Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

A clarification of the above. The first example has the relative velocity between the earth and the coin being tossed as zero. The second example has the earth v=0 before the coin toss. The coin is then tossed, then the earth begins to move at v when the coin is in flight. This second example matches the earth moving relative to a satellite, for both the coin and the satellite are free of the earth when the earth changes velocity. For the coin to land on point x like it does in example, means a force must be placed on the coin. Likewise for a satellite to sustain is orbit around the earth when the earth moves, requires a force on the satellite.

The force applied to the coin does not exist, that's why the coin does not land at x in the second example.

Likewise,

The force applied to the satellite does not exist. That's why the satellite is modeled as though the earth does not move.

This simple example invalidates Helio and shows the only way a satellite can orbit the earth is if the earth is stationary, all the time. Hence Geostatism is true and Helio is false.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Please explain.

JM

[Raphael]

Please explain.

JM

already explained here,here, here, here, here, here, oh and here

[JohnMartin]

already explained here,here, here, here, here, here, oh and here

The links didn't explain very much.

New moon and the crescent moon last about 6 days. We see the new/crescent moon from the same point on earth for about 6 days each month. But we don't see the new moon for about 6 days from the far side of the moon, even though EPIC is parked at L1. If the NASA video is for 5 hrs then the new moon moves (360/(29.5)/(5/24)) = 2.5 degrees. So according to Helio the new moon is between the sun and moon for about 6 days (73 degrees) and the NASA video shows the moon out of view after only 2.5 degrees motion. Yet so, the EPIC camera moves with the earth every day. So the EPIC camera has the same line of sight in reverse to that from the earth, but cannot see the moon after 2.5 degrees of moon motion.

New and waxing moon is seen -

1. from the earth for 6 days covering 73 degrees of the moons orbit.

2. from EPIC for 5 hrs covering 2.5 degrees of the moons orbit. And the camera follows the earth so we can see the photo of earth very day.

Something doesn't seem right here.

NASA is a scam.

JM

[Sparko]

I simply refuse to engage you in any serious manner because you cannot handle any challenge to Helio. I have repeatedly shown problems (particularly the satellite problem) with Helio which have not been answered. As such, I have refused to engage you. I will continue to refuse to engage you as well. You call this cowardice. I call it refusing to throw pearls before swine.


Under Tweb rules I can request that you stay off my thread (I discovered this through another Tweb member).

Please stay off this thread.

Don't even bother to reply to this email. If you do, I will report you as breaking Tweb rules (if the Tweb rule is real). If the rule doesn't exist, I will probably ignore you.

JM

The "rule" is real, but you can't abuse it by merely avoiding discussion by kicking out anyone whom you cannot answer. It is meant to keep out people who are being harassing and disrupting your thread instead of contributing to the discussion. And you can't just go around kicking everyone out because you find their questions too hard to answer. If you don't want a discussion, start a blog. And unless someone is being very disruptive, you need to put in your first post who is and is not allowed to post in your thread. Something like "please, only Christians are allowed in this thread" - and you have to have a good reason for that, like you want to keep a discussion among people who believe in God, for example and don't want the discussion derailed into whether God exists or not. Or even vice versa.

So merely telling Beagle to stay off your threads because you don't want to answer him, is not a valid reason. However, since he has been calling you names and flaming you, you could ban him for that reason. Unless you are doing the same thing by mocking Helios. Which you are.

[Sparko]

And the moon orbits with the earth's rotation rate. You can put that in your picture as well.

JM

No it doesn't. It just appears that way in the video because of perspective. Here is the top view I told you I would make:

click to enlarge.
solarview-full.jpg

And a closeup - click to enlarge:
solarview-close.jpg

[Christianbookworm]

My hand must be bigger than the Sun, because I can put my hand in front of my face an not see it any more.

How ridiculous do you have to be to be ignorant of perspective!

[Sparko]

My hand must be bigger than the Sun, because I can put my hand in front of my face an not see it any more.

How ridiculous do you have to be to be ignorant of perspective!

Pretty sure he is just pretending to be ignorant. I will be able to tell by the way he reacts to my drawings, which a 2nd grader would be able to understand.

[oxmixmudd]

Not sure who you are writing to other than me John. The actual audience knows you are hopelessly confused, and your attempts to paint me ignorant only point immediately back at yourself. So maybe just talk to me next time? Just a suggestion.

Free Fall is the explanation - at least in the classical Newtonian sense. All the objects are in free fall. The Earth/Moon/Satellites are all in free fall around the Sun. They all are acted upon by the Sun's gravity in almost exactly the same way, except as discussed before, the Tidal Forces. The Earth/Moon system are in free fall technically around each other, but the barycenter of the motion is still inside the Earth itself. And the satellites have so little mass relative to the Earth, we can just say the satellites are in free fall around the Earth.

All these free falls form a composite system, much like all the harmonics on a piano string form a single sound. But in each of them, there is an overwhelmingly dominant component, and then very small perturbations from other elements. These perturbations are very small, and do not affect the overall stability of the individual systems, and allow us, for the most part, to consider the systems in isolation - at least in terms of explaining the dominant motions observed. We only need to consider them it we are trying to create precise predictions/accountings of the motions.

If we have a satellite in free fall around the earth with known parameters, what happens when the earth begins to move relative to the satellite?

John - the Earth doesn't 'begin to move'. It is already in motion. As regards the Sun, they are both already in motion, in free fall. Changes in the velocity of the free fall affect both objects simultaneously and, excepting tidal forces, to the same degree. So just like two coins I toss in the air, the major velocity changes happen equally to all the objects in free fall.

1. The satellite will drift away from the earth.

In all that follows, to avoid saying 'excepting Tidal forces' every other sentence, we are assuming 'excepting Tidal forces' unless explicitly said otherwise.

No, the satellite is in free fall around the Earth. There is no differential change in velocity relative to the orbit around the Sun. So in terms of the shifts from 30.29km/s to 29.29 km/sec (using the actual values), they BOTH experience the same change, so there is no "Earth starting to move"

2. The satellite will fall towards the earth.

nope, for the same reason as above

3. The satellite moves with the earth and hence retains its previous orbital parameters.

Or rather, the satellite motion relative to the Earth can be considered independently of the Earth/Satellite orbit around the sun because they are in FREE FALL.
They both change velocity relative to the Solar orbit by the same amount and at exactly the same time. So the residuals are their own motions relative to each other, e.g. the satellite's orbit of the Earth.

This is also true accounting for the simultaneous orbit of the Earth/Moon system around each other. The motion of the Earth around the barycenter is ALSO FREE FALL. And the satellite orbit around the EArth is also part of that same free fall around the barycenter. It's complicated to be sure, but again, In Free fall, we only experience local forces. In this case, the satellite sees the dominant force of the Earths attraction, and they both then free fall around the barycenter of the Earth Moon system.

If Jim says 1 or 2, then

I didn't, so we don't need to consider Johns speculation on that ...

All answered above in detail, but also from the very beginning. There is no 'transferring of the Earth's change in velocity to the satellite'. The satellite AND the Earth are in free fall around the sun and experience the SAME changes in velocity at exactly the same time. likewise the Earth's 'orbit' around the Earth/Moon barycenter. The satellite is also free falling in that orbit an experiences the same changes in velocity as the Earth. These are complex 'harmonics' so to speak, but for the most part we can consider them independently (very much like I can filter out the dominant frequency and hear only the octave in a piano strings vibration. The octave (1st partial) or the fith (2nd partial) can be consider independently of the other frequencies).

According to Newtons third law, the satellite wil continue to orbit with the same orbital parameters unless a force is placed on the satellite to change the satellites velocity. The earth changes velocity, so for the satellite to retain its orbital parameters, it too must also change velocity.

But newton's law also applies to the Earth/Satellite system as they orbit the Sun and the Earth/Satellite system as they orbit the Barycenter - and so forth. Your argument fails to take this into account, and so it is just wrong.

No force needed. Free fall means the Earth and the Satellite change velocity simultaneously relative to the Sun and for the same cause.

19 is a constant velocity, which means the earth is considered stationary relative to the satellites.

No - it is not! The Earths MEAN (average) velocity in its orbit is 29.78 km/s ( 18.50 Miles per second). But the velocity ranges from 30.29km/s (18.82 miles/s) to 29.29km/s (18.20 miles/s). Notice this is a much smaller variation than you were using - it's only 1km/s change over about a 6 month period. That is .06 millimeters per second per second of 'acceleration' BTW. You are swatting at gnats John.

The problem involves a variable velocity of the earth,

Yep - .06 MILLIMETERS per second² of change John. And that is accounted for in the Free Fall anyway.

and you ignore this by reducing the problem down to a constant earth velocity. It is you who has moved the goal posts on this one.

There isn't a problem John. The problem here is you don't understand math, free fall, orbits, mass, and a whole host of other concepts. But there is enough information here that if you want to learn, you can.


Again, the coin is in free fall around the Earth, and they are BOTH in Free fall around the Sun. The Earth and the coin move together, and the coin's trajectory is just that described by the gravity of the Earth. The rotation of the Earth is also there, but the coin, again, is already in motion at the spot tossed, and no forces are acting on it to change its direction except gravity.

BTW, on a rotating Earth, there is centrifugal force due to the rotation. That force is away from the center of the Earth, so at the equator I would weigh just a bit less than I would if the Earth were not rotating. And technically, I should weigh just a bit more at the north pole that I would at the equator. A small amount to be sure. Also, since the Earth bulges at the equator, there is also the factor of being farther from the center.

So Sparko - it you want to get that weight down as low as possible, move to Brazil (of course there are other factors like the density of the crust, proximity of mountains etc etc)



Jim

[JonF]

How fast are the stars traveling in the geocentric model? This site says that everything past Neptune would be moving faster than light speed.

Oh, I know that one. Space itself is rotating so the stars aren't moving faster than light within space. Just as in reality space is expanding and stars far from us are moving faster than light relative to us, but not faster than light within space.

[oxmixmudd]

Oh, I know that one. Space itself is rotating so the stars aren't moving faster than light within space. Just as in reality space is expanding and stars far from us are moving faster than light relative to us, but not faster than light within space.

Yep - this is the discussion arc that led us to the fascinating discussion of measuring the changes in the Earths rotational velocity due to friction with the tides by observing Quasars with the VLB radio telescope array. John's problem was getting that multibillion light year radius 'sphere' to speed up and slow down just the right amount so as to 'imitate' the effects of the tides on the Earth, and of course, getting the light to us across those multibillion light years at just the right time so as to be in sync with the moon and the Earth.

Jim

[Roy]

I am aware of the problem. Now compare your picture to the EPIC video as shown below.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12930[/ATTACH]

Notice how close the moon is to the earth.

Notice the moon moves almost 180 degrees in 5 hrs in the video picture above.

My point is the position of the moon is so badly portrayed in the NASA video, ...

[Roy]

Take it man, take it. Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. When I'm finished with you, you will be unbeatable!

It's always indicative when some-one deletes the substantial part of a post and replies only to the fluff.

[Roy]

Don't even bother to reply to this email.

Memo to self: add 'email' to cluelessness list.

[Roy]

19 is a constant velocity, ...

19 is not a constant velocity.

19 is a song about troops fighting in the Vietnam war.

19 m/s is a velocity, which may or may not be constant.