Problems with Heliocentrism

[klaus54]

The gravity force is almost zero, which means the gravity field is almost zero.

JM

Thrust has NOTHING to do with gravity!!!

[JohnMartin]

Sparko already did so with a to-scale drawing. Apparently you are so stupid that went right over your head too.

The calcs say otherwise. Sparkos diagram assumes the camera viewing width and no width length in given. The picture has some truth, but is deficient. The picture doesn't account for the moons position in reference to it orbital location dictated by the 1 month period.

No clear evidence has been presented. Your reference to Sparkos picture only shows you did not spot its deficiencies, nor the lack of correspondence between the picture and the calcs. My calcs are more accurate than the picture.

JM

[JohnMartin]

It happens with every Earth orbiting satellite.

More seat belt gravity.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

More seat belt gravity.

I bet you're still too afraid to commit to a position, do man-made earth orbiting satellites really exist or don't they?

[klaus54]

More seat belt gravity.

JM

Do you believe in gravity or not?

Giving a mocking moniker to an 100% verified phenomenon does not obviate it.

[lilpixieofterror]

The suns lack of force on the satellites only makes the problem worse.

Sorry JM, but this has already been explained to you. Ignoring the answer and repeating yourself doesn't make you look any smarter.

The force to do that is what? Gravity? Nup. What then? Nothing.

Helio is a fraud.

JM

Repeating yourself and ignoring all the corrections you've had doesn't make you right. Have you figured out what causes tidal acceleration yet and how it works in your insanity?

[HMS_Beagle]

The calcs say otherwise.

Your calculations are wrong because you were too stupid to take photographic perspective into account.

[Sparko]

Imagine a heavy boat in a fast moving river. The boats propellers rotate and the boat stands still relative to the shore. The propellers thrust given to the boat equates to zero forward motion because the motion of the river cancels the thrust. Effectively the resultant forward thrust of the boat is zero. Similarly the pod thrusters in a zero gravity environment have zero resultant forward thrust because the zero gravity environment causes the resultant force on the pod to be zero. The pod remains stationary relative to its original velocity in space.

Any claim to a local gravity field in space caused by the pod means the gravity field is so small that the resultant thrust would be almost zero. Hence it would be practically impossible to steer a space pod.

JM

you dont need gravity to have thrust, you just need matter. the rocket exhaust pushes against the rocket, pushing the rocket away from itself

but then you already know that.

[Sparko]

The calcs below are approximate assuming the moons orbit is a circle.

29.5 days moon orbit period
360/29.5 =12.2 degrees covered by the moon in one day.
2.54 angle cover by moon in 5 hrs
2pi x 250,000 = 820,000 miles moon orbit circumference
2.54/360 = 0.00706 proportion of angle covered by moons travel over 5 hrs
0.00706 x 820,000 = 5,790.96 miles orbit distance covered by moon over 5 hrs

3959 miles earth radius

7,918 miles - Earth diameter

The NASA video shows the moon on the left and right sides of the earth in 5hrs travel. My rough calcs show the earths diameter (7918 miles) is grater than the distance covered by the moons travel in space in 5 hours (5,790.96 miles).

The NASA video shows the moon travel distance is greater than the earths diameter. Yet the calcs show the moons travel distance is 7918-5790 =2127 miles less than the earth's diameter. The NASA moon begins far left of the earth and should be inside the earths diameter after 5hrs motion, yet is outside the earths diameter.

The NASA video is a fraud.

JM

yep, you got me. I work for NASA and it is my job to fool the public. you see, space is really filled with cotton candy and if people knew the truth, they would all want it and then what? everyone would get real fat and the earth would collapse into a black hole. so we have to lie to them about space and perspective. dont tell anyone, ok?

[Sparko]

OK, thanks for the confirmation. You really are so stupid you can't understand perspective in a 2-D picture.

wrong conclusion. his idiotic "reasoning" proves he is here just to pull our collective leg. he is trolling and sitting there laughing his head off at how everyone thinks he is serious.

[HMS_Beagle]

wrong conclusion. his idiotic "reasoning" proves he is here just to pull our collective leg. he is trolling and sitting there laughing his head off at how everyone thinks he is serious.

I didn't think so at first but I must admit the case for "troll" gets stronger with his every post.

[Christianbookworm]

Superman vs. Batman! Who wins!

[Sparko]

I didn't think so at first but I must admit the case for "troll" gets stronger with his every post.

you can tell by his obviously contrived excuses to dismiss any attempt to teach him anything. his objections dont even make sense and in such an obvious way that you can tell he is messing with us. Like his thrusters wont work in space because ther is no gravity. LOL.

oh and he also has said he doesnt believe gravity even exists. but when the ice skating example was given to him, his reasoning was that there was gravity so throwing the bowling ball would move him backwards.

derp.

[JohnMartin]

I bet you're still too afraid to commit to a position, do man-made earth orbiting satellites really exist or don't they?

If man-made earth orbiting satellites really exist then -

1. they do not in a Heliocentric universe because Newtonian Physics cannot account for the satellite motions in relation to the earths elliptical orbit.

2. they may exist in a Heliocentric universe if a new Physics/maths model can account for the satellite motions in relation to the earths elliptical orbit. So far this model has not been forthcoming.

3. they do in a geostationary universe with aether flow as the cause of satellite motion.

Otherwise the satellites are a fiction invented by space agencies to promote an agnostic/atheistic universe by removing the ancient, biblical universe worldview. As the ancient biblical worldview was that of a stationary, flat earth covered by a dome, satellites within an ever expanding universe from the big bang would be part of that agenda. I currently hold to a stationary earth model, like that promoted by Sungenis. Although I have recently come across evidence for a flat earth which seems to also be compelling. The flat earth claims are for another thread.

My position on the satellites is skeptical. If they exist, then those who follow the science should be able to answer the rather simple questions with compelling answers. If the answers are not compelling, then maybe the satellites don't exist and NASA is a scam. The evidence for satellites is usually visuals of rocket launches and videos of satellite launches from pods in space. Fair enough and I understand why many would say this evidence is compelling. But then again, such evidence could also be manufactured in the modern age. We only see rockets launch. Where do they go? They go where we are told they go. But why not show us the entire sequence into space?

If the pod goes into space, where to after that? Does the satellite launch actually mean the thign really works? If so, how do we know? The recent claim that a pod was sent to a comet seems to be hubris in the extreme. I currently see there is no way such a journey could be made. Ok, maybe that is just me, but I think its just another truth claim made by an agency within a science that has had plenty of fails in the past.

I personally find the moon landings to be quite problematic. I saw one commentary say the temperature on the moon would by like inside an oven, baking cookies. If this is true, then the landings seem to be problematic as there would have to be sufficient cooling for the pod, space suits and buggies. Other evidence such as videos of the space suits being discarded from the pod prior to relaunch from the moon also seem problematic. How was it done? Was there another room in which the suits were placed before they were pushed onto the moons surface? How did it work? It seems comical and hence problematic.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Sorry JM, but this has already been explained to you. Ignoring the answer and repeating yourself doesn't make you look any smarter.



Repeating yourself and ignoring all the corrections you've had doesn't make you right. Have you figured out what causes tidal acceleration yet and how it works in your insanity?

The answer has been given, but found to be false. It doesn't follow that if another Twebber offers a correction, that it really is a correction. Other twebbers can also be in error, as they often are.

JM