Problems with Geocentricism

[Sparko]

I think John needs to update his theory into a rotating earth geocentric model. It would solve a lot of the objections to his theory. Like the geosynchronous satellite problem, because they could orbit the earth at the same rate as the earth rotates, like in real life, and it would work the same in a geocentric or heliocentric model.

[Sparko]

Does John believe all of the planets and the sun revolve around the earth, or that the planets revolve around the sun which revolves around the earth?

tycho-lg.gif

[Catholicity]

I believe its that everything revolves around the earth....

[Roy]

I believe its that everything revolves around the earth....

No, it's the Tycho Brahe sun-round-earth rest-round-sun model. Or it used to be. Except when it was inconvenient. Or he forgot temporarily.

[rogue06]

That doesn't look very flat. Still want to know what keeps the Canadians from sliding down into Mexico.

Their feet are frozen solid to the ground.

[rogue06]

Poutine.

That or maple syrup.

[rogue06]

Seem as JohnMartin is refusing to respond to criticisms of Geocentrism in his "Problems with Heliocentrism" thread, I thought a thread to discuss the problems with his favourite model here.

Unlike JM, I don't mind if he includes criticisms of Heliocentrism here, and I'm even happy for him to expound on the possibility of a square flat earth (as some of his sources rely upon.)

Have at it.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]12845[/ATTACH]

That is just of the earth not of his geocentric system. And considering that he appears to believe in a solid firmament wrt his remark that "Mars is embedded in the firmament" we need a map of his cosmos:

EnclosedEarth1.jpg

[JohnMartin]

Moonbat thinks human launched geosynchronous communication satellites aren't affected by Earth's gravity but are just floating along in the aether, or held up by magic string, or something.

Why would you expect sense from a moonbat?

You think the satellites keep pace with the ever changing earth orbit velocity and 3 million mile distance variation from the sun by seat belt gravity.

Apparently if you are a passenger in a car that suddenly stops or turns, you keep pace with the changing car velocity and distance from the cars original location because you are fastened to the car by a seat belt. The car turns right and you turn right, the car turns left and you turn left. The same principle applies to satellites as well. Those satellites move along with the earth, whatever velocity the earth has, whatever change in velocity and whatever change in distance from the sun.

1. The satellites work in the Helio model because of seat belt gravity.


The seat belt gravity is far more sophisticated than the car example. Seat belt gravity causes the satellite to be pulled along with the earth when the earth moves closer to the sun and to be pushed along with the earth when the earth moves away from the sun. How does this seat belt gravity work? According to you, the seat belt gravity works because the suns gravity force is orders of magnitude less than the earth's gravity force acting on the earth. So the seat belt gravity caused by the earth on the satellite both pulls and pushes on the satellites, which move all over the earths surface, just at the right force to keep the satellite at the correct velocity and distance from the earth, so the satellite has the orbital parameters NASA says it has.

After all NASA says a satellite has those orbital parameters, so by golly, the satellite must have those parameters. How are those parameters worked out by NASA? Does NASA construct orbital parameters by taking into account the earth's variable velocity and distance from the sun, and thereby include the ever changing velocity and position of the earth relative to space for all its satellites? No. NASA assumes the earth is stationary and the satellites orbit the earth as though the earth did not orbit the sun or the moon, and only spins on its axis once per day. NASA works out those parameters, or at least says it measures those parameters, or knows of those parameters by assuming (at least in practice when applied to the maths model) the earth is the only body in the universe which keeps those satellites operating. It also assumes the earth is a stationary body that rotates.

So according to NASA seat belt gravity isn't required, because the problem of the moving earth is ignored. We can tell this is so, simply by checking the recent weblink on the Helio thread that discusses the method by which satellites are launched and placed into orbit. You can search high and low for any discussion on the problem of the moving earth and you will not find any mention that the earth's orbits around the sun and moon are actually taken into account. Therefore -

2. The satellites do not work in the Helio model because of seat belt gravity.

Heliocentrism is not used by NASA with satellites. Geostatism is used by NASA when launching satellites and observing/calculating the satellite parameters. Satellites are very strong evidence that the Halio maths fails for satellites.

1 contradicts 2, so Helio is a contradiction.

JM

[Catholicity]

That is just of the earth not of his geocentric system. And considering that he appears to believe in a solid firmament wrt his remark that "Mars is embedded in the firmament" we need a map of his cosmos:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]12858[/ATTACH]

Gee I thought Mars was HQ'd in Mount Olive, NJ "Headquartered in Mount Olive, New Jersey, U.S., Mars Chocolate...." http://www.mars.com/global/brands/chocolate.aspx

[rogue06]

Gee I thought Mars was HQ'd in Mount Olive, NJ "Headquartered in Mount Olive, New Jersey, U.S., Mars Chocolate...." http://www.mars.com/global/brands/chocolate.aspx

Apparently New Jersey is embedded in the firmament as well. Which would explain a lot of things.

[klaus54]

I think John needs to update his theory into a rotating earth geocentric model. It would solve a lot of the objections to his theory. Like the geosynchronous satellite problem, because they could orbit the earth at the same rate as the earth rotates, like in real life, and it would work the same in a geocentric or heliocentric model.

But that wouldn't explain the obvious -- that everything in "the heavens" moves east to west around Earth approximately every 24 hours.

[HMS_Beagle]

You think the satellites keep pace with the ever changing earth orbit velocity and 3 million mile distance variation from the sun by seat belt gravity.

(snip the babbling)

JM

The world according to moonbat:

1. There is no such thing as gravity.

2. There are no man-made satellites in orbit. It's all a big hoax by NASA and Dish TV to take your money.

3. The Apollo moon landings and videos taken on the lunar surface were a hoax too.

4. Mars and the rest of the planets have no moons because they can't keep up with each planet's changing orbital velocity. Those things we see with our telescopes and send deep space probes to are NASA frauds also.

MOONBAT MANIA IS HERE!!

[HMS_Beagle]

Gee I thought Mars was HQ'd in Mount Olive, NJ "Headquartered in Mount Olive, New Jersey, U.S., Mars Chocolate...." http://www.mars.com/global/brands/chocolate.aspx

Say what?

0422-bruno-mars.jpg






(That's Bruno Mars for those over 40)

[Yttrium]

The seat belt gravity is far more sophisticated than the car example. Seat belt gravity causes the satellite to be pulled along with the earth when the earth moves closer to the sun and to be pushed along with the earth when the earth moves away from the sun. How does this seat belt gravity work? According to you, the seat belt gravity works because the suns gravity force is orders of magnitude less than the earth's gravity force acting on the earth. So the seat belt gravity caused by the earth on the satellite both pulls and pushes on the satellites, which move all over the earths surface, just at the right force to keep the satellite at the correct velocity and distance from the earth, so the satellite has the orbital parameters NASA says it has.

After all NASA says a satellite has those orbital parameters, so by golly, the satellite must have those parameters. How are those parameters worked out by NASA? Does NASA construct orbital parameters by taking into account the earth's variable velocity and distance from the sun, and thereby include the ever changing velocity and position of the earth relative to space for all its satellites? No. NASA assumes the earth is stationary and the satellites orbit the earth as though the earth did not orbit the sun or the moon, and only spins on its axis once per day. NASA works out those parameters, or at least says it measures those parameters, or knows of those parameters by assuming (at least in practice when applied to the maths model) the earth is the only body in the universe which keeps those satellites operating. It also assumes the earth is a stationary body that rotates.

So according to NASA seat belt gravity isn't required, because the problem of the moving earth is ignored. We can tell this is so, simply by checking the recent weblink on the Helio thread that discusses the method by which satellites are launched and placed into orbit. You can search high and low for any discussion on the problem of the moving earth and you will not find any mention that the earth's orbits around the sun and moon are actually taken into account. Therefore -

That... has to be the most intentionally ignorant outlook on gravity that I've ever seen. This "seat belt gravity" is quite the straw man.

It's really not that complicated:

gravity.gif

The law of gravity. It works amazingly well. It explains why satellites orbit the way they do, once you add in some velocity. A first semester course in university physics would probably clear this all up.

[JohnMartin]

The world according to moonbat:

1. There is no such thing as gravity.

No such thing as seat belt gravity of the Helio model.

2. There are no man-made satellites in orbit. It's all a big hoax by NASA and Dish TV to take your money.

If the satellites exist, they testify against the helio model.

3. The Apollo moon landings and videos taken on the lunar surface were a hoax too.

Yes the moon landings are impossible. A pod cannot be guided through space and land on a lunar surface that doesn't have an atmosphere. Space is a vacuum, so navigation in space is not possible, and deceleration of a pod is also impossible. The usual explanation of jet thrusters only means the thrusters thrust against nothing, or the pod itself. If nothing, then no force is caused. If against the pod, then an action is directed against the motion of the pod, which means the pod will react to the thrust and begin to spin. No direction change is possible with a thruster.

This problem of no cause for direction change means a pod cannot change direction in space, nor decelerate to land on the moon. There is no mechanism that acts in a vacuum to enact Newtons third law. In space Newtons first law dominates and cannot be overcome without a substance outside the pod in which a thruster can act against.

4. Mars and the rest of the planets have no moons because they can't keep up with each planet's changing orbital velocity. Those things we see with our telescopes and send deep space probes to are NASA frauds also.

Mars has moons, which you think orbit the planet using seat belt gravity. I think they orbit the planet by aether flow, or cosmic winds. Apparently the Helio seat belt gravity is evoked throughout the visible solar system to overcome the routine breach of Newtons first law.

MOONBAT MANIA IS HERE!!

Even so, you believe the Helio model acts on seat belt gravity.

You are the Helio moonbat.

JM