to Earth. I think I'll keep rubbing your moonbat nose in that question until you answer.

Mars is embedded in the firmament with the rest of the universe. Any motion is due to aether flow, which includes orbits.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Again, this is not a Geo thread. The Helio thread should remain on the Helio topic.


A short answer is if relativity is used, then the earth can be either moving or stationary and the satellites will operate in a Geo reference frame. This is an answer for those who think relativity is true.

Moderated By: rogue06

John please stop giving out links in lieu of answers.

***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.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The satellite is fastened to the Earth by gravity. The Earth/satellite system has one elliptical orbit that it follows.

Why don't geo satellites fall straight to the ground?

So the satellite has a gravity seat belt.

Helio is a fraud.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No moonbat, I asked what force keeps your dropped coffee cup from smashing into the back window. But being the coward you are of course you avoided the question.

The same force you ignore with the satellites when the earth speeds up or slows down. Apparently the coffee cup isn't fastened to the moving object by gravity, but the satellite is fastened to the earth by gravity.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I saw that Jim. It was a good, well written explanation. A noble effort on your part but I'm afraid we're dealing with this.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12846[/ATTACH]

It was an explanation that ignored the obvious. Did you see anywhere in Jims explanation any reference or discussion of the earths variable velocity and position in space? No. So the explanation avoided the problem.

Helio is crank science.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Mars is embedded in the firmament with the rest of the universe. Any motion is due to aether flow, which includes orbits.

Cowardly Martin ignores the question about the moons of Mars.

The Geo satellites are explained on some web sites including the explanation given here - • Edited by a Moderator •

Sungenis' BS doesn't answer the question. Why don't geo satellites fall straight to the ground? Cowardly Martin dodges and evades again.

Mark Wyatt apparently has already made a contribution to the discussion on the theologyweb thread here - • Edited by a Moderator •

Wyatt's doesn't answer the question either. It's more BS and hand waving. Besides arguments by web link aren't permitted. Cowardly Martin can't answer the question.

A short answer is if relativity is used, then the earth can be either moving or stationary and the satellites will operate in a Geo reference frame. This is an answer for those who think relativity is true.

That's not an explanation, it's another BS hand wave. Geostationary satellites are relatively motionless compared to their location over Earth. If Earth is really not moving then the satellites must not be moving either. So why don't they fall straight to the ground? Cowardly Martin has no answer.