Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

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?

The butterfly will continue to move with the car. No problem here.

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?

The butterfly and car would look stationary relative to each other. No problem here.

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.

You have failed to engage to problem previously posed. You have only proposed a partial answer to the problem, but ignored the velocity change of the car/earth in relation to the butterfly/satellite. With your next answer, please include this discussion. My claim is there is a problem in the Helio model, because there is no force within NM that can account for the translational motion of the butterfly/satellite that must correspond to the car/earth velocity change. As the circular motion of the car/earth changes, there is no force caused by the car/earth on the butterfly/satellite that causes the required angular motion of the butterfly/satellite to keep pace with the circular motion of the butterfly/satellite.

This example can extend to a butterfly in front of the car. Both the butterfly and the car initially have the same circular orbit. Then the car begins to accelerate. The butterfly must also accelerate to keep pace with the car, or end up crashing into the car. Alternatively the earth decelerates and the butterfly moves away from the car. Analogous to the butterfly in front of the car, we can have a satellite orbiting in front of the earth's orbit around the sun at v. Then the earth begins to accelerate. The satellite must also accelerate to keep pace with the earth, or end up crashing into the earth. Alternatively the earth decelerates and the satellite moves away from the earth.

In both examples there is no force within the NM system to cause the butterfly/satellite to move with car/earth. If it is objected that the force within the NM system is gravity, then what negative outcomes follow?

1. The satellite in front of the earth's orbit is said to be caused to move faster around the sun, by the earth's gravity, which is a pulling force. But a pulling force will only make the satellite in front of the earth's orbit move slower around the sun, when the earth accelerates, thereby causing the satellite to fall into the earth.

2. The satellite behind the earth's orbit is said to be caused to move slower around the sun, by the earth's gravity, which is a pulling force. But a pulling force will only make the satellite behind the earth's orbit move faster around the sun, when the earth accelerates, thereby causing the satellite to fall into the earth.

I don't see how this problem is resolvable within the Helio-NM paradigm.

JM

[JohnMartin]

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.

Your claims assume far too much within the NM model and also ignore much contrary evidence in other models. Your claims have no teeth.

JM

[JohnMartin]

A Flat Earther has proposed a visual proof for a close sun. The proof is presented as follows.

In the Helio model, the sun is 93 million miles from Earth. Usually a balloon will reach about 30,000ft. If it reaches up to say 50,000ft (9 miles), the difference in angle of the sun will be 8,000 +- 9 miles/93 million = 0.0008612. The ratio is equivalent to 0.00493 degrees variation in the sun's location relative to a viewer from a balloon launched from the south pole and that launched from the north pole. Picture 1 shows the relative difference in angle when viewing the sun from any point above the earth. The viewing angle is so slight as calculated and as visualized by the diagram below.


bal0.jpg
Picture 1


In other words, the sun is located along the ecliptic plane. When the sun is viewed from the earth, 93 million miles from the earth there is only 5 thousandths of 1 degree difference in viewing the sun from a balloon launched from the S Pole to that of a balloon launched from the N pole. The very slight variation in the suns location means that when a high altitude balloon is sent into the atmosphere to photo the sun, there should be no visible distinction between the suns location relative to the ecliptic plane over the year.

Picture 2 below shows a collection of views of the sun from four balloons from various locations above the earth. Note the large difference in angle between the smallest difference from the earth's horizon to the largest difference. These differences in distances from horizon to sun indicate a difference in viewing angle far greater than 5 thousandths of 1 degree. As the angle difference is greater, then the sun must be closer. The greater the angle difference, the closer the sun.

bal4.jpg
Picture 2

In other words, when a balloon is sent into the atmosphere from any location on earth, the sun should appear in virtually the same location relative to the ecliptic plane. If there is a large variation over the year, or from balloons from various locations on the earth, then the larger angle difference indicates the sun is much closer to the earth than predicted by the Helio model.

The large angle differences provide evidence for a local sun, thereby invalidating the Helio model.

JM

[Sparko]

Geo was discussed at length on the two longest threads in NS301. I am not going through that again. Any avoidance is merely because of lack of interest in tracing over the same old paths again, with the same old pseudo answers you lot give time and again.

Modern science is so confused about gravity it cannot be sure that it is either mass attraction or a S-T continuum. Somehow, even though modern science is so eclectic, we are to be very confident that one body moves past another body, even though R theory says we should not be so confident. What a mess. Yet we are told the science meta narrative that some time ago an event happened and now we know things are the way they are. Don't ask any questions about the meta narrative, or the ideas, or the various ways the data can be interpreted.

Just get dogmatic about the earth and where it is located within the universe. We know!! We have the pendulum, redshift, rotation, Coriolis etc. They all say this!

Actually they don't say anything. They all have to be interpreted. Hence the weakness of modern science. The almost self evident weakness is covered over by the strident dogmatism of Geo is false. Helo is true. NM and R are both true and without fault.

Yeh riiiiight.

I don't think so.

I suspect the Geo Helio question has an answer based more upon the formation of the ones answering the question than the content of the answers being given.


JM

So your answer to the accusation that you avoid evidence is to avoid evidence. Great.

[klaus54]

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

I asked a simple question. No trickery intended. Answer it, please.

Consider it a point of clarification.

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


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

[klaus54]

A Flat Earther has proposed a visual proof for a close sun. The proof is presented as follows.

In the Helio model, the sun is 93 million miles from Earth. Usually a balloon will reach about 30,000ft. If it reaches up to say 50,000ft (9 miles), the difference in angle of the sun will be 8,000 +- 9 miles/93 million = 0.0008612. The ratio is equivalent to 0.00493 degrees variation in the sun's location relative to a viewer from a balloon launched from the south pole and that launched from the north pole. Picture 1 shows the relative difference in angle when viewing the sun from any point above the earth. The viewing angle is so slight as calculated and as visualized by the diagram below.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]13286[/ATTACH]
Picture 1


In other words, the sun is located along the ecliptic plane. When the sun is viewed from the earth, 93 million miles from the earth there is only 5 thousandths of 1 degree difference in viewing the sun from a balloon launched from the S Pole to that of a balloon launched from the N pole. The very slight variation in the suns location means that when a high altitude balloon is sent into the atmosphere to photo the sun, there should be no visible distinction between the suns location relative to the ecliptic plane over the year.

Picture 2 below shows a collection of views of the sun from four balloons from various locations above the earth. Note the large difference in angle between the smallest difference from the earth's horizon to the largest difference. These differences in distances from horizon to sun indicate a difference in viewing angle far greater than 5 thousandths of 1 degree. As the angle difference is greater, then the sun must be closer. The greater the angle difference, the closer the sun.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13287[/ATTACH]
Picture 2

In other words, when a balloon is sent into the atmosphere from any location on earth, the sun should appear in virtually the same location relative to the ecliptic plane. If there is a large variation over the year, or from balloons from various locations on the earth, then the larger angle difference indicates the sun is much closer to the earth than predicted by the Helio model.

The large angle differences provide evidence for a local sun, thereby invalidating the Helio model.

JM

Arghh...

Since the Sun-balloon distance overwhelms the Earth-balloon, only the horizon-balloon line determines the angle at any given time.

Your post actually supports Helio.

[klaus54]

Your claims assume far too much within the NM model and also ignore much contrary evidence in other models. Your claims have no teeth.

JM

Simple question:

How would a gravimeter detect slight changes in gravity over dense ore deposit using "Geo" maths?

[klaus54]

The butterfly will continue to move with the car. No problem here.



The butterfly and car would look stationary relative to each other. No problem here.



You have failed to engage to problem previously posed. You have only proposed a partial answer to the problem, but ignored the velocity change of the car/earth in relation to the butterfly/satellite. With your next answer, please include this discussion. My claim is there is a problem in the Helio model, because there is no force within NM that can account for the translational motion of the butterfly/satellite that must correspond to the car/earth velocity change. As the circular motion of the car/earth changes, there is no force caused by the car/earth on the butterfly/satellite that causes the required angular motion of the butterfly/satellite to keep pace with the circular motion of the butterfly/satellite.

This example can extend to a butterfly in front of the car. Both the butterfly and the car initially have the same circular orbit. Then the car begins to accelerate. The butterfly must also accelerate to keep pace with the car, or end up crashing into the car. Alternatively the earth decelerates and the butterfly moves away from the car. Analogous to the butterfly in front of the car, we can have a satellite orbiting in front of the earth's orbit around the sun at v. Then the earth begins to accelerate. The satellite must also accelerate to keep pace with the earth, or end up crashing into the earth. Alternatively the earth decelerates and the satellite moves away from the earth.

In both examples there is no force within the NM system to cause the butterfly/satellite to move with car/earth. If it is objected that the force within the NM system is gravity, then what negative outcomes follow?

1. The satellite in front of the earth's orbit is said to be caused to move faster around the sun, by the earth's gravity, which is a pulling force. But a pulling force will only make the satellite in front of the earth's orbit move slower around the sun, when the earth accelerates, thereby causing the satellite to fall into the earth.

2. The satellite behind the earth's orbit is said to be caused to move slower around the sun, by the earth's gravity, which is a pulling force. But a pulling force will only make the satellite behind the earth's orbit move faster around the sun, when the earth accelerates, thereby causing the satellite to fall into the earth.

I don't see how this problem is resolvable within the Helio-NM paradigm.

JM

No.

I don't see why you can't see. It's pretty simple.

{Roy: Frames of reference}

[JohnMartin]

So your answer to the accusation that you avoid evidence is to avoid evidence. Great.

Your response to my answer is to twist what I have said. Great.

JM

[JohnMartin]

I asked a simple question. No trickery intended. Answer it, please.

Consider it a point of clarification.

Yes in NM gravity is an attractive force.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Simple question:

How would a gravimeter detect slight changes in gravity over dense ore deposit using "Geo" maths?

I don't know simply because I haven't thought about it. Why do you think a gravimeter works according to NM when NM has unsound principles? To say the gravimeter works according to an unsound model means the gravimeter is also unsound and therefore irrational. Does it not?

JM

[JohnMartin]

No.

I don't see why you can't see. It's pretty simple.

{Roy: Frames of reference}

You've avoided the problem. The Helio model remains invalidated.

JM

[Sparko]

Your response to my answer is to twist what I have said. Great.

JM

derp. You keep proving us right. Your trolling is getting weaker. You can do better than that.

[Sparko]

You've avoided the problem. The Helio model remains invalidated.

JM

ah so now you are using my accusation against you against others! Copying is great flattery. Thanks.

[JohnMartin]

Arghh...

Since the Sun-balloon distance overwhelms the Earth-balloon, only the horizon-balloon line determines the angle at any given time.

Your post actually supports Helio.

Your statement is nonsensical. How can "he Sun-balloon distance overwhelms the Earth-balloon"? What is the "Earth-balloon"? And "only the horizon-balloon line determines the angle at any given time." is not established.

And your conclusion does not follow.

Therefore the objection remains. Helio is invalidated by the change in balloon sun angle of greater than 5 thousands of 1 degree.

JM