Problems with Heliocentrism

[Christianbookworm]

John Martin, cassini, and a bunch of other similar posters belong to a very small group of Catholic radicals who believe that geocentrism is taught as dogma by the Church, and that anyone who denies geocentrism are won't achieve salvation.

Really? That's interesting. Now I really want Jesus to explain to them how stupid they are. Would Jesus call someone stupid for claiming a belief in geocentrism as a requirement for salvation?

[Leonhard]

The satellites require a force to change velocity with the earth.

Yes, that would be the gravity force pointing down towards the center of gravity of the Earth.

The astronomers move within the ISS and hence change velocity by applying a force. Man moves from left to right by grabbing onto the wall and pushing/pulling.

Yes, that is how you move around inside the space station.

The change in velocity occurs apart from the gravity field causing the velocity.

You can have multiple forces at the same time. In this case the person's pushing away from the wall, adds a small force in a different direction than the gravity he experiences. In a reference frame at rest with the Earth, this causes his pathway to deflect minutely from that of the station, so that as you track the two of them he gets further away from the wall.

In a reference frame at rest with the station he experiences that he's pushing against a wall stationary to himself, moving away from it.

Likewise the satellite change in velocity also requires an additional force to cause the change in velocity.

The force that causes the satelitte to stay in an elliptical orbit is gravity. This gravity dominates all other forces and so is what mainly determines its pathway. The other forces are so small that they at most causes the orbit to change slowly over time. The gravitational force from Earth always points towards the Earth's center of gravity. So as the satelite moves, the direction of the force changes.

Jim does this because he has no answer to the problem posed with satellites in the Helio model.

Half the time John Martin we're struggling to comprehend what you're saying, or your ascii diagrams, or your multi point statements. I'm sorry to say this but you're very obtuse. You don't seem to understand what you're arguing with and half your arguments barely seem to make any sense at all.

St. Thomas Aquinas held it as a great standard that when you approached someone in discussion, you should first seek to understand all that they understand, so well that you can state it back to them and have them agree, before you try to argue anything. Also you should concede as much ground to your opponent as possible.

You seem to concede nothing: If we use calculus, you reject calculus. If we argue from the theory of relativity, you reject it. The same goes Newtonian mechancis, whenever it suits you and for entirely conceptual reasons, even though its clear that to a sufficiently close approximation things move according to those rules. If we bring up satellites and the space station, or the moon landing, or pictures of the Earth from space, or planes flying across the poles, you put their reality into question. As if any of that is even a legitimate move.

We like you John Martin, its a both a little sad watching you tilt at windmills like this, but also a bit funny.

May God bless you.

[Leonhard]

Really? That's interesting. Now I really want Jesus to explain to them how stupid they are. Would Jesus call someone stupid for claiming a belief in geocentrism as a requirement for salvation?

I have some sympathy with them, since its very clear that most of the Church Fathers all held to geocentrism of one form or another, and it is true that two popes did declare the teaching of heliocentrism a heresy in the 17th Century. It is however also clear that very soon after heliocentrism became more or less accepted, and the Church has made no move for the past three hundred years to condemn anyone of such a heresy, and that the magisterium has taught in various ways that the Church Fathers when speaking on those scientific issues were innocently wrong.

Its a complicated discussion about authority of certain teachings, who gets to interpret the fathers, whether the Church can remain silent on a matter of salvation (it can't per Auctorem Fidei), and whether the popes declarations were infallible (they weren't, there's only been two infallible papal declarations by their extraordinary magisterium).

Its basically the Catholic equivalent of protestant Biblical literalists, only here its with the Church Fathers. I respect them for their sincerity, but I don't think they're doing any good, or saving any souls with their writing. Their tens of thousands of posts look to be largely in vain, and borders on scandalous when they speak about the magisterium of the Church in the past three hundred years.

[HMS_Beagle]

Also, every last one of them used the rotation of the Earth to get a speed boost on take-off. Otherwise why do they all launch Eastwards?

Almost all. There are rare cases where a retrograde (western) launch is done for operational reasons. An example is several U.S. military radar imagining vehicles that paid the additional fuel costs to launch westward in highly inclined orbits so they'd have more ground pass below them quicker.

[Leonhard]

This is the major fallacy behind Newtonian mechanics. Everything is free and everything is bound within the system. Free fall infers the object is not attached to the accelerations of the other bodies.

Yes it does. Free fall doesn't mean that you're not accelerating. Free falling means you don't have a rocket motor going off, or a propeller, parachute, jet engine, wind resistance, or anything like that. You're moving and following the trajectory determined by gravitational forces alone.

[Leonhard]

Almost all. There are rare cases where a retrograde (western) launch is done for operational reasons. An example is several U.S. military radar imagining vehicles that paid the additional fuel costs to launch westward in highly inclined orbits so they'd have more ground pass below them quicker.

You also have to cancel out of the velocity contribution from launches at the equator if you're doing a polar orbit. That's why ideally you'd want rocket bases doing that with a higher lattitude than the equator. Vandenberg Air Force Base was chosen though since the launched rockets don't fly over populated areas for most of their flight.

[HMS_Beagle]

You also have to cancel out of the velocity contribution from launches at the equator if you're doing a polar orbit. That's why ideally you'd want rocket bases doing that with a higher lattitude than the equator. Vandenberg Air Force Base was chosen though since the launched rockets don't fly over populated areas for most of their flight.

I'd love to hear JM's explanation for the mechanics of Molniya orbits. Swirling aether eddies anyone?

[Yttrium]

The force on the satellite does not exist. Regardless of whether gravity exists or not.

The force to do what? I'm not clear on what you're referring to here. The force that pulls the satellite towards the Earth? (Gravity.) The force to move the satellite around while it's orbiting? (Rockets/thrusters.) The force to adjust its orientation? (Gyros/magnetotorquers/reaction wheels.) Is there a particular one of these that you disbelieve in, or is it all of them?

[Christianbookworm]

The force to do what? I'm not clear on what you're referring to here. The force that pulls the satellite towards the Earth? (Gravity.) The force to move the satellite around while it's orbiting? (Rockets/thrusters.) The force to adjust its orientation? (Gyros/magnetotorquers/reaction wheels.) Is there a particular one of these that you disbelieve in, or is it all of them?

Maybe he thinks that God always controls the movement of every single thing from quarks to galaxies.

[oxmixmudd]

Let's try something different John. i'm going to ask simple questions, and let's see if we can make any progress at all toward, if nothing else, understanding where exactly you break from what would be considered a 'normal' view of the world. I'm going to continue with the issue of orbits and gravity, but let's start way, way back at the beginning.

If I drop a 50 lb and a 100 lb gold ball from a 50 foot tower at mean sea level, and I measure how long it takes from when I drop each ball to when it hits the ground, I will get the same answer for both balls to within a few milliseconds (I picked gold because it is very dense and the differential influence of the atmosphere is minimal from that height up to their velocity when they hit the ground). That distance/time relationship is described precisely by the formulas:

a=32.147 feet/second²
v=32.147*t feet/second
d=16.0735*t² feet

a=acceleration, v=velocity, d=distance, t=time

(now for a much smaller investment we could get almost the same results using Iron of course)

so, for both balls, the time will be t=(d/16.0735)^.5 or (50/16.0735)^1/2

= 1.76 seconds

likewise, when I drop the balls, the velocity will initially be 0 feet/second and when they hit the ground, their velocity will be 56.56 f/s or about 38.6 mph.

1) do you understand the math above?
2) do you agree with these equations?
3) do you agree that, within a few milliseconds at least, this is what will be observed:

a) that 1.76 seconds will be the elapsed time of the fall.
b) that both balls register the same amount of time (within a few milliseconds)

4) Do you understand that, whatever might cause it, this observable property of things falling toward the center of the Earth in accordance with those equations is what we give the name 'gravity'.


Jim

[klaus54]

Also, every last one of them used the rotation of the Earth to get a speed boost on take-off. Otherwise why do they all launch Eastwards?

'Cause the Aether Wind (AW) blows in the west->east direction, unless of course it's needed to blow in another direction.

[Yttrium]

Okay, reading through the thread I see that JM answered part of my question in my last post. He doesn't believe rockets/thrusters can work in space, because they don't have anything to thrust against. This apparently means that he doesn't believe in a basic principle of physics, that every action has an equal an opposite reaction. Interesting. The things you have to do to accept geocentrism...

I can see why the list in the OP would be a problem for a geocentrist view of heliocentrism, which requires huge misunderstandings of various principles of Mechanics. I feel the urge to look at this some more, to try and figure out which misunderstandings are really necessary for geocentrists.

[Roy]

Okay, reading through the thread I see that JM answered part of my question in my last post. He doesn't believe rockets/thrusters can work in space, because they don't have anything to thrust against. This apparently means that he doesn't believe in a basic principle of physics, that every action has an equal an opposite reaction.

Or, more likely, he simply doesn't know what a rocket is.

[JohnMartin]

Space launches are incredibly expensive, countries don't shoot them off just for a lark. Every one was designed with very specific orbital parameters to go to very specific places. Every last one 100% relied on the fact that the Earth rotates below them in 23 hr. 56 minutes to achieve their operational goals.

Every last deep space probe also 100% relies on the fact the Earth and the other planets are orbiting the sun to achieve its trajectory parameters. Many used the technique of gravity assist to get a "slingshot" effect and achieve higher velocities.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12967[/ATTACH]

Rocket launches are real and not ideal. The maths is ideal. Boats navigate through water by a rudder. How do the pods navigate in space? Space is a vacuum and thrusters don't work. Please do tell.

How do you know the pods were actually launched? After all you can make up any space flight claims on paper.

As the modified Tycho Brahe model is kinematically equivalent to Helio,

1. how can you claim the Helio preferred reference frame for a model cannot be changed to a Geo reference frame?

2. how can you claim the Helio model's use in the space flight program invalidates geo when relativity says there is always no preferred reference frame? If you claim the space flight invalidate Geo, haven't you invalidated relativity theory? If not, why not?

JM

[Yttrium]

Or, more likely, he simply doesn't know what a rocket is.

An object that shoots stuff out of one end to go in the opposite direction. Equal and opposite reactions. Pretty basic. Except, you know, for the rocket science.