Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Yttrium]

The Helio model as shown in the video and the picture show the night facing away from Venus....

Most of the night. Not the short period after sunset.

[oxmixmudd]

The standard Helio explanation for the phases of the moon is given in the video below.

Lunar Cycle, Why The Moon Change Shapes, 8 Phases Of The Moon, Learning Videos For Children

As the moon orbits the earth, the variable sun light on the moons face is reflected towards or away from earth. The waning crescent phase (T3:36) should be seen during the day.

Another moon watcher has pictures of the crescent moon during the day and night in the video entitled - crescent moon during day and night

The waning crescent at night seems to contradict the standard explanation of the Helio model with the waning crescent at day. The moon watcher asks the question -



Maybe it does. The Helio model has some explaining to do.

JM

These last few 'problems' are so trivially simple to understand and explain they can only serve to show how ungainly stupid you are, or how disengenuos. Either way, you lose.

Jim

[Roy]

Venus should only be seen at day, for the earth faces the sun and the interior planet of Venus during the day.

...the Helio model would have to explain how we can see Venus at any time during the night

'Venus' added to cluelessness list.

[Roy]

1) Mercury is an interior orbiting planet which should not be seen from earth during the night, and cannot be seen during the day.

2) Mercury is too small (3,000 miles) and too far away (>=77 million miles) to be seen from earth according to the laws of perspective.

3) If Mercury is seen during the night it should only be a crescent Mercury and not a full Mercury as is portrayed on some websites.

'Mercury' added to cluelessness list.

[HMS_Beagle]

I'm not a flat Earther. I'm only using arguments on the web against Helio from whatever sources can be found. I'm a geocentrist.

JM

Why not? You've been posting flat Earth YouTube videos from the same source as your geocentrism woo. How can they be so right in one area and so wrong in another? Unless they're so wrong in both.

[JohnMartin]

'Mercury' added to cluelessness list.

Please explain.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Why not? You've been posting flat Earth YouTube videos from the same source as your geocentrism woo. How can they be so right in one area and so wrong in another? Unless they're so wrong in both.

Flat earth model doesn't seem to account for star motion and the satellite pictures show the earth is a sphere. Maybe the FE's have answers to these problems, but as yet they are unknown to me, and I do not find the known one's convincing.

JM

[JohnMartin]

The responses to recent problems have substantially come to an end.

Problem 72

stationary Flat Earth

Small boy with a water hose (T3:30 and following) gives an example of the effect of motion on the water hose, but such motion is to be ignored by the moving earth theory when the earth is thought to be travelling 67,000 miles per hour around the sun. The moving water hose experiment must be ignored by the helio model.



Problem 72

This problem has been discussed before, but its worth revisiting to see the visuals in the video.

Flat Earth and fake ball earth magic

The Helicopter problem (T3:18) indicates that the Helio claim of regular moon phases is not in accord with the spiral motion of the helicopter (moon around the earth). The moon phase problem from (T12:50) indicates a problem with the regular phases of the moon due to the 180^o rotation of the moons face in space over 6 months.

JM

[Roy]

'Mercury' added to cluelessness list.

Please explain.

Certainly.

Your highlighted claims about the planets Mercury and Venus are not only wrong, they are so trivially and obviously wrong that they would not be made by anyone with even the slightest interest and knowledge of the subject, and demonstrate that you are incapable of sensible discussion of these topics. Hence I have added 'Mercury' and 'Venus' to the growing list of topics on which you are completely clueless, and on which your opinion is irrelevant.

[Sea of red]

I'm perplexed why so many of you continue to waste your time talking to this imbecile. It's been demonstrated time and again that he can't grasp the simplest of concepts in physics, and will not give in that he's in any error at all. You all know this and yet you respond to these ramblings of insanity. Sure, it was funny at first, and maybe the exercise of debating him had it's interesting bits, but now it's so long in the tooth and he's getting so insane, you're doing more harm than good at this point. As long as you keep responding to his posts and treating them as if they deserve any response other than 'go back to school', he will continue to come back for more. Frankly, you deserve any frustration that comes out of having a conversation with him at this point, because you ought to know better than to engage with him in the first place.

Everyone knows he's crazy - point made.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm perplexed why so many of you continue to waste your time talking to this imbecile. It's been demonstrated time and again that he can't grasp the simplest of concepts in physics, and will not give in that he's in any error at all. You all know this and yet you respond to these ramblings of insanity. Sure, it was funny at first, and maybe the exercise of debating him had it's interesting bits, but now it's so long in the tooth and he's getting so insane, you're doing more harm than good at this point. As long as you keep responding to his posts and treating them as if they deserve any response other than 'go back to school', he will continue to come back for more. Frankly, you deserve any frustration that comes out of having a conversation with him at this point, because you ought to know better than to engage with him in the first place.

Everyone knows he's crazy - point made.

It is interesting isn't it. Perhaps it has something to do with the 'rubber neck' syndrome where drivers simply must look at the accident across the median, or the same thing that draws us to the circus sideshow - we know it's all fake, but we still want to go see it. I ask myself this question too. Why am I drawn to this particular sideshow, what is it about my nature that causes me to engage.

On the one hand, there still remains, despite all the years beating my head against this wall, this very slight glimmer of hope that one day John will wake up, see that he's been an idiot for lo these many years and get set loose from his little cage. It is very hard for me to truly give up on anyone.

On the other hand, at various times, his random walk through physics stumbles upon something interesting (like Venus slowing down, or the relativistic implications of being able to measure in an absolute sense rotation with a ring laser, or the discussion we once had on the use of the VLBA to tease out monthly changes in the Earth's rotation monitoring the precise transit times of distant quasars). By being against nearly everything in physics and astronomy, sometimes the 'problems' he raises are or lead to things that are interesting to know a bit more about in depth.

And so it continues.


But don't get upset about it. Nobody here takes this very seriously.


BTW - I did enjoy your thread on favorite astronomical pictures/objects.


Jim

[Sparko]

Moderated By: Sparko

John Martin was warned to not keep posting points. That he had to wait till the discussion of his current points was concluded before posting more. If there was no discussion on his points, the thread died. He disobeyed that. He posted a couple of points, then waited less than a day, declared that there was no discussion and posted two more. This was directly against the rules we gave him to follow. So I apologize but the thread is closed again since John cannot obey the rules.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.