Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

I know what gravity DOES.

Do you think gravity exists?

What pulls you to the concrete when you fall off your bike?

Physics doesn't know what does that action is. The action is real, but what is going on? Physics claims the action is caused by gravity, but we don't know what it is, nor what it really does. The same action can be observed by using a buoyancy explanation. According to buoyancy, lighter objects float, and heavier objects sink. Falling off the bike could mean I am the heavier object falling though the lighter atmosphere. If I was a balloon, I would not fall, but float, because of buoyancy. Maybe there is more to physics than we are taught at school, and university.

Here is an example of why there may be more to physics than you think. Look at your question. You have assumed gravity is a pull. Why a pull and not a push, or a sinking action through a lighter gas?

You have assumed a physics world view in the question and expect an answer in your same world view. Physics is bigger than you current world view.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

Physics doesn't know what does that action is. The action is real, but what is going on? Physics claims the action is caused by gravity, but we don't know what it is, nor what it really does. The same action can be observed by using a buoyancy explanation. According to buoyancy, lighter objects float, and heavier objects sink. Falling off the bike could mean I am the heavier object falling though the lighter atmosphere. If I was a balloon, I would not fall, but float, because of buoyancy. Maybe there is more to physics than we are taught at school, and university.

Here is an example of why there may be more to physics than you think. Look at your question. You have assumed gravity is a pull. Why a pull and not a push, or a sinking action through a lighter gas?

You have assumed a physics world view in the question and expect an answer in your same world view. Physics is bigger than you current world view.

JM

Is it your claim the reason geostationary satellites don't fall straight to the ground is because they are floating? What are they floating on?

[HMS_Beagle]

According to buoyancy, lighter objects float, and heavier objects sink.
JM

No moonbat. A solid object will float if its density is less than the fluid it's resting on.

Here's the famous video shot on the moon of the Apollo astronaut dropping a hammer and a feather at the same time

Why do they fall at the same rate moonbat?

[klaus54]

Physics doesn't know what does that action is. The action is real, but what is going on? Physics claims the action is caused by gravity, but we don't know what it is, nor what it really does. The same action can be observed by using a buoyancy explanation. According to buoyancy, lighter objects float, and heavier objects sink. Falling off the bike could mean I am the heavier object falling though the lighter atmosphere. If I was a balloon, I would not fall, but float, because of buoyancy. Maybe there is more to physics than we are taught at school, and university.

Here is an example of why there may be more to physics than you think. Look at your question. You have assumed gravity is a pull. Why a pull and not a push, or a sinking action through a lighter gas?

You have assumed a physics world view in the question and expect an answer in your same world view. Physics is bigger than you current world view.

JM

What's going on is an attractive force between masses. This force is accurately calculated for any two or more masses. There have been NO observed exceptions.

If you defenestrate yourself, you will fall with rate and acceleration well-defined according to Newton's laws and "splat"!!!

What gravity IS is an still an open question - or should I say what transmits this force-at-a-distance is open. According the standard model gravity has a gauge particle, in the same manner that the photon is the gauge particle for electromagnetism.

Do you believe in photons?

[klaus54]

Is it your claim the reason geostationary satellites don't fall straight to the ground is because they are floating? What are they floating on?

It's a tug-of-war between gravity and levity.

No post-Antiquity fissics required.

[JohnMartin]

You've seen the answer three times now Moonbat



This is why past threads with you went nowhere. You're not honest enough to ever admit your questions were answered and just keep chanting the same stupidity over and over and over.

I completed a word search in the printable version of the thread and the word "magnitude" turns up with your recent post made today. I don't believe you have provided any link to the original post you claim exists. Can you do that now and we can proceed? The original post is claimed by you to explain the Geo satellites in the helio model.

Your current statement seems to avoid giving any detailed explanation of the velocity-distance problem. The claim that the Earth's gravitational effect on the satellite is many orders of magnitude more than the sun's seems disconnected to the claim that Earth/geo satellite system has virtually the identical angular velocity around the sun.

The Earth's gravitational effect on the satellite is many orders of magnitude more than the sun's. That means the Earth/geo satellite system has virtually the identical angular velocity around the sun so there is no "Earth's velocity" problem.

Why? Because I have already shown the Helio model predicts the earth to move in space towards and away from the sun and change velocity by about 18,000 km/hr. You claim the solution to this problem is the large difference in gravity force caused by the earth in relation to the sun. The satellite problem posed is not resolved by your claim simply because you have not shown how the satellites velocity in space increases and decreases by about 18,000 km/hr and moves along in space with the earth as the earth moves closer and further from the sun.

The problem can be simplified as follows -

1. According to the Helio model, the Geo satellite is a fixed orbit around the earth.

2. According to the Helio model, the Earth is not fixed in space, but moves in space at different velocities through space over the year.

3. The variable velocities of the earth means the Geo satellite must also move with the earth through space to have a fixed orbit around the earth.

As the Helio model does not have a force to cause the satellite to move with the earth through space, the Helio model makes mutually exclusive claims -

1. The Geo satellites are fixed orbits around the earth. This assumes the earth has a fixed orbital distance to the sun (hence fixed path in space) and fixed velocity.

And

2. The earth orbits in space at variable velocities, with a variable orbit. This assumes the earth has a variable orbit and variable velocity in space.

Helio is a failed model as the moving earth cannot account for Geo satellites.


JM

[JohnMartin]

Is it your claim the reason geostationary satellites don't fall straight to the ground is because they are floating? What are they floating on?

The Geos have an explanation for the Geo satellites within their own physics model. The flat Earthers apparently have another explanation altogether different. The explanations seem to vary from the Geo satellites simply do not exist, to the Geo satellites float above the earth. Each physics world view is probably not without its problems. I currently believe the Geo model better accounts for the Geo satellites, if those satellites do exist. I am agnostic about the existence of such satellites after I have witnessed NASA fraud on their own website.

JM

[JohnMartin]

No moonbat. A solid object will float if its density is less than the fluid it's resting on.

Here's the famous video shot on the moon of the Apollo astronaut dropping a hammer and a feather at the same time

Why do they fall at the same rate moonbat?

You are trusting NASA, when NASA has produced fraudulent videos. How do you know the feather is really is feather? NASA told you so? Fraudulent NASA. Your so called proof assumes much.

JM

[JohnMartin]

What's going on is an attractive force between masses. This force is accurately calculated for any two or more masses. There have been NO observed exceptions.

If you defenestrate yourself, you will fall with rate and acceleration well-defined according to Newton's laws and "splat"!!!

What gravity IS is an still an open question - or should I say what transmits this force-at-a-distance is open. According the standard model gravity has a gauge particle, in the same manner that the photon is the gauge particle for electromagnetism.

Do you believe in photons?

I would fall according to other models as well. The problem here is you have to make an act of faith is the explanatory value of the model. Newtonian physics is not Machian physics, which is not Relativity physics, which is not buoyancy physics, and so on. Each require one to make an act of faith in the founding principles of each model.

JM

[klaus54]

I completed a word search in the printable version of the thread and the word "magnitude" turns up with your recent post made today. I don't believe you have provided any link to the original post you claim exists. Can you do that now and we can proceed? The original post is claimed by you to explain the Geo satellites in the helio model.

Your current statement seems to avoid giving any detailed explanation of the velocity-distance problem. The claim that the Earth's gravitational effect on the satellite is many orders of magnitude more than the sun's seems disconnected to the claim that Earth/geo satellite system has virtually the identical angular velocity around the sun.



Why? Because I have already shown the Helio model predicts the earth to move in space towards and away from the sun and change velocity by about 18,000 km/hr. You claim the solution to this problem is the large difference in gravity force caused by the earth in relation to the sun. The satellite problem posed is not resolved by your claim simply because you have not shown how the satellites velocity in space increases and decreases by about 18,000 km/hr and moves along in space with the earth as the earth moves closer and further from the sun.

The problem can be simplified as follows -

1. According to the Helio model, the Geo satellite is a fixed orbit around the earth.

2. According to the Helio model, the Earth is not fixed in space, but moves in space at different velocities through space over the year.

3. The variable velocities of the earth means the Geo satellite must also move with the earth through space to have a fixed orbit around the earth.

As the Helio model does not have a force to cause the satellite to move with the earth through space, the Helio model makes mutually exclusive claims -

1. The Geo satellites are fixed orbits around the earth. This assumes the earth has a fixed orbital distance to the sun (hence fixed path in space) and fixed velocity.

And

2. The earth orbits in space at variable velocities, with a variable orbit. This assumes the earth has a variable orbit and variable velocity in space.

Helio is a failed model as the moving earth cannot account for Geo satellites.


JM

Do believe in Newton's First Law?

Or do you believe, as did the ancients, that a moving body must continually have a force applied in order to sustain its movement?

[klaus54]

I would fall according to other models as well. The problem here is you have to make an act of faith is the explanatory value of the model. Newtonian physics is not Machian physics, which is not Relativity physics, which is not buoyancy physics, and so on. Each require one to make an act of faith in the founding principles of each model.

JM

So you don't believe in photons?

BTW, we don't need to explain the ORIGIN of gravity in order to classify mathematically HOW it works, and to USE those maths to send satellites into space, build bridges and skyscrapers, search for ore deposits, etc.

[JohnMartin]

Yeah, they are John, you just ignore it because you don't like the answers. Here's a breakdown of how they do it. Sorry, but it's quite understood and works, despite your insane notions that it doesn't or shouldn't.

I checked the website again and there is no mention of the earth's orbital velocity around the sun. Apparently the earth's orbit around the sun is ignored in the orbital mechanics of the satellite around the earth. If so, the website is strong evidence for a stationary earth used with the maths for the orbital mechanics of the satellite. The website is evidence against Helio and for the Geostatic earth model.

I just posted two questions on the above website.

The earth moves through space at 30-35km/s. How does the maths include the location of the earth in space, whilst the earth moves with such variable velocities around the sun in space?

Also how does the satellite trajectory account for the earths motion towards and away from the sun of about 3 million miles caused by the elliptical orbit around the sun?

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason...age33&p=287772

I shall await the replies, as they come through.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

I don't believe you have provided any link to the original post you claim exists.

You're either blind or a liar. I'll let the audience judge.

(snip the rest of the repetitive moonbat blithering.)

Once again JM is too dishonest to deal with the explanation given and blindly repeats his same already rebutted claim.

[HMS_Beagle]

I checked the website again and there is no mention of the earth's orbital velocity around the sun.

JM

There's no mention of tutti frutti ice cream either moonbat. That's because the effects of each on Geo Earth satellites is negligible.

I see you're still too much of a coward to give your explanation as to why geo satellites don't fall straight to the ground. You can run all you want but you can't hide from the fact the geo satellites are there.

[JohnMartin]

You're either blind or a liar. I'll let the audience judge.

(snip the rest of the repetitive moonbat blithering.)

Once again JM is too dishonest to deal with the explanation given and blindly repeats his same already rebutted claim.

If there was an original post you haven't shown it yet.

JM