Problems with Heliocentrism

[Roy]

According to the standard Newtonian formula for gravitation F = Gmm/(rxr) where r is the distance from center of mass to center of mass of the two bodies.

The atmosphere is a body, as a gas, that is independent of the earth as a solid. Therefore the atmosphere has a center of mass caused by the atmospheres shape around the earths surface. The atmosphere and the solid earth are two independent bodies with the same center of mass. Therefore the distance between the two centers of mass is zero. Therefore the gravity force caused by the atmosphere and earth must be infinite according to Newtons gravity law above.

F = G m m / 0 = infinite gravity force.

Newtonian mechanics is required to explain the Helio model, yet within the helio model, Newtonian mechanics requires an infinite gravity force on earth.

I think this is one of the interesting topics Jim referred to.

Technically, yes, the gravitational equation would suggest an infinite gravitational attraction between two objects with a coincident gentre of gravity. However, the equation assumes that the two bodies are sufficiently small and far apart that they can be considered to be points, i.e. the distance between any two parts of either object is negligible in comparison to the distance between the two objects. This is obviously not the case for the Earth and the Earth's atmosphere.

IIRC, by summing the gravitational attraction of the component parts of a hollow spherical shell w.r.t. an object within it you can show that the gravitational effect within a hollow shell is zero, i.e. at any point the gravitational forces from the mass of the shell balance out exactly. Even if the object inside the shell is very off-centre, the attraction of the nearby shell due to proximity is offset by the greater mass of the shell beyond the object. Thus even if you could consider the atmosphere as a whole, which you can't because it's neither solid nor stationary, its gravitational effect on the Earth would not only not be infinite, it would be relatively small.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Technically, yes, the gravitational equation would suggest an infinite gravitational attraction between two objects with a coincident gentre of gravity.

Sorry, I'm going to be the mathematical nitpicker, here.

Actually, division by zero does not suggest an infinite gravitational attraction. It suggests an indeterminate gravitational attraction, as division by zero is an undefined operation. Therefore, all we learn from such a situation is that we cannot utilize that particular formula in that particular manner.

[oxmixmudd]

must ignore the motion of the earth around the sun, moon and galaxy

John - one thing you need to keep in mind is that in almost all cases the information you can find on these elements of physics you discuss on the internet are simplifications of what is actually happening. To explain the motion of the FP to the finest detail, you would need a model that incorporated all known masses with any possibility of exerting a measurable influence, and you probably would need to also account for any relativistic influences. You might even need to account for the weather that day (atmospheric density) and assuming the pendulum is enclosed, and air currents from whatever air conditioning or heating system is installed.

For most of us, we are not concerned about accounting for the last .00001% of the measured behavior. Getting the big picture is sufficient. So the main driver for the motion is accounted for by the Earth's rotation, with some small perturbations associated with tidal forces from the sun and moon. Taking those into account, one can leave the rest to those with special interests or that doing specifically targeted research that requires they be accounted for.


Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Sorry, I'm going to be the mathematical nitpicker, here.

Actually, division by zero does not suggest an infinite gravitational attraction. It suggests an indeterminate gravitational attraction, as division by zero is an undefined operation. Therefore, all we learn from such a situation is that we cannot utilize that particular formula in that particular manner.

Thank you very much. I was wondering when someone would call him (John, not Roy*) on division be 0 being necessarily infinite. What we need to do is look at the limit. If one were to consider the actual masses of the actual material involved over the decreasing radii, both the numerator and denominator are approaching 0 (just as an example of how the limit could be very different from infinity - but that isn't the correct way to approach the problem either).

But what John is doing is treating the contact point as point masses equal to the mass of the earth and the atmosphere as a whole AND, as Roy pointed out, ignoring spatial extent and shape. In that case, the limit does go infinite.

Jim

*ETA: Roy knows the difference, but you can't address all that isn't quite right in John's posts at one time.

[oxmixmudd]

The answer requires that the local atmosphere within the plane moves along with the plane. Your example only further highlights the problem. If a pilot speaks back to a passenger in an open plane, then the passenger may hear the pilot. But what if the passenger attempts to speak to the pilot if the plane is movnig forward faster than the speed of sound? Evidently the pilot would never hear the passenger, because the local atmosphere does not move with the plane.

Your example assumes the local motion of the atmosphere with the plane. My original problem also assumes the helio model requires the universal atmosphere to move along with the rotation of the earth. Hence the problem with the helio model which requires forces within the atmosphere at different latitudes, longitudes and heights above sea level to have the atmosphere rotate with the earth.

The problem has not been answered.
JM

The atmosphere has mass, therefore it has momentum. The earth formed from collisions of objects in the early solar system, and the momentum of the earth and its atmosphere was always effectively the same. As individual air masses within the atmosphere move north south, and even to a smaller extent as they rise or fall due to convection, momentum of the individual air molecules is lost or gained through friction with the surface of the Earth or other air molecules, and we see the effects in our weather patterns . But at no time does the atmosphere just sit separate and independent of the Earth. It's already co-moving and always has been. An object in motion tends to stay in motion. Doesn't matter if that object is solid,liquid, or gas.

Jim

[Roy]

I'm glad you [JM] don't reject Calculus,...

But he does reject calculus. Or at least he used to.

If in doubt, do not assume JM's perspective matches the standard view. In particular, JM has proven to be totally clueless on the following subjects:

Abiogenesis, accuracy, algebra, alliteration, apes, apostrophes, astronomy, atheism, atmospheres, axioms, Baroness Orczy, barycentres, bats, bears, biology, black holes, calculus, chemistry, circumferences, cladograms, common descent, co-ordinate systems, dark matter, deduction, degrees and radians, ectropy, English, entropy, equations, error bars, evolution, eyes, experimental equipment, fallacies, fitness, fossils, Foucault's pendulum, Galileo, genetic drift, geometry, gravity, history, ibices, iiwis, inertia, integrity, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, logic, mathematics, migraine, momentum, music, natural selection, orbital mechanics, orbital parameters, parallax, poetry, philosophy, physics, precision, prediction, probability, radiodating, redshift, reification, relativity, satellites, science, significant figures and rounding, sperm, symbolic logic, theology, thermodynamics, tides, totem poles, transitional organisms, trigonometry, units, velocity, Wheatstone bridges, winds.

This list is of course incomplete.

Roy

[oxmixmudd]

But he does reject calculus. Or at least he used to.

If in doubt, do not assume JM's perspective matches the standard view. In particular, JM has proven to be totally clueless on the following subjects:

Abiogenesis, accuracy, algebra, alliteration, apes, apostrophes, astronomy, atheism, atmospheres, axioms, Baroness Orczy, barycentres, bats, bears, biology, black holes, calculus, chemistry, circumferences, cladograms, common descent, co-ordinate systems, dark matter, deduction, degrees and radians, ectropy, English, entropy, equations, error bars, evolution, eyes, experimental equipment, fallacies, fitness, fossils, Foucault's pendulum, Galileo, genetic drift, geometry, gravity, history, ibices, iiwis, inertia, integrity, intelligent design, irreducible complexity, logic, mathematics, migraine, momentum, music, natural selection, orbital mechanics, orbital parameters, parallax, poetry, philosophy, physics, precision, prediction, probability, radiodating, redshift, reification, relativity, satellites, science, significant figures and rounding, sperm, symbolic logic, theology, thermodynamics, tides, totem poles, transitional organisms, trigonometry, units, velocity, Wheatstone bridges, winds.

This list is of course incomplete.

Roy

I had a long discussion with him (IIRC) on the use of limits in the derivation of the derivative of x². He never could be convinced it made sense and was absolutely sure the derivation was fundamentally flawed and as such calculus didn't work. I wonder if that position has changed?

John - have you changed your mind on this issue?

Jim

[Roy]

Sorry, I'm going to be the mathematical nitpicker, here.

Actually, division by zero does not suggest an infinite gravitational attraction. It suggests an indeterminate gravitational attraction, as division by zero is an undefined operation. Therefore, all we learn from such a situation is that we cannot utilize that particular formula in that particular manner.

Mmm, ok. Would you be happy with the gravitational attraction tending to infinity as the distance tends to zero?

[lilpixieofterror]

Wow, 10 pages of this insanity already! I was wondering when we'd get one of these threads (it doesn't seem like tWeb without at least one thread, with hundreds of replies, by JM about his insanity).

[lilpixieofterror]

Problem 3 -

I figured I'd pick this one because 3 is a good number.

Go outside today and place different objects at different angles to the sun. Walk outside later and take a temp reading of each one of them and you'll find a temperature difference because the angle (and even the color) had an effect on temperature. Believe it or not, more things are at play than merely the distance something is from a heat source.

Distance does have some effect on how hot something gets, other things do play a role too. The reason the Northern Hemisphere is coldest, while the sun is closest, is due to this angle (among other things).

[klaus54]

Its not evidence for the MW as a spiral galaxy, simply because we cannot have any photo from outside the galaxy. The MW pictures are merely the product of vivid imaginations.

JM

Take it up with NASA, Sonny...



BTW, the FP is well-explained by Earth's gravity and daily rotation (up to negligible perturbations).

The electromagnets you brought up are to give the FP a "nudge" to compensate for air friction, else its swing would slowly slow to a standstill.

Show us your calculations for how YOU think the FP works under whatever-the-hell model you're advocating.

K54

[shunyadragon]

Some problems with the method -

1. You've assumed the stars observed are actually in the MW. The assumption must be verified/validated.

This is not assumed without measurements The measurements are constantly being verified/validated constantly as described in the article.

2. You've assumed the parallax actually measures motion of the stars within the MW galaxy and the relative viewing of the star from the moving earth. How can you verify both the motion of the galaxy and the motion of the earth within the parallax observation?

Not an assumption. By constant repeated measurements based on basic Newtonian physics.

How does your method exclude other models which have a stationary earth and a galaxy/stars orbiting the earth once per day and having 1. possibly unknown independent motions, and/or 2. motions within a stellatum?

JM

Because the stars are objectively observed to move in relation to other stars within the Milky Way in a distinctive pattern that is related to the pattern of stars in a galaxy. If they were not directly observed to move in relation to other stars in the Milky Way, they would not be in the galaxy. I believe that all of the stars directly observable from earth are within the Milky Way Galaxy. The other galaxies observed in our universe have the same behavior pattern of their stars as the stars as in our galaxy.

[Poor Debater]

If we have the following system of a fixed sun, with an earth orbiting the sun in a circle, and the moon orbiting the earth, we have the following diagram.

Sun --------- earth (up) Ve1 ---------- (Velocity left) moon (up) Vm1

The earth and moon move up the page in their different circular orbits.

Nope. Circular orbits are not possible in a three-body problem. The "other" body always perturbs.

But you defined Ve1 and Ve2 to be the "up" component of the motion vector only, not the entire motion. Did you mean that?

Therefore the moons orbital velocity must also increase. Vm2>Vm1.

No it doesn't. The Moon is tied to the Earth by gravity, not by a string. The distance changes constantly, and therefore the force changes constantly. You actually have to compute how the Moon moves based on its own kinetic energy, momentum, and the instantaneous gravitational forces of Earth and Sun, and how those forces change from moment to moment. The problem is not trivial. In the present example, if the Moon happens to be at perigee or a bit after, its orbital velocity could be decreasing.

The change in velocity requires a force acting on the moon.

That force would be gravity. So, what's the problem here?

2. Velocity left has changed from zero to a value the same as that of the earth. The change in velocity of the moon moving towards the sun requires a force.

Again, tain't necessarily so, but it could be, and if it is, the force responsible is gravity. So?

Changes in the Moon's velocity require gravitational force, but you have not shown that the gravitational forces of Earth and Sun are inadequate.

Thanks for the correction. The problem still remains. The distance of the sun earth system should influence the seasons on earth.

It does, but only slightly. The big difference comes because of the differences in daylight times. If the Earth-Sun distance had any appreciable effect, then it should be summer in both hemispheres simultaneously, and winter in both hemispheres simultaneously. That doesn't happen because the effect is way too small for that. So no, the problem does not remain.

Simply because a body moving closer and further away from a heat source would change the heat received on the body. Apparently this simple physics fact is ignored by the Helio model.

Do the math. The one ignoring physics is you.

Friction from the lithosphere acts on the boundary layer; then friction from the boundary layer acts on the next layer above, and so forth. Eventually friction pulls it all in line.

The problems remain unanswered.

JM

On the contrary, the problems have all been answered.

[JohnMartin]

Sorry Jim, I don't think that claptrap merits a response.

The mark of the modern atheist is hubris with not much up stairs. Roy has nothing up stairs.

JM

[Sparko]

Thanks for the information. I was referring to the pictures that show the entire galaxy as though being viewed from a space pod outside the galaxy. Such pictures are not real, but only constructed from local observations inside the galaxy plus maths etc.

JM

or pictures of OTHER galaxies, eh?