An admission + asking JohnMartin for some help

[hansgeorg]

I have also written the admission on my blog here, and here it is, copied from blog as status of question:

Admitting a Discrepancy Previously Undetected

I had, during most of my time as Geocentric debater, imagined "aether" as moving at uniform angular speed of 360° in somewhat less than 24 hours, namely in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds.

Celestial bodies with a slower daily round around Earth, most notably Sun at 24 hours and and Moon at 360° in 24 hours and 50 minutes, are not moving with an aether slowing down as lower and closer to Earth, but moved by angelic movers. This part is so far no problem.

The problem is this.

I had imagined that the speed for 360° in 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds was a fairly slow rectilinear speed in terms of km/h at the level of Earth surface.

Therefore I saw no discrepancy in allowing on the one hand Geostationary Satellites to be moving at stellar angular speed one way through an aether moving at stellar angular speed other way, that is in reality (which I didn't count through) 360°/86 164,098903691 seconds or 0,0041780742162973°/second due Westward

0,0041780742162973° = 0,250684452977838 arc minutes = 15,04106717867028 arc seconds/second of time* still due Westward.

Do you know what linear speed that is at the equator?

40 076 km / 23,93447191769194 h = 1674,405022923298 km/h.

40 076 000 m / 86 164,098903691 seconds = 465,1125063675826 m/s.

For Geostationary satellites, I had counted on aether being "the medium of place" - what moved things when moving without adding momentum per se (though a relative momentum compared with things fixed to earth might result), without applying any force, simply by being the place itself of the thing and being displaced.

But on ground level, at Equator, this would imply falling things have:

a non-vectorial but factually local speed westward of 465 m/s
along with vectorial acceleration of approx. 9,80665 m/s2



So, the first second something fell, it would be falling 10 meters down and at same time 465 meters Westward ... er, no. It falls pretty straight down.

For this Westward speed to reduce to half, we would need to go further North or South than 45°. In Marseille, things falling down would go West faster than 232,5 m/s while falling down 10 meters. I don't think this is correct.

I did not notice any such falling Westward when I was there.

I thought of one solution, namely that not just the linear speed of aether could be slowed down due to angular speed being around a narrower circle, when on Earth level, but also the linear speed could be slowed down by another factor, drastically reducing angular speed, namely the nucleic matter of the atmosphere** interfering with the Westward move.

The problem with this solution is that aether is also supposed to be luminiferous, and the Michelson Gale experiment, in Geocentric interpretation, measured a Westward movement of luminiferous aether at 360° in 23,93447191769194 hours.

I don't think the Michelson Gale experiment was conducted at satellite height, more like ground level. Therefore, if aether were slowed down toward ground by nucleic matter in atmosphere, Michelson Gale should not have detected such a speed of the luminiferous aether.

In other words, the discrepancy is between "locigenous aether" having the slowness of Coriolis and luminiferous aether the speed of Michelson Gale and aether still being the same ... something is rather discrepant.

I have failed.

I don't know exactly where, but if the dear reader will take a look, I'd consider answers.

The in today's society most obvious one that Earth is turning around itself*** is least likely to be welcomed by me, just saying in advance.

That geostationary satellites work because of angels, rather than because of physical forces, I have already thought of.

Perhaps God and the angels were laughing when the satellites were launched, and God said "let's humour them a bit". Or perhaps NASA's satellites will be very useful one day, when Antichrist mimes the Solar miracles in atmospheric only version : he cannot do a real miracle, but he can do the appearance of one. Ergo, he should be able to fool viewers, but not obervation from space.

Or because internet is so far a good idea.

But, I would appreciate another mechanic solution for Geostationary Satellites, perhaps along same lines as mine, but involving no such discrepancy as here discovered.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Sabbas, Abbot
5.XII.2016

* a/100=x/60 ; 60a/100=x ; 6a/10=x ; 3a/5=x
86 164,098903691 seconds = 23,93447191769194 hours
40 076 000 m = 40 076 km

** My general theory of physics having gravitated to an otherwise elegant notion of aether being the matter between and around all nucleic matter, rotating more or less freely when unblocked by such, but staying mainly still - except for electricity and such - when inside bodies that include nucleic matter.

*** Even this would in no way show anything like a proof Earth were turning yearly around Sun.

[JonF]

Easy.

Magic.

(BTW, the speed boost rockets gain by being launched east->west is east-west velocity, not vertical velocity. You really do need another aether wind to do that.)

[Sparko]

[rogue06]

Easy.

Magic.

(BTW, the speed boost rockets gain by being launched east->west is east-west velocity, not vertical velocity. You really do need another aether wind to do that.)

cartoon-2c00f47a53a2bede1f3616a5fda0b6f1_h.jpg

[JohnMartin]

But, I would appreciate another mechanic solution for Geostationary Satellites, perhaps along same lines as mine, but involving no such discrepancy as here discovered.

Why not use the model proposed by Malcolm Bowden using Machs principle?

I don't believe the Helio model accounts for geosynchronous satellites. The Helios merely claim the motions of the earth through space can be ignored and the Helio model of the satellites does ignore the earth's motions. So if we come up with a model that does ignore the earth's motions, the Helios complain about us ignoring the Helio motions and not having a model that accounts for the satellites. The eclecticism of the Helio model only means there is alternative model other than the Geo model that has other problems. It seems both the Helio and the Geo models have different problems. The major problem with the Helio model is the Geo model has been revealed by God. So the Helios have no divine mandate to push their model. We geos do have a divine mandate, and have a confidence of faith that although we do not understand all the details of the Geo universe, we know we have the correct model.

JM

[oxmixmudd]

Why not use the model proposed by Malcolm Bowden using Machs principle?

I don't believe the Helio model accounts for geosynchronous satellites. The Helios merely claim the motions of the earth through space can be ignored and the Helio model of the satellites does ignore the earth's motions. So if we come up with a model that does ignore the earth's motions, the Helios complain about us ignoring the Helio motions and not having a model that accounts for the satellites. The eclecticism of the Helio model only means there is alternative model other than the Geo model that has other problems. It seems both the Helio and the Geo models have different problems. The major problem with the Helio model is the Geo model has been revealed by God. So the Helios have no divine mandate to push their model. We geos do have a divine mandate, and have a confidence of faith that although we do not understand all the details of the Geo universe, we know we have the correct model.

JM

Geosynchronous satellites are very simple to both account for and to predict in the model where there is an inverse square law force called gravity and the Earth rotates about its axis once every twenty four hours. One simply need understand

1) the concept of an orbit - where an obect is moving perendicular to the force of gravity at a velocity that is such that the amount the object falls is exactly equal to the amount the Earth curves away from the object.

2) the concept of an atmosphere of limited extent. High enough up and friction no longer will slow the moving object.

3) the inverse square law: As the object increases its altitude, the speed required to maintain orbit slows.

4) the idea the Earth rotates.

Since an orbit at 100 miles or so takes roughly 90 minutes, and that the period of an orbit increases with altitude as the gravitational force decreases, It is clear that eventually, once one is high enough, the orbital period will be equal to the period of the Earth's rotation. That alititude is around 22,230 miles. If the orbit is also aligned with the equator, the satellite will appear to remain stationary over the same spot on the Earth.

It is a fairly basic concept. And when we place geosynchronous satellites, they sit right where they should based on the basic parameters described above. The fact one can position a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit would have forever eluded geocentric 'believers', but is fairly easily deduced from the 'normal' approach what John calls the 'heliocentric view'. And a good thing too! It would be a very different and more difficult world without geosynchronous satellites!


Jim

[HMS_Beagle]

Geosynchronous satellites are very simple to both account for and to predict in the model where there is an inverse square law force called gravity and the Earth rotates about its axis once every twenty four hours. One simply need understand

All this has been explained to Moonbat at least a dozen times in the many threads we've had here on the topic. You might as well try explaining tensor calculus to your cat.

[robrecht]

All this has been explained to Moonbat at least a dozen times in the many threads we've had here on the topic. You might as well try explaining tensor calculus to your cat.

My cat acts like he really does understand.

[JohnMartin]

Geosynchronous satellites are very simple to both account for and to predict in the model where there is an inverse square law force called gravity and the Earth rotates about its axis once every twenty four hours. One simply need understand

1) the concept of an orbit - where an object is moving perpendicular to the force of gravity at a velocity that is such that the amount the object falls is exactly equal to the amount the Earth curves away from the object.

2) the concept of an atmosphere of limited extent. High enough up and friction no longer will slow the moving object.

3) the inverse square law: As the object increases its altitude, the speed required to maintain orbit slows.

4) the idea the Earth rotates.

Since an orbit at 100 miles or so takes roughly 90 minutes, and that the period of an orbit increases with altitude as the gravitational force decreases, It is clear that eventually, once one is high enough, the orbital period will be equal to the period of the Earth's rotation. That altitude is around 22,230 miles. If the orbit is also aligned with the equator, the satellite will appear to remain stationary over the same spot on the Earth.

It is a fairly basic concept. And when we place geosynchronous satellites, they sit right where they should based on the basic parameters described above. The fact one can position a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit would have forever eluded geocentric 'believers', but is fairly easily deduced from the 'normal' approach what John calls the 'heliocentric view'. And a good thing too! It would be a very different and more difficult world without geosynchronous satellites!


Jim

And the Helio model does not account for the motion of the earth around the sun with the earth's variable accelerations and distances from the sun when modelling the satellites. We see this in your example, whereby you infer the motion of the earth can be ignored and the satellites are located about the earth according to only the inverse square law. No doubt the Helios such as Jim will whinge and whine that the earth's accelerations and distances from the sun need not be accounted for in the satellite problem, but the Helio rant is only a rant that hides a real problem within the model. So Jim’s claim that the Helio model easily accounts for the satellites is just another claim which requires the universal panacea solution of "gravity”, which accounts for the earth's accelerations and motions which are required in the helio model, but then ignored in the same model when applied to satellites.

The Helio model is so eclectic that the earth does and does not orbit the sun, depending on what is required of the earth and each satellite. So the Geos sit back totally gob smacked over the incredulity of the Helio model, whist the Helios see the Geo model as a jaw dropping insult to modern science.

What are we to do?

Go to the sources of the faith and see what God has told humanity. What do we find? God has revealed in many places in the scriptures that the earth is stationary. So the Geo model has a trump card over that of the Helio model, making the Geo model not only a preferred model, but the only possible model that is realist.

JM

[JohnMartin]

All this has been explained to Moonbat at least a dozen times in the many threads we've had here on the topic. You might as well try explaining tensor calculus to your cat.

According to Jim Newtonian mechanics is used to determine the satellite orbit around the earth. Yet, Newtonian mechanics provides no mechanism and no force that can push and pull on each satellite as the earth accelerates and decelerates around the sun. Moreover, each satellite must twist 180^o every 6 months as the earth orbits the sun. There is also no Newtonian force that can cause this twisting effect on each satellite. So because these forces do not exist within the Newtonian system, these forces must be ignored within the Helio model whenever satellites are brought up as evidence for the helio model against the Geo model. The the Helio line of argumentation only shows the Helios are blind to the faults of the Helio own model.

The fault is so major that the satellites must act like a passenger in a car that continually moves with the car as the car turns left then right. The passenger stays with the car, because the passenger is locked into the cars accelerations by a seat belt. A similar phenomenon is required within the Helio model to account for the motions of the satellites around the earth. The Helio model requires an equivalent of seat belt gravity for the satellites to work within the model. Of course nothing like seat belt gravity exists within Newtonian mechanics, so the Helio claims are thoroughly inconsistent with Newtonian mechanics. The inconsistency of the Helio model with Newtonian mechanics is swept under the proverbial carpet by claiming the variable forces and variable motions on all the satellites over the course of the earth’s yearly orbit are negligible and can be ignored. Yet such forces and motions are required within the Helio model as a specific model that requires the earth to do all the motions around the sun. If these motions are ignored, then the model is no longer a Helio model, but a Geo model with an earth rotating on its axis once per day.

The irony of the Helio claims regarding the satellites is the Helio model acts very much like the Geo model, but is claimed by the Helios to be really a Helio model. In excluding the earth's orbit around the sun when designing the satellite orbits, the Helio model does not have any support from the Newtonian mechanics used to establish the satellite orbits. Why? Because Newtonian mechanics requires all the forces to be taken into account which act on both the earth and the satellites, for the model to correctly predict the satellites orbit relative to absolute Newtonian space. If any accelerations or motions of the earth are ignored, then the satellites orbit in absolute Newtonian space is unknown and the satellite orbit is really only a fictional version of Newtonian mechanics that ignores one of the fundamental axioms of Newtonian mechanics which is - all motion in Newtonian mechanics is relative to a fixed, absolute space. Yet this Newtonian axiom is broken, or ignored whenever the motion of the satellites around the sun is ignored.

The Helio is in quite a bind. If he uses Newtonian mechanics to provide support for the helio model, then he must also ignore 1) Newtonian absolute space when calculating the satellite orbits around the earth and 2) all the forces required on each satellite as the satellites orbit the earth around the sun. There is so much to ignore in the Helio model, that maybe it is time to ignore the entire model as a maths fiction.

There is no science proof that the earth moves through space. All the Helios have are maths models, data and some principles. The Geos have proof of their model, via the truths contained in revelation. The preferrable model is the Geo model.

JM

[JohnMartin]

My cat acts like he really does understand.

Your cat is a Heliocentrist.

JM

[robrecht]

Your cat is a Heliocentrist.

JM

He is secretly very much amused by this silly debate.

[shunyadragon]

My cat acts like he really does understand.

Cows orient north-south when they feed in a herd. They understand too.

[hansgeorg]

Why not use the model proposed by Malcolm Bowden using Machs principle?

I will look on the video, but am somewhat afraid it might involve similar problems are mine previously.

Thanks, now I need to get to another library before returning to this thread (perhaps not immediately).

[Roy]

According to Jim Newtonian mechanics is used to determine the satellite orbit around the earth. Yet, Newtonian mechanics provides no mechanism and no force that can push and pull on each satellite as the earth accelerates and decelerates around the sun.

The gravitational attraction between the sun and the satellite.

Moreover, each satellite must twist 180^o every 6 months as the earth orbits the sun.

...and the satellite also orbits the sun.

Still.