Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

thrusters =/= propellers!

Was some one absent the day they taught that an object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion, until said object is acted on by another force. And there is no such thing as space friction. Space is a vacuum!

Correct. Space is a vacuum. Space is also a zero gravity field. Thrusters only work in a gravity field.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Note the complete lack of anything that says what a rocket is, or how it works.

Notice Roy doesn't present any evidence.

JM

[Sparko]

1. rocket fuel in zero gravity doesn't have a mass.

2. If rocket fuel has mass does the rocket thrust against its own fuel on earth, or just against the earths g field? If so, then show the theory? If not, then the claim of reaction mass is not established.

3. The the reaction mass is the rocket fuel, the fuel is in the rocket. Why then is only the fuel considered as the reaction mass and not the entire rocket? If the rocket, why, when the rocket has no mass in zero gravity field?

The rocket would have the same problem as a propller in a vacuum - no thrust
JM

well there you go John! that's why geostationary satellites dont move! the thrusters dont work, so they are stuck in one spot!!

[Sparko]

Correct. Space is a vacuum. Space is also a zero gravity field. Thrusters only work in a gravity field.

JM

is that because when you suck out all the air, you also suck out all the gravity?

[Christianbookworm]

is that because when you suck out all the air, you also suck out all the gravity?

Must be. Apparently gravity involves soundwaves.

[Yttrium]

Space is also a zero gravity field. Thrusters only work in a gravity field.

You accidentally got the second sentence right, but only because we have no way of operating them in places with no gravity, because there aren't any such places available. The first sentence is completely nonsensical.

[klaus54]

Correct. Space is a vacuum. Space is also a zero gravity field. Thrusters only work in a gravity field.

JM

Space is NOT a zero gravity field!

Thrusters work by Newton's Third Law, regardless of the density of the medium.

[Christianbookworm]

You accidentally got the second sentence right, but only because we have no way of operating them in places with no gravity, because there aren't any such places available. The first sentence is completely nonsensical.

Even in the very middle of an intergalactic void? What if you had a space with no particles(no atoms, no subatomic particles, no dark matter) that was a million light years in all directions? And then teleported a small rocket(piloted by a fictional Kandorian of course) in the middle.

[Yttrium]

Even in the very middle of an intergalactic void? What if you had a space with no particles(no atoms, no subatomic particles, no dark matter) that was a million light years in all directions? And then teleported a small rocket(piloted by a fictional Kandorian of course) in the middle.

Hypothetically, the mere presence of a rocket in such a region would create a quantum fluctuation that would immediately generate a mini-universe in the vicinity, which would have its own gravity field. The resulting forces would sling the craft straight to Thanagar.

[Sparko]

Even in the very middle of an intergalactic void? What if you had a space with no particles(no atoms, no subatomic particles, no dark matter) that was a million light years in all directions? And then teleported a small rocket(piloted by a fictional Kandorian of course) in the middle.

then the rocket, having mass, would create gravity

[Sparko]

Must be. Apparently gravity involves soundwaves.

silly! gravity is not made of soundwaves!



it is made of particles of gravity, called "gravel"

that is why we stick to the earth. because it is filled with gravel.

here is photographic proof!

[JohnMartin]

Everyone has answered the "problem". Earth's gravitational field is much stronger locally that the gravitational effects of the sun. Where the Earth goes, objects in its gravitational field go.

The gravity field of the earth causes the satellites to be both pushed and pulled, accelerated and decelerated. All the time the gravity field only works radially and the effects of the gravity field are all tangential. apparently radial force acts with the variable motion of the earth to produce the same effects in the satellites.

All this is equivalent to the seat belt gravity solution to the satellite problem. Of course this is hand waving away the problem with a false appeal to gravity.

There's also the fact satellites launched from the Earth already had the identical orbital velocity as the Earth's orbit around the sun. Those objects also speed up and slow down at the identical rate because they still have the same sun orbit as before launch.

This is non sequitur. The original orbit velocity of the earth aligning with the satellite launched from earth does not mean the earth can continue to cause the variable satellite velocity with the variable motion of the earth around the sun. If a satellite was launched from earth at Perihelion, the satellite on ground has the orbital parameters of the earth. When the satellite orbits the earth, the satellite has its own orbital parameters derived from the earth's parameters and those established by the thrusters. When the satellite orbits the earth at perihelion, the satellite does so, moving with the earth around the sun, along with the earth's perihelion orbital parameters. When the earth moves from perihelion to aphelion the earth moves about 3 million miles from the sun and changes velocity by about 3,600km/hr. These two additional changes to the earth orbital parameters are not transferable to the satellite orbiting the earth, based upon the earths prior orbital parameters at perihelion.

An appeal to gravity and the earth orbiting around the sun only ignores Newtons third law. The change in satellite velocity around the earth from perihelion to aphelion requires an additional force to change the satellite velocity around the earth. This is undeniable and to ignore the additional force requirement is to ignore Newtonian mechanics.

The additional force to be transferred to the satellite requires the satellite to be attached to the earth according to a force mechanism. The claim that gravity does this action means gravity acts to produce the satellites original orbital parameters plus the change in parameters as the earth's orbital parameters change. This change in satellite orbital parameters means the satellite is attached by force to the earth. This means the satellite acts like a passenger in a car, tied to the motion of the car via a seat belt. Hence the Helios require seat belt gravity to maintain their claims that gravity causes the satellite to act the way the Helio model demands.

Seat belt gravity is an invention required by Helio to save their cherished model. Therefore Helio is a scam.

JM

[JohnMartin]

(facepalm) Moonbat doesn't understand the difference between weight and mass.



Moonbat doesn't understand the different between propellers and rocket thrust.



The STS used external boosters plus its own engines to provide thrust against Earth's gravity during launch. It glides back down taking advantage of Earth's gravity. Note that to leave orbit the STS had to fire its engines backwards to slow its orbital velocity and let gravity pull it back down.



Spacecraft designers have been doing it for almost 60 years.

The thrusters produce no thrust because their is no gravity field in which to act against. The principle that an action has an equal and opposite reaction infers the original action has a force. As the thrusters have no force, because the pod has no weight, then there is no reaction by the rocket causing it to change velocity. The wicki reaction mass is a fiction, therefore the entire concept of thrust in space is also a fiction. Even wicki admits the thrust must act against something. What is that something when the entire pod is in a weightless pod in zero gravity? The something is equivalent to nothing. There is no reaction mass and no pod weight. Hence no force in the thrusters and hence no pod thrust.

Steering a pod in space is a fiction that only has appeal on paper.

JM

[Roy]

Notice Roy doesn't present any evidence.

My evidence that you don't know how rockets work is that you haven't said how rockets work, and have said several things that suggest you don't know how rockets work.

[Christianbookworm]

Hypothetically, the mere presence of a rocket in such a region would create a quantum fluctuation that would immediately generate a mini-universe in the vicinity, which would have its own gravity field. The resulting forces would sling the craft straight to Thanagar.

Cool. Maybe that's what happened to Krypton. It quantum fluctuated into a mini universe. Why is there a fictional planet named after a noble gas in the first place?