Tweet
Originally posted by oxmixmudd
View Post
Jim presented several arguments what were all debunked. Now he has nothing left in his Newtonian bag to account for satellite motion. Jim thinks free fall accounts for the satellites moving with the earth's ever changing velocity. Of course free fall is only a hand waving cover up to avoid the problem. Did free fall put the satellite in orbit. Nup. It was put there by force. Does a satellite move with the earth as the earth moves towards and away from the sun? Nup. The satellite must move with the earth by force as the earth's velocity and position in space changes. To deny force applied to the satellite is to deny Newtons third law.
Apparently the satellites orbital parameters are caused by force by rockets and thrusters and so on. The parameters are set, assuming an initial earth velocity. Yet when the earth velocity changes, those parameters automatically change, because, . . . wait for it . . . the satellite is in free fall . . . no . . . the satellite has a common barycenter with the earth . . . no . . . the suns gravity field does not dominate the calculations . . .
No, no and no.
The barycenter answer does not answer the problem. The earth's barycenter changes in space during the year. The change in barycenter location infers a change in the earth's orbital velocity and position in space to the sun. Correspondingly, the change in common barycenter with the orbiting satellite does not provide a force to have the satellite move with the earths changing velocity. The change in barycenter location, had in common with the earth and satellite only means Newtonian mechanics has a common maths point, around which the two bodies orbit. The common point assumes all Newtons laws are always fulfilled. Hence the common barycenter argument does not account for the satellite moving with the earth's elliptical orbit, but assumes a force must be applied to the satellite to account for Newtons third law.
The satellite in free fall answer does not solve the problem. Free fall is merely a concept within Newtonian mechanics that says an orbiting body is falling towards the other body due to the pull of gravity. The orbit path is traced out by a combination of forces acting on the orbiting body. Free fall merely assumes the Newtonian forces must be applied to the body at all times during the orbit. As such, a combination of forces is also required to account for the satellites change in velocity as the earth's velocity changes. Such forces must be found within the Newtonian system and cannot be removed by an appeal to free fall within the system. For free fall does not account for the additional force required to cause the additional velocity change in the satellite.
The sun's gravitational pull does not solve the problem. It is claimed the sun's gravity pull causes the earth's orbital shape. Yet the sun's pull on the satellite does not cause the same velocity changes on the satellite. To assume the sun acts on the satellite the same as it acts on earth is to 1. ignore the fact that within Newtonian mechanics, the gravity force of the sun is dependent upon the small satellite mass and variable location of the satellite around the earth. 2. The sun does not cause a variable force on the satellite to coincide with the satellites velocity changing with the earth's changing velocity. 3. The sun answer also ignores the earth gravitational force dominating the satellites motions.
The fact is that within the Newtonian system, satellites orbital parameters change, so the satellite keeps pace and position over the earth as the earth changes velocity and position by having the satellites velocity in space also change. The change in satellite velocity means a force is required to act on the satellite. The force cannot be from gravity, for gravity is already accounted for prior to the satellite changing its velocity. For the earth's gravity to provide the additional force on the satellite means the earth's gravity must provide the existing force on the satellite, with its existing orbital parameters, plus a force required to change the satellites velocity in space, whilst retaining the existing satellites parameters relative to the earth.
Stated in another way - the earth's gravity is a force which causes the satellites orbital parameters. The earth then changes velocity in space and the earth gravity causes an additional force on the satellite for the object to continue to orbit the earth with the same orbital parameters relative to the earth. As the satellite orbital parameters relative to the earth do not change, then the satellites velocity changes in space cannot be caused by the earths gravity.
Again -
1. satellite orbits the earth with a satellite orbital velocity relative to the earth.
2. earth's velocity in space changes.
3. satellite continues to orbit the earth with the same orbital velocity relative to the earth.
4. Point 3 infers the satellites orbit velocity in space also changes.
5. Point 1 and 3 have the same orbital velocity of the satellite relative to the earth. As the velocity in 1 and 3 is the same, then no additional force is placed on the satellite by the earth in point 2, for the gravity force from the earth results in the same satellite velocity relative to the earth in points 1 and 3.
Conclusion - There is no force in Newtonian mechanics to account for the satellites change in velocity with the earth's change in velocity as the earth orbits the sun in an ellipse.
Therefore
The satellites invalidate Heliocentrism.
JM
Which DC Comics super hero violates the laws of physics the least?
Comment