Problems with Heliocentrism

[lilpixieofterror]

There is a disconnect here. Example 1 only has one one velocity for the car. Example 2 assumes several velocities for the earth. Example 1 does not logically connect to example 2, due to the change in velocity required to be ignored in the ball example, but both implied, and ignored in the moving earth example. Your examples show me that it is you who has not understood simple physics. You have even managed to misunderstand the simple 2 coin experiment.

The disconnect is between your ears nutcase. What you keep failing to understand is that I'm starting with the basics. Is an object able to move in two different directions, at the same time, yes or no? That is what I'm trying to get your nutcase brain to understand and it seems you can't understand even that simple logic. If what I said is wrong though, go ahead and show it (but we both know you can't, so you'll just keep making bald assertions because you can't refute it).

BTW I didn't 'misunderstand' your 'experiment' nutcase. It was stupid and showed you didn't understand what you were talking about.

Helio remains invalidated.

Only in nutcase JM land.

[JohnMartin]

Via Newton there would have to be a force to NOT keep them moving together. The Earth-Satellite gravity is much much greater than the Sun-satellite gravity, ergo the Earth and satellite move together as one body located at the system's barycenter.

This and the following was explained to you several times already.

In the coin example the table-coin system has negligible gravity compared with the coin-Earth system. It is a non-example.

Geo's Aether Force is a lie.

The coin example shows how obvious the problem is and just how extravagant the Newtonian-Helio model is. There is no force that translates from the moving table to the coin in flight. Similarly there is no force that translates from the earth to the satellites. This simple demonstration destroys Helio and the satellite model.

The Newtonian-Helio model is an invalidated, faith based system that requires imagination over reason.

JM

[JohnMartin]

False. You're just making stuff up. You haven't even taken a single physics course in your life. I have a physics degree. You fail physics forever. Why do you think EVERYBODY besides you around here disagrees with you? And we're all saying the same things. You take Physics 101 in college, and your professor will tell you the same thing. You're arguing against a bizarre version of physics in the heliocentric model that you made up and that doesn't exist.

The Earth and satellite have the same average acceleration toward the Sun. It's that simple. They're both orbiting the Sun. The satellite also orbits the Earth. It works the same way for moons going around other planets in the solar system, so the Earth and satellites are nothing special in that regard. You're overthinking the situation and making up absurd physical rules that don't exist.

You're arguing that Jupiter should be the center of the solar system. You're arguing that Saturn should be the center of the solar system. You're arguing that Mars should be the center of the solar system. Why? Because they all have moons. Their moons orbit around their planets just like our moon and satellites do. There is no difference. Think it through.

The Newtonian-Helio model breaks down all over the solar system, wherever there is a body 1 orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit with another satellite body 2 orbiting body 1.

If my objections to the recent posts are so simple to answer, then do so.

JM

[klaus54]

The coin example shows how obvious the problem is and just how extravagant the Newtonian-Helio model is. There is no force that translates from the moving table to the coin in flight. Similarly there is no force that translates from the earth to the satellites. This simple demonstration destroys Helio and the satellite model.

The Newtonian-Helio model is an invalidated, faith based system that requires imagination over reason.

JM

Bass-ackwards as usual...

This simple demonstration destroys the Neolithic/Medieval Geo/Flat-Earth "model".

The Neolithic/Medieval Geo/Flat-Earth "model" is an invalidated, faith based system that requires imagination over reason.

Fixed it for ya.

[JohnMartin]

There is a good rule for debating.

You should be able to correctly describe/explain your opponent's position. This indicates that you have an understanding of what they are saying. Then you can critique and rebut it.

John demonstrates again and again that he is unable to correctly explain things like how gravity works in Heliocentrism. So how can he critique something he has no understanding of?

Here is another good rule in debating. When a rebuttal post has been posted, you must directly engage the counter arguments for your claims to have any teeth. You have not engage the counter, so you have lost the debate.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Moonbat Martin, you've already convinced every last person here you're a trolling idiot. No need to keep belaboring the point.

Beagle lost the debate. No response on topic, then the rebuttal post remains unanswered.

JM

[klaus54]

The Newtonian-Helio model breaks down all over the solar system, wherever there is a body 1 orbiting the sun in an elliptical orbit with another satellite body 2 orbiting body 1.

If my objections to the recent posts are so simple to answer, then do so.

JM

Bass-ackwards again...

The Neolithic/Medieval Geo/Flat-Earth "model" breaks down all over the solar system.

FIFY

[klaus54]

Beagle lost the debate. No response on topic, then the rebuttal post remains unanswered.

JM

False.

All your points have been refuted.

Geo/Flat-Earthism is demolished.

[JohnMartin]

The disconnect is between your ears nutcase. What you keep failing to understand is that I'm starting with the basics. Is an object able to move in two different directions, at the same time, yes or no? That is what I'm trying to get your nutcase brain to understand and it seems you can't understand even that simple logic. If what I said is wrong though, go ahead and show it (but we both know you can't, so you'll just keep making bald assertions because you can't refute it).

BTW I didn't 'misunderstand' your 'experiment' nutcase. It was stupid and showed you didn't understand what you were talking about.



Only in nutcase JM land.

You still haven't answered the rebuttal post, nor the problem. And your foul mouth persists. The second coin will have the same flight path as the first. The only difference is the table moves underneath the coin 2. Same problem with the satellite and the moving earth.

Helio has been invalidated.

JM

[JohnMartin]

False.

All your points have been refuted.

Geo/Flat-Earthism is demolished.

No refutation has been offered to the rebuttal post and nothing to satisfactorily explain the satellite problem. You are not being honest here.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Bass-ackwards as usual...

This simple demonstration destroys the Neolithic/Medieval Geo/Flat-Earth "model".

The Neolithic/Medieval Geo/Flat-Earth "model" is an invalidated, faith based system that requires imagination over reason.

Fixed it for ya.

The aether model is probably the only one that can account for satellites. Newton can't do it.

JM

[klaus54]

You still haven't answered the rebuttal post, nor the problem. And your foul mouth persists. The second coin will have the same flight path as the first. The only difference is the table moves underneath the coin 2. Same problem with the satellite and the moving earth.

Helio has been invalidated.

JM

No it won't since the coin-table gravity force is negligible, overwhelmed many orders of magnitude by the coin-Earth gravity force.

"Obvious to all but the most ignorant..."

[JohnMartin]

Perhaps JM is unaware of the difference between vectors and scalars?

Roy

In Roy's atheistic world view, all things are a mindless superstition, including vectors and scalars. Roy doesn't know what being is, nor how things have being.

JM

[klaus54]

The aether model is probably the only one that can account for satellites. Newton can't do it.

JM

Standard physics accounts for celestial mechanics just fine.

Show us the Magick Aether(tm) explanation. With maths, please.

Hey, waitaminnt! I thought you don't believe in satellites???

So are you saying MA(tm) better explains a non-phenomenon?

[klaus54]

In Roy's atheistic world view, all things are a mindless superstition, including vectors and scalars. Roy doesn't know what being is, nor how things have being.

JM

Oh, the projection!!!