Problems with Heliocentrism

lesliedellow said:

I know, you make geocentrists look almost sane, don't you?

Click to expand...

If you can prove that the earth moves you can do it in this thread. Geocentrists claim to have a model that accounts for all the phenomena Heliocentrists include in their model. Stellar aberration and parallax do not prove the earth moves.

JM

lesliedellow said:

Why did heliocentrism triumph over geocentrism in the seventeenth century? Because Newton's laws of motion accurately predicted the motion of the planets on the heliocentric model, but not on the geocentric model.

Click to expand...

Newtonian mechanics is only a model. Nobody has even proven gravity acts the way Newtonian mechanics assumes it acts. The heliocentric model is only one model that purports to describe the local system. Geocentrism also purports to describe the local system in terms of a universal rotation of the universe with the earth as the only absolute fixed frame. The victory of heliocentrism is really only a victory in the minds of those who must hold to Newtonian gravity and then drop the same notion in special and general relativity. Such is the modern mind on the theme of gravity.

There is no physical proof that the earth moves. If you think otherwise, then you are welcome to provide that evidence.

JM

Problem 11 – The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, yet the Helio model of Copernicus required 62 epicycles, and the Ptolemy model required 40 epicycles. The simplicity of the Ptolemy model more aligns with Ockham’s razor whereby the simplest model is the best model. Hence the Helio model of Copernicus is not the preferred model.



Problem 12 – The Helio model of Copernicus requires epicycles to account for Keplers orbital laws. The epicycles are required to account for non-uniform motion of the planets around the sun. As the epicycles have no physical mechanism, and are adverse to Newtonian mechanics, the Copernican model is not a preferred model according to and physical mechanism, or the models compatibility with Newtonian mechanics. 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.



Problem 13 – The Helio model assumes the moon has a breaking effect on the earth through the motions of the tides twice per day. Yet the 24 hour day is quite stable, indicating there must be another force that counters that of the moon. Fred Hoyle posits that the “sun acts on the earth’s atmosphere to put a twist on the earth tending to speed it up . . . the twist is comparable with the slowing down effect of the oceanic tides, just as Holmberg’s theory requires it to be.” (Frontiers of Astronomy, p 16-17). The union of slowing by the moon and accelerating by the sun, means the 24 day will remain constant. Such coincidence of the sun and moon on the rotating earth indicates how precise the Helio must posit the forces acting on the earth by foreign bodies to keep the 24 day. Such models only serve to highlight how extremely unstable the Helio model is by positing forces from disparate bodies acting in diverse manner just happen to accumulate to a constant 24 hour day.

Problem 14 – The Helio model is promoted by noting the sun as the largest local mass dominates the local solar system. In promoting the sun as the dominant mass as the cause of the stability of the planetary orbits, a large local mass is assumed to be the dominant cause of local motion. Yet observations reveal that large local masses do not necessarily dominate the motions of other local mass as evidenced in cluster galaxies. Such galaxies are arranged to have many local masses located relatively close to each other without a dominating local orbit of the local masses. Hence the claim that because the sun is large and relatively close to the earth indicates that the earth will be dominated by the sun, is not consistent with the manner by which cluster galaxies are observed to function. Hence there is no compelling reason to believe a local large mass must be the dominating cause of the earth’s orbital motion as assumed in the Helio model.

Problem 15 – The sun as the local mass that dominates the planetary orbits, does so to provide stability to the model. Yet stability is only relative to the local system, and largely unrelated to the mass of the universe. As stability is determined by the dominant forces provided by the sun, the Helio model is said to be preferable over the Geo model. Yet the Geo model states the stability within its model is provided for by the perpetual inertia of the rotating universe which remains unchanging. As the motion and mass of the universe provides far more stability than the local sun within the Helio model, the Geo model is the preferred model according to the stability provided within the model.

Problem 16 – The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). 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.

Problem 17 – The Helio model is promoted via the propaganda of the geosynchronous satellites (GS). Yet to promote the Helio model over the Geo model infers the Geo model cannot account for the GS. But relativity says the GS motions can be accounted for through the principle of equivalence. So the Helio model is not preferred over the Geo model for any satellite motions. Hence the GS is not evidence for either Helio or Geo.

Problem 18 – Helio is promoted as a model derived from the inductive method. Yet the inductive method includes the possibility of more than one explanation of the data. Such as what we see with the various models of Machian physics and Newtonian and Relativity physics, which seek to explain the same data with diverse assumptions and models. As the inductive method include a legitimate diversity of models, the inductive method is inherently weak and can rarely if ever make absolute claims concerning knowledge of the physical world. Hence because Helio is derived from the inductive method, Helio’s can never make absolute claims of Helio having been proven, or even the preferred model over Geo. The inherent weakness in the inductive method implies the Helio’s only have data, assumptions, and models, which never prove the Helio model. As no proof can ever be made, the certitude of the Helio’s is merely a subjective and not an objective certitude. But what is subjective is unstable and weak. Hence the Helio model is a weak model.

Problem 19 – The Helio model is evidenced via the inductive method. The Geo model is evidenced via the deductive and inductive methods. The deductive method (i.e. God has revealed the earth is stationary, therefore the earth is stationary), always concludes to certitude regarding the nature of the universe. Yet because Helio does not use the deductive method to demonstrate the Helio model, the Helio model is always the weaker model. For a model that is not based upon the certitude of the deductive method is always weaker than another model that is based upon the deductive method. Therefore Helio is always a weaker model than Geo. Hence Geo is always the preferable model.

Problem 20 – The Helio model is based upon the assumed physical modelling using Newtonian mechanics (NM). Yet NM has its own inherent weaknesses such as gravity described through 1) mass attraction and 2) instantaneous action at a distance. Yet both 1 and 2 are problematic and are actually rejected by other models. Hence Helio is based upon a notion of physics that is both problematic and rejected by other models, which infers Helio is a weakly founded model.

JM