Tweet
Presented below are a series of problems concerning the theory of Heliocentrism. The various problems attempt to show some of the weaknesses within the Heliocentric theory.
Local evidence suggests other planets have variable rotation rates. For example, Venus’s rotation rate has changed by 6.5 minutes in the last ten years. Saturn also has a reduced rotation rate.
Problem 1 – The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth rotates on its axis in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s daily rotation rate. The consistent Earth rotation rate is inconsistent with the variable rotation rates of other solar system planets. The inconsistency between the slowing rotation rates and the consistent earth rotation rate lends support for the earth in a special place.
Problem 2 – The Helio model requires a yearly orbit around the sun of 365 ¼ days per year without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth moves around the sun in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s yearly orbit rate around the sun. The long term, consistent Earth orbit rate is inconsistent with the universal causes acting throughout the universe to cause a long term decay in the earth’s orbit velocity.
Problem 3 – NASA scientists calculate that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate. The models NASA use, assume the earth rotates, and calculate the energy in those events and then calculate the deceleration of the earth’s rotation. There are about 1,450,000 earthquakes every year. About 25,000 have a magnitude of 4 to 9 on the Rictor scale. If these events slow the earth rotation rate every year, by 0.5 microseconds per major earthquake event, then over 10,000 years, and 250 million earthquake events, the earth rotation rate should have slowed by about 2 minutes. Going back 1 million years the earth rotation rate changes by 200 minutes. 10 million years: 2000 minutes, 100 million years:20,000 minutes. 200 million: 40,000 minutes, which means the Earth would have a rotation rate of 12 hours. Go back 4.5 billion years and the Earth would spin 10 times per second.
The problem is that very old sun clocks indicate the earth’s rotation rate has not changed by minutes over thousands of years. Hence the claim that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate is adverse to very old sun dials. If there is no practical evidence for the change in Earth’s rotation rate due to tsunamis and earthquakes then the Newtonian based models that assume the Earth rotates daily are invalidated. If invalidated then the Helio model is invalidated.
Problem 4 – Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.
Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year. The orbit velocity changes without any explanation given within Newtonian mechanics for how the Earth’s orbit velocity changes, other than to comply with Kepler’s laws derived from orbital observations. As there is no physical mechanism to cause the earth’s change in velocity during the Earth’s orbit around the sun, then here is no certitude that the Earth actually does accelerate and decelerate around the sun as assumed within the Heliocentric model. As an empirical based model is only as certain as its least certain component, and there is no mechanism and no certitude of the cause of the variable Earth velocity, then the Helio model is most uncertain. And what is most uncertain is not the preferred model. Hence the Helio model is not the preferred model.
Problem 6 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force acting within the Earth for the Newtonian model to account for the Earth’s orbit around the sun. The fictitious centrifugal force has no connection with the physical properties of the mechanical system. As there are no physical properties of the mechanical system within the Helio model, then there is no certitude that the Helio model is a correct measure of the local solar system motions. Hence the Helio model is really only a Newtonian base, physical force fiction, without any physical mechanism to prefer the Helio model over any other competing model.
Problem 7 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets. The preferred reference frame at the sun contradicts relativity theory that teaches there is no preferred reference frame. As Helio theory contradicts an accepted theory of motion, Helio theory is either invalid, or inconsistently applied with a principle of relativity theory.
Problem 8 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun is said to follow Kepler’s laws for elliptical orbits within the Helio model. The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, for the model is said to have removed the need for Ptolemy’s epicycles in the Geo model. Yet Kepler’s laws applied to the elliptical orbits require an epicycle relative to the orbiting planets circular, deferent orbit swept out when centred upon the orbit centre of the deferent (see pictures below). The alleged absurdity of epicycles in the Ptolemy’s model is replaced by an apparently equally absurd Kepler modelled based epicycle. The use of the epicycle within the Kepler model indicates the Kepler model is not geometrically superior to the Ptolemy model. For the apparent absurdity of the epicycle is used in both the ancient Geo and more modern Helio models.
Helio1.jpg
Helio 2.jpg
Problem 9 – The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.
Problem 10 – The Helio model of Copernicus was introduced over Ptolemy’s model because the planets orbital motions were observed to be non-circular. The non-circular orbits were replaced by elliptical orbits, yet within the Helio model, the Earth neither orbits in a circular, nor elliptical orbit. For the Earth is gravitationally linked to the Earth-moon barycentre, whereby the Earth cannot orbit the sun in an ellipse. Therefore the motive to change from the Geo model of Ptolemy to the Helio model of Copernicus does not translate into a clearer understanding of what sort of orbit the Earth is doing around the sun. As the Helio model does not provide any clear evidence for the Earth’s elliptical orbit as a better alternative to the Ptolemy model, the Helio model has no strong basis to be the preferred model.
Problem 11 – The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, yet the Helio model of Copernicus required 62 epicycles, and the Ptolemy model required 40 epicycles. The simplicity of the Ptolemy model more aligns with Ockham’s razor whereby the simplest model is the best model. Hence the Helio model of Copernicus is not the preferred model.
heli 3.jpg
Problem 12 – The Helio model of Copernicus requires epicycles to account for Keplers orbital laws. The epicycles are required to account for non-uniform motion of the planets around the sun. As the epicycles have no physical mechanism, and are adverse to Newtonian mechanics, the Copernican model is not a preferred model according to and physical mechanism, or the models compatibility with Newtonian mechanics. Any reference to the Helio model as a preferred model is only based upon a misunderstanding of the complexity and what is assumed within the model.
helio 4.jpg
Problem 13 – The Helio model assumes the moon has a breaking effect on the earth through the motions of the tides twice per day. Yet the 24 hour day is quite stable, indicating there must be another force that counters that of the moon. Fred Hoyle posits that the “sun acts on the earth’s atmosphere to put a twist on the earth tending to speed it up . . . the twist is comparable with the slowing down effect of the oceanic tides, just as Holmberg’s theory requires it to be.” (Frontiers of Astronomy, p 16-17). The union of slowing by the moon and accelerating by the sun, means the 24 day will remain constant. Such coincidence of the sun and moon on the rotating earth indicates how precise the Helio must posit the forces acting on the earth by foreign bodies to keep the 24 day. Such models only serve to highlight how extremely unstable the Helio model is by positing forces from disparate bodies acting in diverse manner just happen to accumulate to a constant 24 hour day.
Problem 14 – The Helio model is promoted by noting the sun as the largest local mass dominates the local solar system. In promoting the sun as the dominant mass as the cause of the stability of the planetary orbits, a large local mass is assumed to be the dominant cause of local motion. Yet observations reveal that large local masses do not necessarily dominate the motions of other local mass as evidenced in cluster galaxies. Such galaxies are arranged to have many local masses located relatively close to each other without a dominating local orbit of the local masses. Hence the claim that because the sun is large and relatively close to the earth indicates that the earth will be dominated by the sun, is not consistent with the manner by which cluster galaxies are observed to function. Hence there is no compelling reason to believe a local large mass must be the dominating cause of the earth’s orbital motion as assumed in the Helio model.
Problem 15 – The sun as the local mass that dominates the planetary orbits, does so to provide stability to the model. Yet stability is only relative to the local system, and largely unrelated to the mass of the universe. As stability is determined by the dominant forces provided by the sun, the Helio model is said to be preferable over the Geo model. Yet the Geo model states the stability within its model is provided for by the perpetual inertia of the rotating universe which remains unchanging. As the motion and mass of the universe provides far more stability than the local sun within the Helio model, the Geo model is the preferred model according to the stability provided within the model.
Problem 16 – The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). The GS which are purportedly designed to have an orbit based upon the Newtonian inverse square law and the daily rotation of the earth. In using this approach, the Helio model is actually shown to be eclectic and therefore either not realist, or poorly constructed. For the purported method used to design the GS orbits 1) includes the daily rotation, but excludes the annual orbit around the sun, and 2) includes the daily change in satellite direction, by the satellite rotating with the earth. But ignores the satellites change in direction via the annual rotation around the sun. By ignoring such motions, the Helio model is shown to have weak evidential support.
Problem 17 – The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). Yet to promote the Helio model over the Geo model infers the Geo model cannot account for the GS. But relativity says the GS motions can be accounted for through the principle of equivalence. So the Helio model is not preferred over the Geo model for any satellite motions. Hence the GS is not evidence for either Helio or Geo.
Problem 18 – Helio is promoted as a model derived from the inductive method. Yet the inductive method includes the possibility of more than one explanation of the data. Such as what we see with the various models of Machian physics and Newtonian and Relativity physics, which seek to explain the same data with diverse assumptions and models. As the inductive method include a legitimate diversity of models, the inductive method is inherently weak and can rarely if ever make absolute claims concerning knowledge of the physical world. Hence because Helio is derived from the inductive method, Helio’s can never make absolute claims of Helio having been proven, or even the preferred model over Geo. The inherent weakness in the inductive method implies the Helio’s only have data, assumptions, and models, which never prove the Helio model. As no proof can ever be made, the certitude of the Helio’s is merely a subjective and not an objective certitude. But what is subjective is unstable and weak. Hence the Helio model is a weak model.
Problem 19 – The Helio model is evidenced via the inductive method. The Geo model is evidenced via the deductive and inductive methods. The deductive method (i.e. God has revealed the earth is stationary, therefore the earth is stationary), always concludes to certitude regarding the nature of the universe. Yet because Helio does not use the deductive method to demonstrate the Helio model, the Helio model is always the weaker model. For a model that is not based upon the certitude of the deductive method is always weaker than another model that is based upon the deductive method. Therefore Helio is always a weaker model than Geo. Hence Geo is always the preferable model.
Problem 20 – The Helio model is based upon the assumed physical modelling using Newtonian mechanics (NM). Yet NM has its own inherent weaknesses such as gravity described through 1) mass attraction and 2) instantaneous action at a distance. Yet both 1 and 2 are problematic and are actually rejected by other models. Hence Helio is based upon a notion of physics that is both problematic and rejected by other models, which infers Helio is a weakly founded model.
Problem 21 - The Helio model assumes the motion of the sun and planets, and assumes the focus of motion around the sun makes the model stable. Yet the model has all bodies in motion, which implies the model is unstable. For when all bodies are in motion, at large velocities will inevitably degenerate at orbits decay. Such makes the Helio model unstable, contrary to the implied stability as observed in long term data from sun dials that show the motion of the earth is stable.
Problem 22 – The Jet Propulsion Lab uses both earth and sun reference frames for it satellites. The two frames show that either the Geo or the Helio models can equally be used to determine satellite orbits. As such, any claim that Helio is demonstrated over Geo through satellites is not a claim the proves one model over the other, but only demonstrates a personal preference of one over the other. As personal preference does not prove a model, satellites cannot be used as evidence for one model over the other. Hence Helio’s have no evidence from satellites to promote their model over Geo.
Problem 23 – The Helio model is associated with the assumption of perpetual, local and universal motion. Such an assumption infers the there is no local or any point of rest within the universe. The assumed motion of all things within the universe is not provable through observation, for not all bodies have been observed, and not all motions have been observed. Hence the assumption of perpetual motion is not provable, but open to invalidation. What is not provable, but possibly invalidated is a weak assumption. As Helio is based upon a weak assumption the model is weak.
Problem 24 – The Helio model is associated with the assumption of perpetual, local and universal motion. Such an assumption is a weakness within the model, that opens the model to invalidation through only one observation. Yet many observations have been made of apparently stationary objects in globular clusters. Hence the assumed perpetual motion within Helio is an assumption that is not well founded universally and may be false locally. Hence the Helio model is weak.
JM
Local evidence suggests other planets have variable rotation rates. For example, Venus’s rotation rate has changed by 6.5 minutes in the last ten years. Saturn also has a reduced rotation rate.
Problem 1 – The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth rotates on its axis in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s daily rotation rate. The consistent Earth rotation rate is inconsistent with the variable rotation rates of other solar system planets. The inconsistency between the slowing rotation rates and the consistent earth rotation rate lends support for the earth in a special place.
Problem 2 – The Helio model requires a yearly orbit around the sun of 365 ¼ days per year without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth moves around the sun in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s yearly orbit rate around the sun. The long term, consistent Earth orbit rate is inconsistent with the universal causes acting throughout the universe to cause a long term decay in the earth’s orbit velocity.
Problem 3 – NASA scientists calculate that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate. The models NASA use, assume the earth rotates, and calculate the energy in those events and then calculate the deceleration of the earth’s rotation. There are about 1,450,000 earthquakes every year. About 25,000 have a magnitude of 4 to 9 on the Rictor scale. If these events slow the earth rotation rate every year, by 0.5 microseconds per major earthquake event, then over 10,000 years, and 250 million earthquake events, the earth rotation rate should have slowed by about 2 minutes. Going back 1 million years the earth rotation rate changes by 200 minutes. 10 million years: 2000 minutes, 100 million years:20,000 minutes. 200 million: 40,000 minutes, which means the Earth would have a rotation rate of 12 hours. Go back 4.5 billion years and the Earth would spin 10 times per second.
The problem is that very old sun clocks indicate the earth’s rotation rate has not changed by minutes over thousands of years. Hence the claim that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate is adverse to very old sun dials. If there is no practical evidence for the change in Earth’s rotation rate due to tsunamis and earthquakes then the Newtonian based models that assume the Earth rotates daily are invalidated. If invalidated then the Helio model is invalidated.
Problem 4 – Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.
Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year. The orbit velocity changes without any explanation given within Newtonian mechanics for how the Earth’s orbit velocity changes, other than to comply with Kepler’s laws derived from orbital observations. As there is no physical mechanism to cause the earth’s change in velocity during the Earth’s orbit around the sun, then here is no certitude that the Earth actually does accelerate and decelerate around the sun as assumed within the Heliocentric model. As an empirical based model is only as certain as its least certain component, and there is no mechanism and no certitude of the cause of the variable Earth velocity, then the Helio model is most uncertain. And what is most uncertain is not the preferred model. Hence the Helio model is not the preferred model.
Problem 6 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force acting within the Earth for the Newtonian model to account for the Earth’s orbit around the sun. The fictitious centrifugal force has no connection with the physical properties of the mechanical system. As there are no physical properties of the mechanical system within the Helio model, then there is no certitude that the Helio model is a correct measure of the local solar system motions. Hence the Helio model is really only a Newtonian base, physical force fiction, without any physical mechanism to prefer the Helio model over any other competing model.
Problem 7 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets. The preferred reference frame at the sun contradicts relativity theory that teaches there is no preferred reference frame. As Helio theory contradicts an accepted theory of motion, Helio theory is either invalid, or inconsistently applied with a principle of relativity theory.
Problem 8 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun is said to follow Kepler’s laws for elliptical orbits within the Helio model. The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, for the model is said to have removed the need for Ptolemy’s epicycles in the Geo model. Yet Kepler’s laws applied to the elliptical orbits require an epicycle relative to the orbiting planets circular, deferent orbit swept out when centred upon the orbit centre of the deferent (see pictures below). The alleged absurdity of epicycles in the Ptolemy’s model is replaced by an apparently equally absurd Kepler modelled based epicycle. The use of the epicycle within the Kepler model indicates the Kepler model is not geometrically superior to the Ptolemy model. For the apparent absurdity of the epicycle is used in both the ancient Geo and more modern Helio models.
Helio1.jpg
Helio 2.jpg
Problem 9 – The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.
Problem 10 – The Helio model of Copernicus was introduced over Ptolemy’s model because the planets orbital motions were observed to be non-circular. The non-circular orbits were replaced by elliptical orbits, yet within the Helio model, the Earth neither orbits in a circular, nor elliptical orbit. For the Earth is gravitationally linked to the Earth-moon barycentre, whereby the Earth cannot orbit the sun in an ellipse. Therefore the motive to change from the Geo model of Ptolemy to the Helio model of Copernicus does not translate into a clearer understanding of what sort of orbit the Earth is doing around the sun. As the Helio model does not provide any clear evidence for the Earth’s elliptical orbit as a better alternative to the Ptolemy model, the Helio model has no strong basis to be the preferred model.
Problem 11 – The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, yet the Helio model of Copernicus required 62 epicycles, and the Ptolemy model required 40 epicycles. The simplicity of the Ptolemy model more aligns with Ockham’s razor whereby the simplest model is the best model. Hence the Helio model of Copernicus is not the preferred model.
heli 3.jpg
Problem 12 – The Helio model of Copernicus requires epicycles to account for Keplers orbital laws. The epicycles are required to account for non-uniform motion of the planets around the sun. As the epicycles have no physical mechanism, and are adverse to Newtonian mechanics, the Copernican model is not a preferred model according to and physical mechanism, or the models compatibility with Newtonian mechanics. Any reference to the Helio model as a preferred model is only based upon a misunderstanding of the complexity and what is assumed within the model.
helio 4.jpg
Problem 13 – The Helio model assumes the moon has a breaking effect on the earth through the motions of the tides twice per day. Yet the 24 hour day is quite stable, indicating there must be another force that counters that of the moon. Fred Hoyle posits that the “sun acts on the earth’s atmosphere to put a twist on the earth tending to speed it up . . . the twist is comparable with the slowing down effect of the oceanic tides, just as Holmberg’s theory requires it to be.” (Frontiers of Astronomy, p 16-17). The union of slowing by the moon and accelerating by the sun, means the 24 day will remain constant. Such coincidence of the sun and moon on the rotating earth indicates how precise the Helio must posit the forces acting on the earth by foreign bodies to keep the 24 day. Such models only serve to highlight how extremely unstable the Helio model is by positing forces from disparate bodies acting in diverse manner just happen to accumulate to a constant 24 hour day.
Problem 14 – The Helio model is promoted by noting the sun as the largest local mass dominates the local solar system. In promoting the sun as the dominant mass as the cause of the stability of the planetary orbits, a large local mass is assumed to be the dominant cause of local motion. Yet observations reveal that large local masses do not necessarily dominate the motions of other local mass as evidenced in cluster galaxies. Such galaxies are arranged to have many local masses located relatively close to each other without a dominating local orbit of the local masses. Hence the claim that because the sun is large and relatively close to the earth indicates that the earth will be dominated by the sun, is not consistent with the manner by which cluster galaxies are observed to function. Hence there is no compelling reason to believe a local large mass must be the dominating cause of the earth’s orbital motion as assumed in the Helio model.
Problem 15 – The sun as the local mass that dominates the planetary orbits, does so to provide stability to the model. Yet stability is only relative to the local system, and largely unrelated to the mass of the universe. As stability is determined by the dominant forces provided by the sun, the Helio model is said to be preferable over the Geo model. Yet the Geo model states the stability within its model is provided for by the perpetual inertia of the rotating universe which remains unchanging. As the motion and mass of the universe provides far more stability than the local sun within the Helio model, the Geo model is the preferred model according to the stability provided within the model.
Problem 16 – The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). The GS which are purportedly designed to have an orbit based upon the Newtonian inverse square law and the daily rotation of the earth. In using this approach, the Helio model is actually shown to be eclectic and therefore either not realist, or poorly constructed. For the purported method used to design the GS orbits 1) includes the daily rotation, but excludes the annual orbit around the sun, and 2) includes the daily change in satellite direction, by the satellite rotating with the earth. But ignores the satellites change in direction via the annual rotation around the sun. By ignoring such motions, the Helio model is shown to have weak evidential support.
Problem 17 – The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). Yet to promote the Helio model over the Geo model infers the Geo model cannot account for the GS. But relativity says the GS motions can be accounted for through the principle of equivalence. So the Helio model is not preferred over the Geo model for any satellite motions. Hence the GS is not evidence for either Helio or Geo.
Problem 18 – Helio is promoted as a model derived from the inductive method. Yet the inductive method includes the possibility of more than one explanation of the data. Such as what we see with the various models of Machian physics and Newtonian and Relativity physics, which seek to explain the same data with diverse assumptions and models. As the inductive method include a legitimate diversity of models, the inductive method is inherently weak and can rarely if ever make absolute claims concerning knowledge of the physical world. Hence because Helio is derived from the inductive method, Helio’s can never make absolute claims of Helio having been proven, or even the preferred model over Geo. The inherent weakness in the inductive method implies the Helio’s only have data, assumptions, and models, which never prove the Helio model. As no proof can ever be made, the certitude of the Helio’s is merely a subjective and not an objective certitude. But what is subjective is unstable and weak. Hence the Helio model is a weak model.
Problem 19 – The Helio model is evidenced via the inductive method. The Geo model is evidenced via the deductive and inductive methods. The deductive method (i.e. God has revealed the earth is stationary, therefore the earth is stationary), always concludes to certitude regarding the nature of the universe. Yet because Helio does not use the deductive method to demonstrate the Helio model, the Helio model is always the weaker model. For a model that is not based upon the certitude of the deductive method is always weaker than another model that is based upon the deductive method. Therefore Helio is always a weaker model than Geo. Hence Geo is always the preferable model.
Problem 20 – The Helio model is based upon the assumed physical modelling using Newtonian mechanics (NM). Yet NM has its own inherent weaknesses such as gravity described through 1) mass attraction and 2) instantaneous action at a distance. Yet both 1 and 2 are problematic and are actually rejected by other models. Hence Helio is based upon a notion of physics that is both problematic and rejected by other models, which infers Helio is a weakly founded model.
Problem 21 - The Helio model assumes the motion of the sun and planets, and assumes the focus of motion around the sun makes the model stable. Yet the model has all bodies in motion, which implies the model is unstable. For when all bodies are in motion, at large velocities will inevitably degenerate at orbits decay. Such makes the Helio model unstable, contrary to the implied stability as observed in long term data from sun dials that show the motion of the earth is stable.
Problem 22 – The Jet Propulsion Lab uses both earth and sun reference frames for it satellites. The two frames show that either the Geo or the Helio models can equally be used to determine satellite orbits. As such, any claim that Helio is demonstrated over Geo through satellites is not a claim the proves one model over the other, but only demonstrates a personal preference of one over the other. As personal preference does not prove a model, satellites cannot be used as evidence for one model over the other. Hence Helio’s have no evidence from satellites to promote their model over Geo.
Problem 23 – The Helio model is associated with the assumption of perpetual, local and universal motion. Such an assumption infers the there is no local or any point of rest within the universe. The assumed motion of all things within the universe is not provable through observation, for not all bodies have been observed, and not all motions have been observed. Hence the assumption of perpetual motion is not provable, but open to invalidation. What is not provable, but possibly invalidated is a weak assumption. As Helio is based upon a weak assumption the model is weak.
Problem 24 – The Helio model is associated with the assumption of perpetual, local and universal motion. Such an assumption is a weakness within the model, that opens the model to invalidation through only one observation. Yet many observations have been made of apparently stationary objects in globular clusters. Hence the assumed perpetual motion within Helio is an assumption that is not well founded universally and may be false locally. Hence the Helio model is weak.
JM
Comment