Problems with Heliocentrism, Part 2

[Leonhard]

Again its not clear whether you're arguing against Heliocentrism or modern cosmology so I'll assume the latter.

It was not Copernicus who introduced elliptical orbits that was Johannes Kepler.

In Ptolomy's model even with epicycle fixes the orbits were always consistenly off by a few percent. Hence the need for elliptical orbits.

The point you make about the Earth-Moon barycenter is irrelevant. Are you arguing against Copernicanism or modern Cosmology? In modern Cosmology there is non demand that the Earth must move elliptically around the sun undisturbed by the moon.

You're pointing out false anomalies.

[Leonhard]

80 for Ptolomy and 34 for Copernicus is what appears in Robert Palter, An Approach to the History of Early Astronomy.

However I haven't seen any proof that either side ever used that many epicycles.

[Leonhard]

So does Ptolomy's and Tycho Brahe's models.

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.

You do realise that modern cosmology is not Heliocentric right?

[Leonhard]

Again you seem to be mixing the model of Copernicus together with modern cosmology. Which one are you addressing.

The model of Copernicus doesn't even address tides.

And in modern cosmology they are not "assumed" they are derived from the gravitational effect of the moon on the ocean for the lunar tides, and the sun on the sun on the ocean for the solar tides.

Yet the 24 hour day is quite stable, indicating there must be another force that counters that of the moon.

Not quite. As mentioned above the days grow longer now and then according to tidal effects and tectonic motions.

[Leonhard]

But in such a cluster the galaxies are similar in size, and are at any rate not moving in orbits relative to eachother. Quite a few are on collision course, just as the Milkyway will collide with our nearest neighbour Andromeda in several billion years.

[Leonhard]

I skipped Problem 15 because it was bordering on being incoherent.

In what way are geostationary satellites propaganda.

This is where geocentrists put on their tinfoil hats.

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.

I have to honest I have idea what you're talking about.

Geostationary satellites orbit the Earth at a height where the orbital period matches the sidereal day, meaning relative to an observer on the ground the satellite stays motionless overhead.

No need to introduce the Sun into that mix, unless you're talking about the effect of the sun on the precession of the satelittes orbit?

[Leonhard]

Geostationary satellites are not propaganda. They are actually ip there whether you like them or not.

However it is true that geostationary satelittes are a problem to modified tychonian magical angelic aether flow models that you and hansgeorg keep proposing.

As are retrograde orbiting satellites. Moving the opposite direction of the other satellites supposedly caried along on the aether flow.

[Leonhard]

There is no such thing as Machian physics. You're referring to Mach's principle, which what General Relativity vindicated.

Newtonian mechanics and Relativity are not two possible explanations of the data.

You have trouble understanding this, but Relativistic mechanics has superceded Newtonianism.

Relativism is correct, Newtonianism is approximative.

We refer to Newtons rules because they are simple and give mostly the right answer. For the solar system aside from extremely precise telemetry data of satellites, the only planets where relativity is needed for a full account within the precision of our instruments is Mercury's and Venus anomalous precession.

[Leonhard]

As we've discussed in another thread, The Roman Catholic Church permirs the teaching of cosmologies contrary to geocentrism.

It binds no one to a reading of geocentrism.

Furthermore according to Verbum Domini of the Second Vatican Council, the Church csn only infallible interpret in regards to matters of faith and morals.

As cosmology relates exclusively to the domain of natursl philosophy, the Church makes no claim on it.

The few scriptural places you can find can be given either poetic or phenomenological interpretations without difficulty or danger to the faith.

[Leonhard]

[Leonhard]

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.

For once you are partially correct.

Multi-body orbits because of their mutual non-linear interactions are unstable.

However even so the instability is minute, and it takes billions of years for significant drift to occur.

Hence while they are no absolutely stabile in their orbits, they may be called metastabile.

[Leonhard]

This does not vindicate geocentrism. As here in modern cosmology, the orbits are calculated according to Newtonian mechanics (with a few Relativistic pertubational corrections). Then a coordinate transformation is applied to get handier coordinate systems.

Geocentrist on the other hand can't calculate any orbits period. You yourself are calling satellites propaganda.

If I asked you to work out a free return translunar orbit according to geocentrism you couldn't do it.

You'd have to look up the result according to orbital mechanics in modern cosmology, and then post-hoc claim that the same would happen in your model.

[Leonhard]

And here you switch back to criticising Copernicus.

At any rate what you state is not an assumption of modern Cosmology.

[Leonhard]

See above.

[Leonhard]

I predict that John Martin will only address a few of my responses and post another batch of responses, probably twenty or fourty of them.