Problems with Heliocentrism

[HMS_Beagle]

The coward makes another excuse, refuses to provide the Earth-moon distance or the moon-EPIC distance.

Once a coward always a coward.

[HMS_Beagle]

Stock standard elliptical orbit maths and done without any discussion of satellites orbiting the earth which orbits in an ellipse.


Nothing here to answer the problem.

JM

There's no problem to answer. Just the same trolling stupidity.

[JohnMartin]

And again JM, this has already been explained to you to:

1. The earth's speed around the sun vs the earth's rotation is two different things. The earth doesn't even need to rotate in order to keep it's position around the sun. While the earth's rotation isn't steady and is slowing down slightly, this isn't by all that much and can easily be adjusted by thrusters on satellites. You are aware that satellites do change position and are capable of moving around, while in orbit, right?

A change of 3,600km/hr and about 3 million miles is not a small change.

2. The earths' distance between the sun changes because the earth is in an elliptical orbit. Why everything else changes with it is because everything in orbit around earth is in orbit around the earth-moon barycenter and is along for the ride too. Here is the article about it JM. Try reading instead of going off on one of your insane rants.

Your position avoids Newtons third law. The barycenter calculation does not follow to the other bodies following along for the ride. In fact because the barycenter is for the E-S system the satellites move around the E-satellite barycenter and will always have velocities vary with the earth around the sun. This would be so even if the earths orbital velocity was constant. The earths orbital velocity is not constant, but varies, which must be transferred to the satellites. This problem has not been resolved.

So when we start to take these things into account, we figure out that the earth-moon system (and the hundreds of satellites and other objects in orbit around earth) are orbiting a common barycenter, which in turn the earth is orbiting a common barycenter with the sun (along with everything orbiting the earth).

You think common barycenter translates to all the earths orbital parameters somehow transfer to the satellites without a force being applied to the satellites. The common barycenter does not infer the satellites are along for the ride as you assume. The common barycenter only means that if a satellite orbits the common barycenter with the earth, then it will continue to do so provided the earths orbital parameters do not change. The satellite orbital parameters match that of the orbiting earth because the satellite was placed in orbit by force. Likewise, when the earth's orbital parameters change, then those changes must be transferred to the satellites by force, otherwise there is a breach in Newtons third law.

This isn't that difficult to figure out JM and you can do experiments to see if it works. In your car, does every object attached to the car travel at the same speed and same direction as the car does or do things wildly go flying off on their own?

A passenger not fastened in with a seat belt is certainly not along for the ride when the car turns left. The passenger is fixed to the car and moves with the car when the car turns left because of the seat belt. The seat belt places a force on the passenger forcing the passenger to move with the left turning car. You assume the satellites will go along for the ride without a force placed upon the satellite. Therefore you assume the satellite acts like a passenger with seat belt gravity.

If you take a ball on a string and spin in around yourself, can you move around and will the ball on the string still follow you around or does it go flying off on it's own? Again, if gravity is binding the system together, it will all move together, such as what happens as the earth orbits the sun. Everything orbiting the earth, is along for the ride. What is so difficult to figure out about these simple concepts that even children are capable of grasping? Are you a troll, an idiot, or both?

The string binds the ball to you. Hence the force is transferred down the string to the ball. The ball and passenger are along for the ride because they are fixed by the string and seat belt. The satellite is not fixed to the earth. In fact Jim freely admits the satellite is in free fall around the earth. Free means unbound, which means there is no equivalent to the seat belt or string in the satellite model. Yet you claim something equivalent to this seat belt and string for the satellite.

There is no mechanism in Newtonian mechanics to account for the transfer of force from the sun-earth system to the satellite to cause the satellite to move with the earths every changing orbital parameters.

Heliocentrism is invalidated.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Your behavior towards the honest people on this board has been appalling even since you showed up with your Geo stupidity and evasions. You get the results you earned.

Who has been doing all the name calling? Ooops that is YOU!!

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

derp derp derp

JM

Get a new gig moonbattroll. Your stupidity has gotten old.

[Christianbookworm]

Who has been doing all the name calling? Ooops that is YOU!!

JM

"helios" isn't name calling?

[HMS_Beagle]

Who has been doing all the name calling? Ooops that is YOU!!

JM

Who has been doing all the dishonest behavior and earning the chastisement? Ooops that is YOU!! Mr. trolling moonbat.

[oxmixmudd]

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.

you lost me john. The curvature of the Earth is visible even at the seashore. Just hold up a yardstick or ruler and hold it on the line dividing the sea and the sky. It's obvious from an airplane - have you ever ridden in one?

You are not sane, or you are a fiction (a troll, some sort of fellow that likes to pretend to be bizarre on the internet). I've learned a lot from some of our discussions, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this - other than for comic relief or just because you might happen on something worth looking at from a real science perspective. The idea that you are 'for real' just went out the window.

In other words, I might participate, but I'll not even attempt to take you seriously - as if you actually are just some confused fellow led down a primrose path by some unscrupulous or otherwise deluded folk. No - you know what you're doing, and you're pretty good at it.



Jim

[JohnMartin]

Who has been doing all the dishonest behavior and earning the chastisement? Ooops that is YOU!! Mr. trolling moonbat.

Who is lying about someone else being dishonest. Ooops that you!!

JM

[JohnMartin]

you lost me john. The curvature of the Earth is visible even at the seashore. Just hold up a yardstick or ruler and hold it on the line dividing the sea and the sky. It's obvious from an airplane - have you ever ridden in one?

Funny you say what you say. Globalists are divided on what you can see from the shore and the plane. Some say the earth is too big to sea the curvature and others say it cannot be measured how high you go. You are different again.

You are not sane, or you are a fiction (a troll, some sort of fellow that likes to pretend to be bizarre on the internet). I've learned a lot from some of our discussions, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this - other than for comic relief or just because you might happen on something worth looking at from a real science perspective. The idea that you are 'for real' just went out the window.

I understand Jim. You have lost the debate. The earth has no means to transfer the force to the satellites. The problem has been explained at least 5 times (probably many more) on this thread and you continue to trot out the same old, tired Newtonian mechanics of elliptical paths. Its all so dull and irrellevant to the problem. Its as though you have two choices here -

1. Admit that the Helio model is in serious trouble. You cannot permit yourself to do that. Because then you would have to take Geo model more seriously.

2. Admit that you don't understand the problem and move on. This would seriously injure your credibility at Tweb. You cannot do this, so you continue on with the dull rant about JM. Again, very dull and very predictable.

In other words, I might participate, but I'll not even attempt to take you seriously - as if you actually are just some confused fellow led down a primrose path by some unscrupulous or otherwise deluded folk. No - you know what you're doing, and you're pretty good at it.



Jim

Just answer the problem presented or move on to something else. Its ok to lose from time to time Jim. You have lost plenty of times against me because you cannot think outside the sausage factory education you've received.

JM

[JohnMartin]

There's no problem to answer. Just the same trolling stupidity.

No answer, followed by denial. And you call me dishonest.

Ooops!

Now its you who is being dishonest.

And wait for it . . . . .


Very very dull.

The problem remains unanswered.

There is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the earth to the satellite as the earths orbital velocity changes in the earth's elliptical path around the sun.

The force mechanism doesn't exist.

Therefore -


Heliocentrism has been invalidated.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

No answer, followed by denial. And you call me dishonest.

Ooops!

Now its you who is being dishonest.

And wait for it . . . . .


Very very dull.

The problem remains unanswered.

There is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the earth to the satellite as the earths orbital velocity changes in the earth's elliptical path around the sun.

The force mechanism doesn't exist.

Therefore -


Heliocentrism has been invalidated.

JM

Nope,

What was validated was that there is no possibility there is an ounce of honesty in your 'discussion', and that 'you' have no capacity to understand even the simplest of physical concepts.

Jim

[Sparko]

So no answer to the calculations presented. Nothing new here. Show the amended picture with the correct dimensions, the camera view in accord with its specifications and the moon inside the earths diameter, then we can talk further. Otherwise your picture is speculative hand waving.

JM

I would if I believed you were genuine. But reading your moronic objections has convinced me you are merely trolling here. So I wont bother wasting my time on you, other than enjoying the show here and making an occasional sarcastic comment.

[Sparko]

you lost me john. The curvature of the Earth is visible even at the seashore. Just hold up a yardstick or ruler and hold it on the line dividing the sea and the sky. It's obvious from an airplane - have you ever ridden in one?

You are not sane, or you are a fiction (a troll, some sort of fellow that likes to pretend to be bizarre on the internet). I've learned a lot from some of our discussions, but I'm not going to waste any more time on this - other than for comic relief or just because you might happen on something worth looking at from a real science perspective. The idea that you are 'for real' just went out the window.

In other words, I might participate, but I'll not even attempt to take you seriously - as if you actually are just some confused fellow led down a primrose path by some unscrupulous or otherwise deluded folk. No - you know what you're doing, and you're pretty good at it.



Jim

exactly. he has gone over the top this time in his trolling, making it obvious that he IS trolling. If he is the same JohnMartin, then he used to be a lot better at trolling without making it so obvious.

[lilpixieofterror]

A change of 3,600km/hr and about 3 million miles is not a small change.

When we're talking about the distance's involved, it is only around 3%. What you continue to fail to understand here JM is quite simple, the earth doesn't just jump from a lower to a higher orbit out of the blue, but does this over the course of a year. Meaning that the change is gradual. You are aware that gradual changes in speed and direction can be made so you don't even notice it, right? Don't believe me, try it out on the road sometime and see how it works. If you change lanes fast or accelerate fast, notice you feel the change vs if you do it gradual? Amazing how you fail to understand even the most basic level of physics in your rants.

Your position avoids Newtons third law. The barycenter calculation does not follow to the other bodies following along for the ride. In fact because the barycenter is for the E-S system the satellites move around the E-satellite barycenter and will always have velocities vary with the earth around the sun. This would be so even if the earths orbital velocity was constant. The earths orbital velocity is not constant, but varies, which must be transferred to the satellites. This problem has not been resolved.

Interesting how Newton's laws only apply when something proves you wrong, but magically go away whenever it would invalidate your insanity.Here, let me help you with the ball example. You said you can move around and the ball keeps spinning around you because the ball is tied do you via a string, correct? Now, this same principles applies here too. The moon is 'attached' to the earth via gravity, so as the earth moves around the sun, everything gravitationally attached to the earth, is again, along for the ride. As the earth moves around the sun, anything caught in the earth's gravity well is along for the ride as well. This includes the moon, anything man made in orbit, and all of us walking around on the planet. Why do you continue to fail to understand these simple concepts JM? Willful ignorance, doesn't make the answers go away merely because you don't want to hear them because they would invalidate your insanity.

You think common barycenter translates to all the earths orbital parameters somehow transfer to the satellites without a force being applied to the satellites. The common barycenter does not infer the satellites are along for the ride as you assume. The common barycenter only means that if a satellite orbits the common barycenter with the earth, then it will continue to do so provided the earths orbital parameters do not change. The satellite orbital parameters match that of the orbiting earth because the satellite was placed in orbit by force. Likewise, when the earth's orbital parameters change, then those changes must be transferred to the satellites by force, otherwise there is a breach in Newtons third law.

No JM, I don't. What I actually believe is anything gravitationally attached to the earth, moves with the earth due to earth's gravity well being pulled around the sun. I used the barycenter, to point out that technically, the earth-moon is orbiting it's common gravity center. AKA there is no 'breach' at all and it only exist in your head. You're just willfully ignorant and ignoring anything and everything that proves your insanity.

A passenger not fastened in with a seat belt is certainly not along for the ride when the car turns left. The passenger is fixed to the car and moves with the car when the car turns left because of the seat belt. The seat belt places a force on the passenger forcing the passenger to move with the left turning car. You assume the satellites will go along for the ride without a force placed upon the satellite. Therefore you assume the satellite acts like a passenger with seat belt gravity.

More of your willful ignorance, shines though. If you make a very fast turn, everything goes flying, but if you make a slow turn or a graded turn, things don't go flying around your car. Do you even know how to drive? I'd hate to ride with you, since it seems everything fly's around you're car, but in my car, I actually know how to drive and things don't go flying around in my car. Anyway, GRAVITY IS THE FORCE HOLDING EVERYTHING IN ORBIT! There, I put in cap letters, underlined it, and made it bold, so you'll read it instead of showing your willful ignorance. Sorry, but the earth's gravity keeps everything in orbit around it as the sun's gravity keeps the earth in orbit around it. Why things don't go flying off is because the earth's gravity is much stronger than the sun's because the earth is much closer. This has all been explained to you, but you keep ignoring it because you don't like what it says. Now I see why you're called a moon bat since you say such stupid things, that even children seem to understand.

The string binds the ball to you. Hence the force is transferred down the string to the ball. The ball and passenger are along for the ride because they are fixed by the string and seat belt. The satellite is not fixed to the earth. In fact Jim freely admits the satellite is in free fall around the earth. Free means unbound, which means there is no equivalent to the seat belt or string in the satellite model. Yet you claim something equivalent to this seat belt and string for the satellite.

Wow, you're truly a moron, huh?

Here is what freefall actually means, to somebody who passed 5th grade science:

In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it and moves along a geodesic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_fall

Sorry nutcase, but you're wrong again. Free fall actually means gravity is the only force acting on a body.

Seriously, how do you remain this ignorant and are still capable of breathing? Free falling means ONLY gravity is acting on a body and therefore, gravitationally linked to the said body. Did you actually forget everything you learned in grade school science or are you always this willfully ignorant?

There is no mechanism in Newtonian mechanics to account for the transfer of force from the sun-earth system to the satellite to cause the satellite to move with the earths every changing orbital parameters.

Only when you fail to understand the basics. Did you even attend grade school?

Heliocentrism is invalidated.

Nope, you're an idiot. Try again.