Problems with Heliocentrism

[klaus54]

Newton and you lot think gravity did it.

The flat earther's think Larry did it.

The relativists think the extra variable along with Cartesian coordinates did it.

Creationists think God did it.

God did it is a far better answer than the other crap.

JM

Theists believe God created gravity as well as other processes in nature.

I guess you don't know the difference between ultimate and proximal causalities.

"Goddidit" is a weasel excuse for tossing out all of modern science.

Geo has failed.

Too bad, so sad...

[klaus54]

Not interested. You are a lazy liar.

JM

Accusing a poster of lying without proof of the same is a violation of forum protocol.

...And what I wrote was a request.

I don't believe in Geo.


You're the Geo and/or Flat-Earth protagonist.


So, stand and deliver!!11!1!

So stand and deliver, BoyTroll!!11!1!

[JohnMartin]

the ball goes up in the air and lands back in your hand (1), in both examples, because everything is moving at the same speed. Likewise, everything that shares earth's orbit (2), with earth, ends up orbiting the sun with the same parameters as the earth does. Why do you fail to grasp that simple concept? Children understand this, you don't.

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.

Helio remains invalidated.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

There is a disconnect here.

JM

The only disconnect is between moonbat Martin and reality.

The Earth has a force vector on it from the sun's gravity which keeps it in elliptical orbit around the sun.

The moon and man-made satellites have two force vectors on them. One from the sun's gravity which keeps them in elliptical orbit around the sun in the same orbit as the Earth. The second is from Earth's local gravity which keep them in orbit around the Earth. Two force vectors acting on the same object at the same time.

I can only imagine how hard moonbat has to struggle to not understand such a simple concept.

[JohnMartin]

The only disconnect is between moonbat Martin and reality.

The Earth has a force vector on it from the sun's gravity which keeps it in elliptical orbit around the sun.

The moon and man-made satellites have two force vectors on them. One from the sun's gravity which keeps them in elliptical orbit around the sun in the same orbit as the Earth. The second is from Earth's local gravity which keep them in orbit around the Earth. Two force vectors acting on the same object at the same time.

I can only imagine how hard moonbat has to struggle to not understand such a simple concept.

The two vectors are not enough. The vector from the sun doesn't change when the earth begins to move toward the sun. The vector from the earth on the far side satellite will decrease as the earth begins to move towards the sun and away from the satellite. The vector decrease will cause the satellite to drift away from the earth. Similarly for a satellite on the close side to the sun, the earth will move towards the sun and satellite, increasing the vector, causing the satellite to be dragged towards the earth.

What is required is another, distinct force to cause the satellites to drift with the earth. This force is not found in the force vectors from either the sun or the earth.

Again, this reduces down to the 2 coin example. The satellites will act like the 2 coins. Another distinct force is required to aligned the satellites with the velocity and distance to the sun changing earth.

Satellites invalidate the Newtonian - Helio model.

JM

[Yttrium]

Again, this reduces down to the 2 coin example.

What exactly was the 2 coin example? I missed it.

Satellites invalidate the Newtonian - Heio model.

If that were true (and it isn't) then how does your pet geocentric model explain the orbits of moons around other planets, as those planets make their convoluted paths around the Earth?

[HMS_Beagle]

The vector from the sun doesn't change when the earth begins to move toward the sun.
JM

Of course it changes trollbat. The gravitational pull is directly related to the distance. What do you think causes the earth to accelerate in its elliptical orbit as it gets closer to the sun? Then decelerate as it moves further away?

The same gravitational force vector applies to Earth orbiting satellites as well as the moon.

[Roy]

Of course it changes trollbat. The gravitational pull is directly related to the distance.

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

Roy

[Sparko]

What exactly was the 2 coin example? I missed it.



If that were true (and it isn't) then how does your pet geocentric model explain the orbits of moons around other planets, as those planets make their convoluted paths around the Earth?

Hot wheels tracks. duh.

W3411_Mood._V386341775_.jpg

[JohnMartin]

Of course it changes trollbat. The gravitational pull is directly related to the distance. What do you think causes the earth to accelerate in its elliptical orbit as it gets closer to the sun? Then decelerate as it moves further away?

The same gravitational force vector applies to Earth orbiting satellites as well as the moon.

False. The sun vector acts on each body in a different manner according to the mass and velocity of the body. The earth orbits the sun, but the satellite orbits the earth and the sun in a different manner to that of the earth. As the earth's velocity changes relative to the sun, the sun has a different influence on the satellites due to their mass, distance and velocity directions in relation to the earth and sun. The variability of such a vector from the sun between the that of the earth and the satellites means the force required to keep those satellites moving with the earth is a fiction. We see how fictional it is by noting you have ignored the earth in your example above.

Also, with all the examples given below - the sun already acts on the satellite prior to the earths acceleration. So any sun vector acting on the satellite to have the satellite move with the accelerating earth is in addition to the already existing sun vector, before the earth accelerates. Hence another, additional vector is required from the sun for the satellites to move along with the earth.

Place four satellites in relation to the earth -

1. In front of the earths orbit - the sun would have to pull the satellite to accelerate away from the earth, along the earths orbital path, perpendicular to the satellites current orbit velocity. This force from the sun does not exist. The suns gravity force can only act radially from the sun causing the satellite to accelerate towards the sun, perpendicular to the earths orbit.

2. Behind the earth's orbit - the sun would have to accelerate the satellite towards the earth, along the earths orbital path, perpendicular to the satellites current orbit velocity. This force from the sun does not exist. The suns gravity force can only act radially from the sun causing the satellite to accelerate towards the sun, perpendicular to the earths orbit. An additional force is required to accelerate the satellite with the earth.

3. sun side of the earth - the sun would pull the satellite away from the earth, out of orbit, whilst the earth would pull the satellite towards the earth, out of orbit.

4. far side of the earth - sun would have no additional pull on the sun. The satellite would drift away from the earth as the earth moves towards the sun.

The entire satellite system is a Helio fabrication. That's why they ignore the variability of the earths velocity and distance to the earth in the satellite calculations. Satellites only operate on a stationary earth.

The 2 coin example is a simple demonstration of the satellite problem. The example shows an additional force is required to have the second coin move along with the moving table, similar to the satellite moving with the earth.

Stated another way - the sun acts on the satellites when the earth is at v. The sun must additionally act when the earth is at v+v1. This additional force does not exist.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

False. The sun vector acts on each body in a different manner according to the mass and velocity of the body. The earth orbits the sun, but the satellite orbits the earth and the sun in a different manner to that of the earth. As the earth's velocity changes relative to the sun, the sun has a different influence on the satellites due to their mass, distance and velocity directions in relation to the earth and sun. The variability of such a vector from the sun between the that of the earth and the satellites means the force required to keep those satellites moving with the earth is a fiction. We see how fictional it is by noting you have ignored the earth in your example above.

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

[Raphael]

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?

[Yttrium]

False. The sun vector acts on each body in a different manner according to the mass and velocity of the body. The earth orbits the sun, but the satellite orbits the earth and the sun in a different manner to that of the earth. As the earth's velocity changes relative to the sun, the sun has a different influence on the satellites due to their mass, distance and velocity directions in relation to the earth and sun. The variability of such a vector from the sun between the that of the earth and the satellites means the force required to keep those satellites moving with the earth is a fiction. We see how fictional it is by noting you have ignored the earth in your example above.
Etc. etc. etc.

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.

[klaus54]

The two vectors are not enough. The vector from the sun doesn't change when the earth begins to move toward the sun. The vector from the earth on the far side satellite will decrease as the earth begins to move towards the sun and away from the satellite. The vector decrease will cause the satellite to drift away from the earth. Similarly for a satellite on the close side to the sun, the earth will move towards the sun and satellite, increasing the vector, causing the satellite to be dragged towards the earth.

What is required is another, distinct force to cause the satellites to drift with the earth. This force is not found in the force vectors from either the sun or the earth.

Again, this reduces down to the 2 coin example. The satellites will act like the 2 coins. Another distinct force is required to aligned the satellites with the velocity and distance to the sun changing earth.

Satellites invalidate the Newtonian - Helio model.

JM

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.

[Raphael]

I think John would benfit from some of MIT's free courses: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/

Or perhaps the two courses from Yale on Fundamentals of Physics http://oyc.yale.edu/physics

Doing these would help you understand the systems you are critiquing