Problems with Heliocentrism

[JonF]

Your point is what?

JM

That there are interesting and clever devices for demonstrating that which you deny. And far more interesting than your logorrhea.

[klaus54]

The metaphor only means you have produced an imaginary force. Apparently your imaginary force works in all directions simultaneously on all objects all over the earth, and with both acceleration and deceleration of the earth in space. This force (which is really a multitude of forces) is hand waved away as gravity. When gravity only ever acts radially from a body and cannot accel or decel another body. Magnitude and existence of the force are both not established within the Newtonian system.

The butterfly will continue on its journey, independent of the earths change in v. So too will all other bodies in orbit around the earth.

Prediction - no forces will be found to account for the action of the earth on in flight bodies.

But its about gravity, like the faceless Larry. We really don't know who he is, but he says he will deliver, but never does. The Helios require the butterfly to be attached to the earth, like a seat belt attaches the passenger into the car.

The magic metaphor of the NM Helio model, with its seat belt gravity.

JM

Do you have another word, besides "gravity", for what keeps your feet on the ground?

[klaus54]

Well according to you the unconsolidated till bent the S-T a little less than the other materials. Right? Or was it that the unconsolidated till had less attraction than the other materials? Clueless about modern science in practice. Right? Right.

You know it wasn't an aether related model, simply because the other two or perhaps three or more theories of gravity account for what you did. Right?

Wrong. You simply think you know, but you don't. You think the way you do because that's the way you've been told to think.

An aether gravity model accounts for the interaction of the aether with matter. Rather than attributing the gravity field to mass attraction, or S-T, the gravity phenomena is caused by local aether flow interacting with matter.

JM

The gravimeter measured slightly less downward acceleration over the till.

Do you have a better explanation?

See, one of the greatest points (actually THE greatest point) of scientific method is that it WORKS. And it WORKS perfectly according to all the forces and such that you consider mythical.

Why is that, John?

[klaus54]

Well according to you the unconsolidated till bent the S-T a little less than the other materials. Right? Or was it that the unconsolidated till had less attraction than the other materials? Clueless about modern science in practice. Right? Right.

You know it wasn't an aether related model, simply because the other two or perhaps three or more theories of gravity account for what you did. Right?

Wrong. You simply think you know, but you don't. You think the way you do because that's the way you've been told to think.

An aether gravity model accounts for the interaction of the aether with matter. Rather than attributing the gravity field to mass attraction, or S-T, the gravity phenomena is caused by local aether flow interacting with matter.

JM

Yikes!

The gravimeter works as predicted by Newton's Laws. Pure and simple.

Now, show us the maths for Magick Aether force.

I note that you now use the term Aether Gravity.

Show us the maths.

[klaus54]

The metaphor only means you have produced an imaginary force. Apparently your imaginary force works in all directions simultaneously on all objects all over the earth, and with both acceleration and deceleration of the earth in space. This force (which is really a multitude of forces) is hand waved away as gravity. When gravity only ever acts radially from a body and cannot accel or decel another body. Magnitude and existence of the force are both not established within the Newtonian system.

The butterfly will continue on its journey, independent of the earths change in v. So too will all other bodies in orbit around the earth.

Prediction - no forces will be found to account for the action of the earth on in flight bodies.

But its about gravity, like the faceless Larry. We really don't know who he is, but he says he will deliver, but never does. The Helios require the butterfly to be attached to the earth, like a seat belt attaches the passenger into the car.

The magic metaphor of the NM Helio model, with its seat belt gravity.

JM

"Outweigh" was a pun, not a metaphor.

{Roy: Please add "pun" and "metaphor" to the clueless list.}

YOUR use of "seat belt" gravity was a metaphor.

I think what may be hanging you up (pun intended) is that you don't accept a force acting a distance, so you need some kind of physical connect between gravitationally attracted objects. There IS a connection, but we don't what it is -- i.e., what is the gauge particle. Quite frankly, I don't see how Magick Aether helps here, since MA has inconsistent properties.

If you can't describe what MA is, your explanation of gravity is at least no better than those of sane people.

[JohnMartin]

Do you have another word, besides "gravity", for what keeps your feet on the ground?

Keep missing the point. That's a good ol' boy there.

JM

[klaus54]

Keep missing the point. That's a good ol' boy there.

JM

No.

State in answer to this post whether or not you believe in gravity, and if not, what DO you believe makes things fall?

[JohnMartin]

The gravimeter measured slightly less downward acceleration over the till.

Do you have a better explanation?

See, one of the greatest points (actually THE greatest point) of scientific method is that it WORKS. And it WORKS perfectly according to all the forces and such that you consider mythical.

Why is that, John?

It works perfectly according to NM that says gravity is a force transmitted instantaneously to another boy, without a medium. Such is a breach in causation required for NM. You think this breach in causation can be ignored and claim NM predicts what is observed. I don't think so.

If R is used, then R predicts a bending, or flattening of the S-T. Yet S-T is merely a maths system that says space is a Cartesian co-ordinate system with time t as a variable attached to keep light always at c. Apparently such imaginary beings in a maths model, which are not real, actually do cause a force in the real. Apparently you think R predicts something will occur. Yet R theory involves a non sequitur that goes like this - imaginary beings in a model predict affects in experiments. Experiments performed manifest the predicted effects. Therefore the imaginary beings in R theory are real beings. Therefore the S-T is not imaginary, but real. The non sequitur is the imaginary beings in R theory cannot conclude to real beings. So when you think such conversion from imaginary to real does occur, through experimental verification of R theory, then you think R theory is true and represents the real. Your thinking is false.

So both NM and R are very problematic and diverse theories to account for what is observed and you think when an experiment is performed, both theories are found to be true. Then again you reject an aether theory, which posits a real force that does not breach the laws of causation, which could easily account for what you observe. Evidently your opinion is nothing more than that of a person who has not critically analysed theories presented to him at university. Typical.

Prediction - my critical observations will not be substantially addressed.

JM

[JohnMartin]

"Outweigh" was a pun, not a metaphor.

{Roy: Please add "pun" and "metaphor" to the clueless list.}

YOUR use of "seat belt" gravity was a metaphor.

I think what may be hanging you up (pun intended) is that you don't accept a force acting a distance, so you need some kind of physical connect between gravitationally attracted objects. There IS a connection, but we don't what it is -- i.e., what is the gauge particle. Quite frankly, I don't see how Magick Aether helps here, since MA has inconsistent properties.

If you can't describe what MA is, your explanation of gravity is at least no better than those of sane people.

You have failed to engage the substance of my argument again.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No.

State in answer to this post whether or not you believe in gravity, and if not, what DO you believe makes things fall?

The preceding posts were not discussing the existence of gravity, but the transfer of a gravity force from the earth to a butterfly, or any body in motion around the earth. Such motion would require gravity to cause a translational force and the corresponding motion to each and every body orbiting the earth when the earth v changes. This gravity force does not exist within NM.

Lets see how you misunderstand what I have said, yet again.

JM

[klaus54]

It works perfectly according to NM that says gravity is a force transmitted instantaneously to another boy, without a medium. Such is a breach in causation required for NM. You think this breach in causation can be ignored and claim NM predicts what is observed. I don't think so.

If R is used, then R predicts a bending, or flattening of the S-T. Yet S-T is merely a maths system that says space is a Cartesian co-ordinate system with time t as a variable attached to keep light always at c. Apparently such imaginary beings in a maths model, which are not real, actually do cause a force in the real. Apparently you think R predicts something will occur. Yet R theory involves a non sequitur that goes like this - imaginary beings in a model predict affects in experiments. Experiments performed manifest the predicted effects. Therefore the imaginary beings in R theory are real beings. Therefore the S-T is not imaginary, but real. The non sequitur is the imaginary beings in R theory cannot conclude to real beings. So when you think such conversion from imaginary to real does occur, through experimental verification of R theory, then you think R theory is true and represents the real. Your thinking is false.

So both NM and R are very problematic and diverse theories to account for what is observed and you think when an experiment is performed, both theories are found to be true. Then again you reject an aether theory, which posits a real force that does not breach the laws of causation, which could easily account for what you observe. Evidently your opinion is nothing more than that of a person who has not critically analysed theories presented to him at university. Typical.

Prediction - my critical observations will not be substantially addressed.

JM

I'm sorry, but Google doesn't appear to have a Gibberish to English translator.

Gravimeters work perfectly in line with Newton's Law and that creepy "gravity" thingy.

[klaus54]

The preceding posts were not discussing the existence of gravity, but the transfer of a gravity force from the earth to a butterfly, or any body in motion around the earth. Such motion would require gravity to cause a translational force and the corresponding motion to each and every body orbiting the earth when the earth v changes. This gravity force does not exist within NM.

Lets see how you misunderstand what I have said, yet again.

JM

Good. So we can use the term "gravity" now.

Do you agree that it's a attractive force among masses?

[klaus54]

The preceding posts were not discussing the existence of gravity, but the transfer of a gravity force from the earth to a butterfly, or any body in motion around the earth. Such motion would require gravity to cause a translational force and the corresponding motion to each and every body orbiting the earth when the earth v changes. This gravity force does not exist within NM.

Lets see how you misunderstand what I have said, yet again.

JM

Frames of reference and butterflies...

It's easy to test this.

Release a butterfly inside an automobile and then drive around a circular racetrack so that there is always centripetal acceleration.

Say the butterfly is flying parallel to side windows before the car moves. What will happen to its flight when the car moves along the circular path?

Now, for the first few moments, what would the path of the pretty thing look like to an observer outside of the car and stationary with respect to the car?

BTW, this is NOT a good example of satellite orbit at all, since the fly-car gravity is negligible compared with the centripetal force. In a satellite-Earth situation, gravity force is not negligible. In fact if gravity force ceased, then satellite would go flying off on a straight-line tangential path, similar to what the butterfly's path inside a centripetally accelerating car would appear to an external observer.

[klaus54]

You have failed to engage the substance of my argument again.

JM

Which was what exactly?

Was it the MEANS by which gravity is transmitted?

Yes or no.

[JohnMartin]

Good. So we can use the term "gravity" now.

Do you agree that it's a attractive force among masses?

Yes according to NM. Are we going to trace out the same old path again, or are you going to engage what I have been saying about the Helio problem for some time now?

JM