Problems with Heliocentrism

[Sparko]

no wonder he keeps trolling. he has so many of you fooled. sheesh. gullible much?

[JohnMartin]

The 'seat belt' was a thing you made up, free fall is a real thing that you seem to not understand (either though willful ignorance, stupidity, trolling, or a little of everything), glue is a metaphor to describe what gravity is doing in the situation you gave. Not my fault you're willful ignorance will not allow you to learn things that disagree with what you really want to believe. Of course, if gravity being able to do several things blows your little mind, I hate to see what happens when you discover that the electromagnetic force is response for magnets, electricity, friction, light, and chemical reactions (just to name a few things).

According to Newtonian mechanics, gravity cannot cause a satellites velocity to change simultaneously to coincide with another objects change in velocity, moving underneath the satellite (as the satellite is said to move with the earth). This is what you must posit for gravity in the Helio model, which requires the satellite to move with the ever changing earth velocity. It doesn't work that way. You assume it does and only have a non mathematical metaphor of glue as an answer to the problem. Your understanding of Newtonian mechanics is flawed and your answer is evidence free, wishful thinking.

For your answer to be correct, you have to maintain multiple breaches of Newtons third law.

What a pathetic troll you are that you need to make up things and not bother to address all the stuff that proved you wrong.

Your proof consisted of a glue metaphor. This is not proof of anything except you imagine the satellite doing what you want it to do for the Helio model to work.

Funny how 80% of my post, explaining this stuff to you, disappeared in your response so you can make a few one liner strawman to avoid admitting you're wrong again. Sorry JM, but the earth doesn't speed up or slow down, in it's orbit, fast enough to cause the moon or anything to go flying off in space. These changes are not enough to cause things to go flying off into space and are unable to overcome the force of gravity holding everything together. When one force is far stronger than another force, the stronger force wins out.

I decided to avoid most of the post which was largely irrelevant and concentrate on the problem at hand.

JM

[Yttrium]

According to Newtonian mechanics, gravity cannot cause a satellites velocity to change simultaneously to coincide with another objects change in velocity, moving underneath the satellite (as the satellite is said to move with the earth).

Why? How do you conclude this? Where in Newtonian Mechanics is this stated?

[klaus54]

According to Newtonian mechanics, gravity cannot cause a satellites velocity to change simultaneously to coincide with another objects change in velocity, moving underneath the satellite (as the satellite is said to move with the earth). This is what you must posit for gravity in the Helio model, which requires the satellite to move with the ever changing earth velocity. It doesn't work that way. You assume it does and only have a non mathematical metaphor of glue as an answer to the problem. Your understanding of Newtonian mechanics is flawed and your answer is evidence free, wishful thinking.

For your answer to be correct, you have to maintain multiple breaches of Newtons third law.



Your proof consisted of a glue metaphor. This is not proof of anything except you imagine the satellite doing what you want it to do for the Helio model to work.



I decided to avoid most of the post which was largely irrelevant and concentrate on the problem at hand.

JM

What force makes things fall and keeps your feet on terra firma?

[lilpixieofterror]

According to Newtonian mechanics, gravity cannot cause a satellites velocity to change simultaneously to coincide with another objects change in velocity, moving underneath the satellite (as the satellite is said to move with the earth). This is what you must posit for gravity in the Helio model, which requires the satellite to move with the ever changing earth velocity. It doesn't work that way. You assume it does and only have a non mathematical metaphor of glue as an answer to the problem. Your understanding of Newtonian mechanics is flawed and your answer is evidence free, wishful thinking.

It does? Where at JM? Go ahead, tell us where it says this and why. In non crazy land, gravity is quite capable of holding the moon orbiting the earth in the same way it is quite capable of holding the sun orbiting the earth and you have yet to explain how it can't other than just asserting that it can't.

For your answer to be correct, you have to maintain multiple breaches of Newtons third law.

First, here is the third law:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Go ahead tell us what this violation of Newton's third law is, in what I presented and explain why you believe this. In non nutcase land, satellites actually have thrusters to help them change up their orbit to make up for these changes and likewise, we know the earth and moon do change up their orbits because we have measured it and observed it happening. You've been told this, several times, but simply ignore it because you don't like what it says.

Your proof consisted of a glue metaphor. This is not proof of anything except you imagine the satellite doing what you want it to do for the Helio model to work.

I see you keep ignoring that I and others have specifically mentioned that satellite's have thrusters built into them to help them deal with these minor changes in speed, so they can maintain their orbits. This has been pointed out to you, but you ignore it because this would invalidate your nut case theories.

I decided to avoid most of the post which was largely irrelevant and concentrate on the problem at hand.

AKA, you ignore anything you can't refute. Like a good nut case. Shouldn't you be getting your meds, about this time?

[lilpixieofterror]

Why? How do you conclude this? Where in Newtonian Mechanics is this stated?

I don't think he quite understands that satellites do have minor changes in orbits, orientations, and stuff like that and have stuff built into them to help them deal with these changes. I know he's been told that, several times and by several different people. He merely ignores it because it invalidates his nut case theories.

[HMS_Beagle]

I don't think he quite understands that satellites do have minor changes in orbits, orientations, and stuff like that and have stuff built into them to help them deal with these changes. I know he's been told that, several times and by several different people. He merely ignores it because it invalidates his nut case theories.

What trollbat won't or can't understand is that man-made satellites while they are on Earth on the launch pad are still in elliptical orbit around the sun. After they are put in Earth orbit they still have the velocity component and experience the forces of that solar orbit. The sun's gravitational effect doesn't magically go away. The Earth/satellite barycenter has shifted a minuscule bit but the Earth/satellite barycenter still maintains the same elliptical orbital parameters.

[JohnMartin]

Why? How do you conclude this? Where in Newtonian Mechanics is this stated?

NM says gravity is radial and not tangential force. The moving earth already has a radial force acting on the satellite before the earth changes velocity in space. When the earth changes velocity there is no other gravity force that can change the satellites velocity. The Helios say gravity causes the satellite to always move with the earth. This infers the satellite changes velocity via the earths gravity. The earths gravity already causes the satellite to orbit with its existing orbital parameters and therefore cannot cause the additional, tangentially directed force on the satellite to change the satellites velocity.

Helio is a failed model.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

NM says gravity is radial and not tangential force. The moving earth already has a radial force acting on the satellite before the earth changes velocity in space. When the earth changes velocity there is no other gravity force that can change the satellites velocity. The Helios say gravity causes the satellite to always move with the earth. This infers the satellite changes velocity via the earths gravity. The earths gravity already causes the satellite to orbit with its existing orbital parameters and therefore cannot cause the additional, tangentially directed force on the satellite to change the satellites velocity.

Helio is a failed model.

JM

Ya know trollbat the proper explanation is right above you in post #787. You're just too stupid or too dishonest to acknowledge it, or both.

[JohnMartin]

The 'seat belt' was a thing you made up, free fall is a real thing that you seem to not understand (either though willful ignorance, stupidity, trolling, or a little of everything), glue is a metaphor to describe what gravity is doing in the situation you gave. Not my fault you're willful ignorance will not allow you to learn things that disagree with what you really want to believe. Of course, if gravity being able to do several things blows your little mind, I hate to see what happens when you discover that the electromagnetic force is response for magnets, electricity, friction, light, and chemical reactions (just to name a few things).

Demonstrate gravity does what you think it does to support the Helio model, with its orbiting satellites around an elliptically shaped earth orbit. You have made the claim now demonstrate your claim with theory and/calculations. The answer has to demonstrate gravity acts like glue to cause the satellites to move with the ever changing velocity of the earth.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Demonstrate gravity does what you think it does to support the Helio model, with its orbiting satellites around an elliptically shaped earth orbit. You have made the claim now demonstrate your claim with theory and/calculations. The answer has to demonstrate gravity acts like glue to cause the satellites to move with the ever changing velocity of the earth.

JM

d=16t²

Go figure it out for yourself. What you see above is all you need -IF you are competent to declare helio 'failed'.

But you can't, and you aren't.

Jim

[JohnMartin]

According to Newtonian mechanics, gravity cannot cause a satellites velocity to change simultaneously to coincide with another objects change in velocity, moving underneath the satellite (as the satellite is said to move with the earth). This is what you must posit for gravity in the Helio model, which requires the satellite to move with the ever changing earth velocity. It doesn't work that way. You assume it does and only have a non mathematical metaphor of glue as an answer to the problem. Your understanding of Newtonian mechanics is flawed and your answer is evidence free, wishful thinking.
It does? Where at JM? Go ahead, tell us where it says this and why. In non crazy land, gravity is quite capable of holding the moon orbiting the earth in the same way it is quite capable of holding the sun orbiting the earth and you have yet to explain how it can't other than just asserting that it can't.

My assertions were already proven some time ago.

For your answer to be correct, you have to maintain multiple breaches of Newtons third law.
First, here is the third law:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Go ahead tell us what this violation of Newton's third law is, in what I presented and explain why you believe this. In non nutcase land, satellites actually have thrusters to help them change up their orbit to make up for these changes and likewise, we know the earth and moon do change up their orbits because we have measured it and observed it happening. You've been told this, several times, but simply ignore it because you don't like what it says.

Breach of Newtons first Law - there is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the table to the coin, nor from the earth to the satellite. Helio requires the satellite to change velocity to keep pace with the earth and yet Newtons first law says because no additional force is placed upon the satellite, the satellites velocity will not change. Therefore the Helio model requires the satellite not to continue its existing velocity, done without a force, in breach of Newton's first law.

Breach of Newtons second Law - there is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the table to the coin, nor from the earth to the satellite. Helio requires the satellite to change velocity to keep pace with the earth. Therefore the Helio model requires the satellite to accelerate without a force, in breach of Newton's second law. Helio requires a denial of F=ma.

Breach of Newtons third Law - there is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the table to the coin, nor from the earth to the satellite. Helio requires the satellite to change velocity to keep pace with the earth. Therefore the Helio model requires the satellite to accelerate without a force, in breach of Newton's third law. There is no force, therefore there should be no reaction as a satellite acceleration.

Your proof consisted of a glue metaphor. This is not proof of anything except you imagine the satellite doing what you want it to do for the Helio model to work.


I see you keep ignoring that I and others have specifically mentioned that satellite's have thrusters built into them to help them deal with these minor changes in speed, so they can maintain their orbits. This has been pointed out to you, but you ignore it because this would invalidate your nut case theories.
I decided to avoid most of the post which was largely irrelevant and concentrate on the problem at hand.

Now the glue metaphor has morphed into thrusters on the satellites. These thrusts change the satellite position by about 3 million miles twice per year and by about 3,600 km/hr twice a year as the earth orbits the sun. This is simply impossible. You think it happens. Demonstrate your assertion.

AKA, you ignore anything you can't refute. Like a good nut case. Shouldn't you be getting your meds, about this time?

I willed not to answer everything because you have a foul mouth. Most of your posts are very sinful.

JM

[JohnMartin]

What trollbat won't or can't understand is that man-made satellites while they are on Earth on the launch pad are still in elliptical orbit around the sun. After they are put in Earth orbit they still have the velocity component and experience the forces of that solar orbit. The sun's gravitational effect doesn't magically go away. The Earth/satellite barycenter has shifted a minuscule bit but the Earth/satellite barycenter still maintains the same elliptical orbital parameters.

The satellite only has the velocity given it by force when it is placed in orbit. That original satellite velocity still must change as the earths velocity changes around the sun. Your answer does not answer this problem. Claiming the satellite is in the same elliptical orbit as the earth is only a claim that requires the earth to transfer the earths elliptical velocity to the satellite. Your claim reduces back to the original problem, which remains unsolved.

JM

[JohnMartin]

d=16t²

Go figure it out for yourself. What you see above is all you need -IF you are competent to declare helio 'failed'.

But you can't, and you aren't.

Jim

No solution to the transfer of velocity by a force from the earth to the satellite here.

Coin 1 - no force - table v=0

Coin 2 - force - table v=v

Satellite - no force applied = earths relative v=v.

Helio is a failed model.

The problem remains unresolved.

JM

[Raphael]

Breach of Newtons first Law - there is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the table to the coin, nor from the earth to the satellite. Helio requires the satellite to change velocity to keep pace with the earth and yet Newtons first law says because no additional force is placed upon the satellite, the satellites velocity will not change. Therefore the Helio model requires the satellite not to continue its existing velocity, done without a force, in breach of Newton's first law.Breach of Newtons second Law - there is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the table to the coin, nor from the earth to the satellite. Helio requires the satellite to change velocity to keep pace with the earth. Therefore the Helio model requires the satellite to accelerate without a force, in breach of Newton's second law. Helio requires a denial of F=ma. Breach of Newtons third Law - there is no mechanism within Newtonian mechanics to transfer a force from the table to the coin, nor from the earth to the satellite. Helio requires the satellite to change velocity to keep pace with the earth. Therefore the Helio model requires the satellite to accelerate without a force, in breach of Newton's third law. There is no force, therefore there should be no reaction as a satellite acceleration.

The coin is not orbiting the table. The gravity exerted on it from the table is significantly less than the gravity exerted on it by the floor. Hence the coin will not fly towards the table if the table is moved out of the way, it will continue to fall to the floor.

If the mass of the table was increased to being similar to that of the earth (thus dramatically increasing the amount of gravity it can exert), then the coin would move towards the table.