Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

I was thinking about the heliocentric model and propose the following problems as a objections to the heliocentric model.

Problem 1 - The distance between the sun and earth over a year varies from about 91 million miles to 94 million miles, requiring a variation in sun-earth distance of about 3 million miles over one year. This means that during the earths orbit around the sun, the earth must be either moving towards or away from the sun during any part of the earth's orbit around the sun. When the earth is moving towards the sun, what is the force causing the moon to be dragged/pulled towards the sun along with the earth? Gravity caused by the sun-earth system would be the answer from the heliocentrists, no doubt. So when the earth is moving away from the sun, what is the force that causes the moon to also move away from the sun, along with the earths motion? Gravity? If so, then gravity caused by the earth-sun system is responsible for both pulling the moon towards the sun when the earth moves towards the sun and pushing the moon away from the sun when the earth moves away from the sun.

According to the heliocentric model, gravity is required to both pull the moon towards the sun and push the moon away from the sun depending upon the motion of the earth relative to the sun!!!!

Not only this, but apparently gravity must cause the push and pull on the moon, just coinciding with the motion of the earth towards and away from the sun, thereby preventing the moon from either shooting off into space when the earth moves away from the sun, or crashing into the earth when the earth moves away from the sun. Apparently gravity is not only both a pushing and pulling force, but also a force that switches from a sun-earth system pull on the moon to a sun-earth system push and back to a pull, just when the earth moves back and forth in relation to the sun.

Problem 2 - Similar problems also exist with satellites located at various distances above the earths surface. When the earth moves towards the sun, the satellites locates between the earth and sun must be pushed towards the sun at the same rate the earth moves towards the sun, otherwise the satellites will crash into the earth. Similarly, the satellites located on the far side of the earth, away from the sun, must be dragged along with the earth, towards the sun, otherwise the satellites will fly off into space. As these satellites move around earth, they must be both 1. pulled towards the sun, when on the far side of the earth, away from the sun, then, 2. when the satellites are between the sun and earth, be pushed away from the earth, towards the sun as the earth moves towards the sun. For the satellite system to function a force must exist to both pull satellites towards the sun on one side of the earth, then push the satellites towards the sun on the opposite side of the earth as the satellites move around the earth. Similarly, when the earth is moving away from the sun, the opposite actions must occur to pull the satellite away from the sun when the satellite is closest to the sun and push the satellite away from the earth, when the satellite is on the opposite side of the earth, away from the sun.

Apparently when an elliptical earth orbit is used in the heliocentric model, there are multiple (gravity??) forces appearing and then disappearing on satellites on opposite sides of the earth as the earth moves towards and then away from the sun. These forces not only appear and disappear, but act in different directions according to the location of the satellites and the motion of the earth, relative to the sun. All of these forces show the heliocentric system is a complete fabrication. These three problems seems to be devastating to the heliocentric model. What are the answers proposed by the helios?

Problem 3 - Another problem for the heliocentric model associated with the above two problems is as follows. The tilt of the earth is required to account for the seasons during the year. When the northern hemisphere is closest to the sun, then the north is in summer and the south in winter. This small change in distance apparently causes the temperature differences between the seasons. Yet when it is summer in the northern hemisphere the earth is closest to the sun by about 3 million miles. Also, when is it summer in the southern hemisphere in July, the earth is farthest from the sun. Apparently the tilt of the earth which only causes the poles to be 6371 x tan (23.5) = 2770 km closer or further from the sun, causes the summer and winter respectively. So to account for the seasons, the small distance of less than 1720 miles is taken into account, but the distance difference over the year between the earth and sun caused by the earths elliptical orbit around the sun of about 3 million miles must be ignored to account for the seasons.

Therefore, for the heliocentric model to have any explanatory value, the heliocentrists must give a compelling argument from physics regarding how the sun can so influence the seasons on earth whilst both ignoring the large difference in sun-earth distance (99.997%) due to the earth’s elliptical orbit and then include the suns influence on the earth according to the distance variation between the sun and earth’s surface (0.003%), due to the earths tilt. Quite a problem to answer. This problem also seems to be devastating to the heliocentric model.

Problem 4 - Another problem for the heliocentric model regarding the foucault pendulum (FP) - Apparently the FP moves during the day and the heliocentrists say the pendulum motion occurs because of the daily motion of the earth rotating on its axis. The claim infers the earth rotates around the earths center of mass as the local barycentre of the earths daily rotation. Yet the heliocentric model using Newtonian mechanics also says the earth orbits the solar system barycentre every year and the earth-moon barycentre every month. If the FP accounts for the earths daily rotation, how then does the FP account for the earths yearly and monthly orbits around the solar system and earth-moon barycentres respectively?

Also, the solar system is said to be located within the Milky Way, which means the solar system is also orbiting around the galaxy barycentre. So similarly, how does the FP account for the MilkyWay motion? I don't think the Helios can come close to answering these questions with anything compelling.

Problem 5 - Sound travels at 761 miles per hour, whilst the earth rotates from west to east at the equator at about 1000 miles per hour. For the sound to reach the hearer standing east of the sound, the air must rotate around with the earth at 1000 miles per hour, allowing the sound to travel within the apparently stationary atmosphere (relative to the earth's surface). A similar problem exists at the poles, where the hearer standing east of the sound source will hear the sound within the apparently stationary atmosphere, which is rotating with the earth at almost zero velocity. For sound to work physically within the rotating earth model, the atmosphere must be rotating with the earth, having a velocity variability of between 0 and 1000 miles per hour from the poles to the equator. As the atmosphere has 1. velocity changes over distance from the poles towards the equator, and 2. velocity changes with height above sea level and, 3. accelerations due to the earths orbit around the earth's axis and the sun, what are the causes of the forces that cause the change in atmosphere velocities to have the atmosphere move along with the motion of the earth? Apparently wherever there is a change in velocity, there is an acceleration, which infers a force causing the atmosphere's mass to accelerate along with the earth's motion.

Cheers

JM

[Duragizer]

Well, well, well -- if it isn't JohnMartin, the resident geocentrist himself! It's been ages since anyone's seen your particular brand of nonsense around here! Glad to finally see you back!

[Wally]

If it weren't for the fact that the earth is flat, I'd be convinced by that presentation.

[Leonhard]

By the way JohnMartin the milkyway exists.

[JohnMartin]

Thanks for the greeting.

Problem 1 has been diagrammed as shown below.

Scenario 1 – Earth moves towards the sun. Moon 1 is the location of the moon between the earth and sun. Moon 2 is the location of the moon on the far side of the earth. Moon 1 and moon 2 are diagrammed to show the relative positions and associated forces when the moon (there is only one moon) is on either side of the earth.

Notice there are forces required to push the moon 1 towards the sun and the pull moon 2 towards the earth-sun.

The arrows indicate the direction of the forces required in each example. No arrow indicates there is no force required as there is no movement of the earth-moon perpendicular to the earth’s orbital path around the sun.

Sun <--- moon 1 <--- earth <---moon 2

Scenario 2 – Earth moves around the sun with zero movement towards the sun at the solstice (perihelion). Notice there are no forces required to move the moon relative to the sun.

Sun --- moon 1 --- earth --- moon 2

Scenario 3 – Earth moves away from the sun

Sun ---> moon 1 ---> earth ---> moon 2

Scenario 4 – Earth moves around the sun with zero movement away from the sun at the solstice (aphelion).

Sun --- moon 1 --- earth --- moon 2



Problem 2 has been diagrammed as shown below. Problem 2 is very similar to problem 1 shown above, except the moon is replaced with the satellites.

Scenario 1 – Earth moves towards the sun, so too the satellites on either side of the earth must also move towards the sun. The arrows indicate the direction of the forces required in each example. No arrow indicates there is no force required as there is no movement of the earth-moon perpendicular to the earth’s orbital path around the sun.


Sun <--- Satellite 1 <--- earth <---Satellite 2

Scenario 2 – Earth moves around the sun with zero movement towards the sun at the solstice (perihelion).

Sun --- satellite 1 --- earth --- Satellite 2

Scenario 3 – Earth moves away from the sun

Sun ---> satellite 1 ---> earth ---> Satellite 2

Scenario 4 – Earth moves around the sun with zero movement away from the sun at the solstice (aphelion).

Sun --- satellite 1 --- earth --- Satellite 2

What are the forces required during the earths obit around the sun to prevent the moon and satellites remaining in orbit around the earth?


Problem 6 – According to the standard global earth, heliocentric model, the earth has a radius of 3690 miles and a sun earth distance of about 93 million miles. According to the experiment and calculations performed by Eratosthenes 663 miles between Syene and Alexandria with the shadow caste at is 7 degrees.

http://www.windows2universe.org/citi...arth_size.html

Using trigonometry, the earth-sun distance is 663 x tan 83 = 5400 miles. Which means that the standard heliocentric narrative includes an ancient story concerning the geometric derivation of the curvature of the earth, which implies a sun-earth distance that is 5400 miles and not the now, modern distance of 93 million miles.

Problem 7 – A Lagrange point is a location in space where the combined gravitational forces of two large bodies, such as Earth and the sun or Earth and the moon, equal the centrifugal force felt by a much smaller third body.

Sun ---- earth ---- L2

If the earth-sun distance varies over 12 months by about 3 million miles, how does the L2 lagrange point remain stable to enable SOHO satellite to remain in orbit around the sun-earth system? If the earths orbit around the sun is an ellipse, then L2 must be unstable, which will cause the gravitational forces of the sun and earth not to cancel the centrifugal force at all times during the year at L2.

Cheers

JM

[JohnMartin]

If the Milky Way exists as we are shown in pictures, why doesn't the very bright center of the galaxy permanently illuminate the earth? Surely the center of the Milky Way is far brighter than the sun.

JM

[JohnMartin]

We can discuss the flat earth, and global earth models later. This in itself is an interesting topic. For now we can consider the problems with the Heliocentric model.

JM

[Leonhard]

When the earth is moving towards the sun, what is the force causing the moon to be dragged/pulled towards the sun along with the earth? Gravity caused by the sun-earth system would be the answer from the heliocentrists, no doubt. So when the earth is moving away from the sun, what is the force that causes the moon to also move away from the sun, along with the earths motion? Gravity?

The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon.

The Moon orbits the Earth, so while the Earth accelerates constantly towards the sun, the Moon follows along in an orbit.

[Leonhard]

Using trigonometry, the earth-sun distance is 663 x tan 83 = 5400 miles.

[Leonhard]

JohnMartin, care to explain how that math works. How do you get the distance to the Sun, using the difference in angle between two shadows?

The original result simple shows that the Earth has a curvature and you get circumference from the distance between the cities and the angle.

You seem to be taking the distance, assume that the Sun is really small, and then draw a triangle from the two shadows up to that point.

And technically that would give the distance to the sun... if the Earth was flat. But since the Earth is an oblate spheroid your distance calculation doesn't work.

Have you become a flatearther as well by any chance?

[JohnMartin]

This video discusses the problem and derives the sun earth distance - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTOyU5F21Fo

JM

[Leonhard]

If the Milky Way exists as we are shown in pictures,

Those pictures aren't fake you can see it in dark places clearly enough, especially if you use a camera with a long exposure.

why doesn't the very bright center of the galaxy permanently illuminate the earth? Surely the center of the Milky Way is far brighter than the sun.

We're roughly a hundred thousand light years from the center of the galaxy.

The distance between the stars is hard to imagine.

Lets say we placed all the stars in our galaxy there. All four hundred billion of them. A light year is about 60000 times longer than than the distance between the Earth and the Sun.

So the Galactic center is roughly 6000000000 times further away than the sun.

Now every time you increase your distance to a light source a factor a 10, you experience one 100th of the luminosity.

Which means those 400000000000 stars, at that extreme distance, would shine less than 0.000001% of the light on us, compared to what we get from the Sun.

[Leonhard]

Also I skimmed your youtube video.

I was right! You've become a flatearther as well. Anyway yeah you basically do the reverse of Eratosthenes and calculate a distance to the Sun based on the presumption that the Earth is flat.

But the Earth isn't flat JohnMartin, we can measure a distance to the horizon quite easily. It depends on how high up you are.

And that is what you have when the Earth is round.

[shunyadragon]

If the Milky Way exists as we are shown in pictures, why doesn't the very bright center of the galaxy permanently illuminate the earth? Surely the center of the Milky Way is far brighter than the sun.

JM

Distance, John distance. The center of the Milky way is some where past Never Never Land.

[Roy]

I was thinking about the heliocentric model and propose the following problems as a objections to the heliocentric model.

I was thinking about pointing out where you went wrong, but I couldn't find anywhere where you didn't. So here's a song instead.

I was browsing through the Natural Science forum
Looking for some intellectual stimulation
When suddenly a detailed response to my last post
Pops right up and hits me right between the eyes

I wonder, "Is it Sylas or The Pixie?"
"Is it Sam or Rogue or Tiggy?"
"Could it be Moose or Carrikature, Wally or Steve?"
I probably would have kept on guessing
But about that time my brain began to bleed

And as I'm lying with my cortex in a meltdown
Finally I recognize the style of Moonbat Martin's postings
And I try to avoid insanity by writing

Everything you know is wrong
Your disjointed meanders are too long
And everything you think is just so
Important doesn't matter

Everything you know is wrong
Forget your ideas and sing along
All you need to understand is
Everything you know is wrong!

I was starin' at the screen for several dozen minutes
As I was remorselessy sucked into an alternate dimension
And soon I was dumbfounded by some alien response
Which looked like English but was not

It talked about infernal forces,
Heliocentricity
And said that calculus was junk
And in a pot pourri of blankness
It offered to assist me through to
A misunderstanding of the usage of "to be"

Amid all this incomprehensible gibberish
I struggled to find anything correct
Until the lunacy became too much and
Desperately I started yelling

Everything you know is wrong
Just like trumping a bishop in mah-jong
And everything you say is just so
Mixed-up that it doesn't matter

Everything you know is wrong
Like penguins flying through Hong Kong
All you need to learn from us is
Everything you know is wrong!

I was just about to post a reply to my colleague Jim
When I saw another post from J
M, about non-transitional forms
and organ graduates (I think)

So now I'm in a quandary re the Moonbat
(JM's pseudonym)
Should I try to chisel out
Some meaning from the bull-schist matrix
Or take off and nuke it from orbit

But, I hesitate too long and find myself
Slipping into instrumental instability
For all eternity
And every day you'll find me screaming

Everything you know is wrong
You sow idiocy all decade long
The ravings of a German nun are unimportant
You don't really matter anymore
Because the simple fact remains that

Everything you know is wrong
Go back to Bedlam where you belong
You will never understand that
Everything you know is wrong,
Everything you know is wro-o-o-o-ong!