Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Leonhard]

There is no reason why a planet should change velocity because there is never any force applied to the planet.

That's what gravity is. Gravity is a force acting on the planets.

[JohnMartin]

Only in math do you have proofs. Outside of math, you have demonstrations of various degrees of strength.



There is no problem of this. A proof would mean a demonstration of complete truth, and certainty. Something less than that can still be more than strong enough to believe in. If proof was required in order to know something, no man could ever be condemned by a court, and we humans could lay claim to no knowledge at all.

If proof is not presented then all you have is data, assumptions, and maths models to describe what you think occurs. You can never be sure that you Heio model is objective reality. Hence the preference is merely an opinion, no matter how strongly you hold to it.

JM

[hansgeorg]

How is the Geo model supernaturalist based?(1) It is merely the Ptolemaic model modified by the Christian theory of origins (i.e., creatio ex nihilo in place of eternal matter). The helio model, your well-poisoning notwithstanding, is no less valid given the assumption of creation; Kepler and Newton were certainly not anti-supernaturalists.

One would think that on a purely objective level, the success of Voyager 1 and 2 would be proof positive of the Newtonian mechanics used to determine their flight paths.(2)

(1) Ptolemy left discussion of causation to the side. But if you take even his model, let alone Tycho Brahe's modified by Riccioli, you will have a hard time to explain that by purely naturalistic and materialistic mechanics. St Thomas took the daily motion as propagating down to earth through solids (which can be modified by taking aether as providing some characteristics of a solid, namely bringing things with it) and attributed it to direct act of will of God, which was his and St John Damascene's main proof for God's existence (prima via, esp. as per Summa Contra Gentes, early chapters of De Fide Orthodoxa); Riccioli takes the void theory and attributes the westward movement to angels going with stars and planets at a great coordination, which means they are governed by a wise ruler.

Lucretius thought geocentrism was explanable by diverse bodies having diverse densities, which certain Tychonian orbits contradict as explanation, unless you would say that a planet approaching earth is gaining density and one receding from earth is losing it. Even such a mechanistic explanation of geocentrism would quite certainly give as much irreducible complexity as a clockwork.

The difference between Lucretius' Geocentrism and Tycho's is like Oparin's cells and the cells as known today.

(2) One could think so, but most of the flight has been through void or aether.

One could think that they have shown the zig zag relative to an Earth going in and out of origo of their trajectories, but the phenomenon so interpreted could also be a straight line from Earth, with the slowing down and speeding up determined by gravitational lensing from sun as to the radio signals.

I have checked, and as far as I could check, no visual proof of the parallactic zig zag has been shown.

[Leonhard]

The force vector decelerating or accelerating the planet is unknown to be realist, for the singular centripetal force from the planet to the sun is unknown to be realist. Hence the accelerations and decelerations ascribed to the centripetal force may well be entirely fictional.

They're not. There's a single vector pointing towards the sun. It's just not perpendicular to the velocity of the planet. This results both in the centripetal force you're speaking of, and an accelerating/decelerating force.

Your comments about galaxies are irrelevant. The binary stars show only one aspect of what occurs when large objects are close to each other. Again, you have missed the point I made.

Half the time I'm not sure you even know what point you're trying to make.

This is a good example of academic blindness. NM and R theory are so different, any association they have with each other is only through quantity. The contrary theories show how weak modern theory really is. Any preference for the Heio over the Geo model must ignore this reality.

While its true that there are aspects of the theories that are incommensurable, their results can still be compared to eachother. This is not controversial.

While a frame can be chosen where in the Earth's center of mass is static at a certain point in time, I'm not sure a frame can be chosen where in Earth's center of mass remains static, even through all collisions etc... if such a frame can be chosen, then it would violate all notions of parsimony, and for that reason again the idea that the Earth moves would be epistemologically preferred.

Then GR theory is destroyed, for GR says there is no preferred reference frame and any frame can be considered as stationary.

No, it says that all these frames of reference act the same way. However you're making more of a statement than that. You're saying "One of these frames is actually the real one", which in and of itself is not a philosophical position people need hold. Secondly you're saying we should prefer one over the others. Thirdly you're saying that there's a frame of refernce wherein the center-of-mass of the Earth is static, even during collisions.

What I'm saying is that either such a frame of reference is impossible, or if you could show how the Earth's center of mass could remain static during a collision with a meteor, this is going to be a hyper-finetuned and highly selective frame of reference, lacking any notion of epistemological simplicity. To be rejected by Occham's Razor, unless good reasons for doing otherwise is supplied.

As you have no good reason, a moving Earth will always be preferred.

[hansgeorg]

Citing an irony:

[handwave]

There are no problems with geocentrism.

No unsolvable ones, I think.

[Leonhard]

If proof is not presented then all you have is data, assumptions, and maths models to describe what you think occurs. You can never be sure that you Heio model is objective reality. Hence the preference is merely an opinion, no matter how strongly you hold to it.

Yes, this is true of all empirical knowledge and natural philosophy based on them. All such are held in so far as they are confirmed by what we find. Ideally they're replaced by better theories when new data comes in that shows true conflict.

Nothing but the simplest of observations. "I am thinking." "Things are changing." etc... and the few conclusions that may be drawn from that are certain.

I have typed this strongly. It is simple not a problem, even though you think it is. It in no way implies that all ideas are equally good.

[Leonhard]

Anyway I have company over again. God bless you all.

[JohnMartin]

The assumption of a cumulative effect of the force of gravity within Newtonian mechanics is never proven, but is invalidated through the observation of spiral galaxies.

Newtonian mechanics was considered to be adequately demonstrated, until something even better emerged, namely General Relativity. Newtonian Mechanics still works as a good approximation in many cases.

You'd need to explain how spiral galaxies invalidate Newtonian Mechanics.

Newtonian mechanics says mass is caused by bodies such as planets. The spiral galaxies rotate at velocities which are not in accord with NM, hence MOND was invented to account for the extra mass required to account for the spiral velocities.

Your claim that GR is used to explain Helio is correct, but irrelevant to the argument at hand. If NM is used to explain Helio, then Helio is false, because NM is false.

That's one of the worst arguments I have ever made. Newtonian mechanics account for 99.9999% of orbital mechanics, with a few minute anomalies, which disappear once orbits are calculated according to General Relativity. The use of Newtonian Mechanics for ease of use, and pedagogy doesn't invalidate whatever it is you're referring to by 'Helio'.

And again modern cosmology, is not Heliocentric. Calling it 'Helio model', or 'Helio' is absurd.

You have ignored my arguments made against NM so it seems.

Ask a relativist if he thinks the sun orbits the earth and he will virtually always say no.

I actually have had cordial discussions with people who studied General Relativity, and the various philosophical interpretations that could be given to reference frames. You should get out more. Get some real friends. Stop hanging out in your basement. Get a job.

SR and GR say whatever calculation are done for Helio can be done for Geo.

You still haven't shown that there's a frame of reference where in the Earth's center of mass remains static for all eternity. I'm not sure that's actually possible. Or if it is, then its clear that it violates all notions of parsimony, and for that reason a model with a moving Earth would always be a natural preference in light of General Relativity. Even if we interpret frames of reference as actual frames.

If you reject a stationary reference frame then you have rejected GR.


JM

[hansgeorg]

Mass determines planet distance according to the gravity force equation. F= GmM/r²

JM

Sorry, but according to this, Mass and mass (larger and smaller, usually) determine the correlation between force and distance. This is different from simply determining the distance.

Instead, you get a series of values:

if this distance - this force
if that distance - that force
if other distance - other force

[JohnMartin]

If proof is not presented then all you have is data, assumptions, and maths models to describe what you think occurs. You can never be sure that you Heio model is objective reality. Hence the preference is merely an opinion, no matter how strongly you hold to it.

Yes, this is true of all empirical knowledge and natural philosophy based on them. All such are held in so far as they are confirmed by what we find. Ideally they're replaced by better theories when new data comes in that shows true conflict.

Nothing but the simplest of observations. "I am thinking." "Things are changing." etc... and the few conclusions that may be drawn from that are certain.

I have typed this strongly. It is simple not a problem, even though you think it is. It in no way implies that all ideas are equally good.

Good. We agree your preference for Helio is only a strongly held opinion.

JM

[hansgeorg]

Yet his cognitive dissonance prevents him from comprehending many principles of physics, including some of the simplest.

I don't think it is necessarily that no.

I wonder how old he is.

[hansgeorg]

1) gravity force, F= GmM/r², which is described in terms of m as

1b) m= Fr²/(GM)

Let m= f(r,F,G,M)

Then logically - If m then r and F and G and M

Then in accord with the logical law of conjunctions -

If m then r
If m then F
If m then G
If m then M

The error is here: "Then logically - If m then r and F and G and M"

No, rather "if m, then r, F, G and M have the same relation".

Which means that any given term will not lead to a given value of each other term, but to a table of correlated values.

[hansgeorg]

Somehow he hasn't gotten the idea into his head that if Geocentrism is false, then his faith in the Catholic Church is in vain.

Are you aware of what you were just saying?

I didn't change the quote, read again!

[Roy]

I only propose problems to see what's out there. If nobody answers the problems, then I make no claim about the veracity of the problem.

Calling them 'problems' is making a claim about their veracity.

[Leonhard]

Pretty sure I can.

No, you can't. You're a crank.

This is the Law of Conjunction.

"A and B" is true only if A is true and B is true.



Does not mean

"If m is true, then r is true and F is true."

Or even less (as this is not at all what the Law of Conjunctions says)

"If m has a certain value, then r has a certain value and F has a certain value. Ergo r has a certain value."

Which is what you're claiming. It is a ridiculously bad application of logic. No wonder you're wrong all the time about everything.