Problems with Heliocentrism

[JohnMartin]

Presented below are a series of problems concerning the theory of Heliocentrism. The various problems attempt to show some of the weaknesses within the Heliocentric theory.


Local evidence suggests other planets have variable rotation rates. For example, Venus’s rotation rate has changed by 6.5 minutes in the last ten years. Saturn also has a reduced rotation rate.


Problem 1 – The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth rotates on its axis in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s daily rotation rate. The consistent Earth rotation rate is inconsistent with the variable rotation rates of other solar system planets. The inconsistency between the slowing rotation rates and the consistent earth rotation rate lends support for the earth in a special place.


Problem 2 – The Helio model requires a yearly orbit around the sun of 365 ¼ days per year without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth moves around the sun in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s yearly orbit rate around the sun. The long term, consistent Earth orbit rate is inconsistent with the universal causes acting throughout the universe to cause a long term decay in the earth’s orbit velocity.


Problem 3 – NASA scientists calculate that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate. The models NASA use, assume the earth rotates, and calculate the energy in those events and then calculate the deceleration of the earth’s rotation. There are about 1,450,000 earthquakes every year. About 25,000 have a magnitude of 4 to 9 on the Rictor scale. If these events slow the earth rotation rate every year, by 0.5 microseconds per major earthquake event, then over 10,000 years, and 250 million earthquake events, the earth rotation rate should have slowed by about 2 minutes. Going back 1 million years the earth rotation rate changes by 200 minutes. 10 million years: 2000 minutes, 100 million years:20,000 minutes. 200 million: 40,000 minutes, which means the Earth would have a rotation rate of 12 hours. Go back 4.5 billion years and the Earth would spin 10 times per second.


The problem is that very old sun clocks indicate the earth’s rotation rate has not changed by minutes over thousands of years. Hence the claim that tsunamis and earthquakes slow the earth’s rotation rate is adverse to very old sun dials. If there is no practical evidence for the change in Earth’s rotation rate due to tsunamis and earthquakes then the Newtonian based models that assume the Earth rotates daily are invalidated. If invalidated then the Helio model is invalidated.


Problem 4 – Heliocentrism is based upon the Copernican principle, which says there is no special location in the universe. Hence the earth must rotate around the sun, just as all the other planets are thought to rotate around the sun. Similarly the local Milky Way is thought to be just one of many galaxies within the universe. According to the Copernican principle, the Milky Way is only an insignificant galaxy amongst all the other galaxies in the universe. Yet WMAP shows the universe is aligned with the earth, having an octopole and quadrupole perpendicular to the ecliptic. According to Dragan Huterer, the universe is aligned with the solar system (Astronomy, December 2007, 38-39). The alignment of the universe with the solar system is a major breach of the Copernican principle (CP). As the CP has been invalidated, the Heliocentric model no longer has the CP has an assumed principle to model the earth orbiting the sun. Hence the Helio model is a model founded upon an invalidated principle, which invalidates the Helio model.


Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year. The orbit velocity changes without any explanation given within Newtonian mechanics for how the Earth’s orbit velocity changes, other than to comply with Kepler’s laws derived from orbital observations. As there is no physical mechanism to cause the earth’s change in velocity during the Earth’s orbit around the sun, then here is no certitude that the Earth actually does accelerate and decelerate around the sun as assumed within the Heliocentric model. As an empirical based model is only as certain as its least certain component, and there is no mechanism and no certitude of the cause of the variable Earth velocity, then the Helio model is most uncertain. And what is most uncertain is not the preferred model. Hence the Helio model is not the preferred model.


Problem 6 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force acting within the Earth for the Newtonian model to account for the Earth’s orbit around the sun. The fictitious centrifugal force has no connection with the physical properties of the mechanical system. As there are no physical properties of the mechanical system within the Helio model, then there is no certitude that the Helio model is a correct measure of the local solar system motions. Hence the Helio model is really only a Newtonian base, physical force fiction, without any physical mechanism to prefer the Helio model over any other competing model.


Problem 7 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets. The preferred reference frame at the sun contradicts relativity theory that teaches there is no preferred reference frame. As Helio theory contradicts an accepted theory of motion, Helio theory is either invalid, or inconsistently applied with a principle of relativity theory.


Problem 8 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun is said to follow Kepler’s laws for elliptical orbits within the Helio model. The Helio model is said to be the preferred model, for the model is said to have removed the need for Ptolemy’s epicycles in the Geo model. Yet Kepler’s laws applied to the elliptical orbits require an epicycle relative to the orbiting planets circular, deferent orbit swept out when centred upon the orbit centre of the deferent (see pictures below). The alleged absurdity of epicycles in the Ptolemy’s model is replaced by an apparently equally absurd Kepler modelled based epicycle. The use of the epicycle within the Kepler model indicates the Kepler model is not geometrically superior to the Ptolemy model. For the apparent absurdity of the epicycle is used in both the ancient Geo and more modern Helio models.






Problem 9 – The WMAP data demonstrates the Copernican Principle is invalid. Hence for the Helio model to be the preferred model, the model requires the application of an invalidated model. Hence if Helio is a preferred model, Helio is preferred against the scientific evidence that says the Helio is based upon a false principle. Hence the Helio model is in principle unscientific.


Problem 10 – The Helio model of Copernicus was introduced over Ptolemy’s model because the planets orbital motions were observed to be non-circular. The non-circular orbits were replaced by elliptical orbits, yet within the Helio model, the Earth neither orbits in a circular, nor elliptical orbit. For the Earth is gravitationally linked to the Earth-moon barycentre, whereby the Earth cannot orbit the sun in an ellipse. Therefore the motive to change from the Geo model of Ptolemy to the Helio model of Copernicus does not translate into a clearer understanding of what sort of orbit the Earth is doing around the sun. As the Helio model does not provide any clear evidence for the Earth’s elliptical orbit as a better alternative to the Ptolemy model, the Helio model has no strong basis to be the preferred model.

JM

 

[lesliedellow]

Problem 1 – The Helio model requires a sidereal day of 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds without fail for as long as records have been kept. The Helio model assumes the earth rotates on its axis in the midst of a universe full of dark matter, dark energy and galaxy masses. Yet all these causes within the universe never act to slow down the earth’s daily rotation rate. The consistent Earth rotation rate is inconsistent with the variable rotation rates of other solar system planets. The inconsistency between the slowing rotation rates and the consistent earth rotation rate lends support for the earth in a special place.

There is no way I am going to plough through all your verbage, but gravity is a notoriously weak force, which falls off as the square of the distance, and there are light years between the centres of mass. As an indication of just how weak gravity is, I have a mass of 5,970,000,000,000,000,000,000 tons trying to pull this iPad down towards the centre of the Earth, and yet my puny little muscles are defying it with the utmost ease.

The gravitational field of Alpha Proxima has no measurable effect on the Earth? Now there is a surprise.

Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year.

Insofar as the Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular, the Sun's gravity will not always be operating at right angles to its direction of travel, and will therefore accelerate or decellerate it slightly.

Problem 6 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun requires a fictitious centrifugal force acting within the Earth for the Newtonian model to account for the Earth’s orbit around the sun.

The Earth's orbit around the Sun requires a cetripedal force, which gravity obligingly provides.

Problem 7 – the Earth’s orbit around the sun infers a preferred reference frame whereby the sun is the local mass that controls the orbital motions of the other planets. The preferred reference frame at the sun contradicts relativity theory that teaches there is no preferred reference frame. As Helio theory contradicts an accepted theory of motion, Helio theory is either invalid, or inconsistently applied with a principle of relativity theory.

The entire Solar System is orbiting a common centre of mass, but thanks to its enormous size, that centre of mass is very close to the Centre of the Sun. So the Sun wobbles a bit, whilst the motion of the planets is rather more pronounced.

 

[USincognito]

If any of you are interested in seeing John Martin's body of work, I'd suggest checking out his posts to Theology Web. He's got a long history of geocentrism there.

 

[JohnMartin]

If any of you are interested in seeing John Martin's body of work, I'd suggest checking out his posts to Theology Web. He's got a long history of geocentrism there.

You are correct. I have posted much at theologyweb and I currently believe the earth is stationary simply because the sources of revelation clearly say the earth is stationary. I simply would not have considered the earth to be stationary if I had not come across that truth clearly taught in the old testament, unanimous consent of the church fathers and the Papal condemnations of Galileo's moving earth theory.

That being said, heliocentrism as a stand alone theory s not without its own weaknesses which should be examined for the good of the model.

JM

 

[JohnMartin]

Problem 5 – The Helio model says the Earth’s velocity in orbit around the sun varies over the year.

Insofar as the Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular, the Sun's gravity will not always be operating at right angles to its direction of travel, and will therefore accelerate or decellerate it slightly.

You have some interesting answers which do not really solve the problems posed, except for possibly your answer to problem 5 above. I still think there is a problem here however. If the earth moves at 30km/s then starts to accelerate, the change in velocity must be caused by a change in a velocity vector acting inside the earth, when immediately prior to the change in the earth's velocity, that velocity vector did not exist. The Newtonian model would require the velocity vector came from the Sun's gravity force acting on the earth. But then again, the earth is at a distance x from the sun when the velocity vector is zero, which then changes from 0 to v1 at the same distance x from the sun. Hence the claim that the sun's gravity will cause the change in acceleration seems to be dependent upon x, which does not change, or perhaps the assumption that the earth moves in an elliptical shape and hence the model must provide the velocity vector when in fact the vector is only a consequence of the assumed elliptical orbital change.

I suspect that although your answer does seem to provide a solution, the solution may well involve an assumption tied to the assumption that the earth orbits in an ellipse and therefore the force from the sun must exist, when in fact the force may not exist at all.

JM

 

[AV1611VET]

Insofar as the Earth's orbit is not perfectly circular, the Sun's gravity will not always be operating at right angles to its direction of travel, and will therefore accelerate or decellerate it slightly.

As I understand it, the earth revolves around the sun according to the conservation of angular momentum law.

Mass x Velocity x Radius Squared

As the radius changes (since the orbit is elliptical), the velocity changes to compensate and keep the angular momentum the same.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Earth is a plane (not a globe), is geocentric and stationary.

 

[Armoured]

Earth is a plane (not a globe), is geocentric and stationary.

The Sun in the model you propose wouldn't be big enough to undergo nuclear fusion, so, you know, knock it ff.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

The Sun in the model you propose wouldn't be big enough to undergo nuclear fusion, so, you know, knock it ff.

THE BOOK OF ENOCH.
CHAPTER 78

1. The names of the Sun are as follows: The first Oryares, and the second Tomases.

2. The Moon has four names: The first name is Asonya, and the second Ebla, and the third Benase, and the fourth Era’e.

3. These are the two great lights; their disc is like the disc of Heaven and in size the two are equal.

4. In the disc of the Sun, are seven parts of light, which are added to it more than to the Moon, and in fixed measure light is transferred to the Moon until a seventh part of the Sun is exhausted.

5. And they set, go into the Gates of the west, go round through the north, and rise through the Gates of the east, on the face of Heaven.

6. And when the Moon rises, it appears in the sky, and has a half of a seventh part of light, and on the fourteenth day it makes all its light full.

7. And fifteen parts of light are transferred to it, until on the fifteenth day its light is full, according to the sign of the year, and amounts to fifteen parts. And the Moon comes into being by halves of a seventh part.

8. And in its waning on the first day, it decreases to fourteen parts of its light. And on the second to thirteen parts, and on the third to twelve parts, on the fourth to eleven parts, and on the fifth to ten parts, and on the sixth to nine parts, and on the seventh to eight parts, and on the eighth to seven parts, and on the ninth to six parts, and on the tenth to five parts, and on the eleventh to four parts, and on the twelfth to three, and on the thirteenth to two, and on the fourteenth to half of a seventh part. And all the light that remains from the total disappears on the fifteenth day.

9. And in certain months the Moon has twenty-nine days and once twenty-eight.

10. And Uriel showed me another law: – when light is transferred to the Moon, and on which side it is transferred from the Sun.

11. All the time that the Moon is increasing in its light, it transfers as it becomes opposite the Sun, until in fourteen days it’s light is full in the sky; and when it is all ablaze, it’s light is full in the sky.

12. And on the first day it is called the New Moon, for on that, daylight rises on it.

13. And its light becomes full exactly on the day that as the Sun goes down in the west it rises from the east for the night. And the Moon shines for the whole night until the Sun rises opposite it, and the Moon is seen opposite the Sun.

14. And on the side on which the light of the Moon appears, there again it wanes, until all its light disappears, and the days of the Moon end and its disc remains empty without light.

15. And for three months, at its proper time, it achieves thirty days, and for three months, it achieves twenty-nine days, during which it completes its waning, in the first period, in the first Gate, 127 days.*

16. And in the time of it’s rising, for three months, it appears in each month with thirty days. And for three months it appears in each month with twenty-nine days

17. By night, for twenty days each time, it looks like a man, and by day like Heaven, for there is nothing else in it except it’s light.

 

[lesliedellow]

Earth is a plane (not a globe), is geocentric and stationary.

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

 

[I'm_Sorry]

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

When you go to see God you'll know.

God isn't exactly sane for the null position of materialistic science.

You have a dilemma as you have Faith in God.

So how sane are you?

 

[lesliedellow]

You have some interesting answers which do not really solve the problems posed, except for possibly your answer to problem 5 above. I still think there is a problem here however. If the earth moves at 30km/s then starts to accelerate, the change in velocity must be caused by a change in a velocity vector acting inside the earth, when immediately prior to the change in the earth's velocity, that velocity vector did not exist. The Newtonian model would require the velocity vector came from the Sun's gravity force acting on the earth. But then again, the earth is at a distance x from the sun when the velocity vector is zero, which then changes from 0 to v1 at the same distance x from the sun. Hence the claim that the sun's gravity will cause the change in acceleration seems to be dependent upon x, which does not change, or perhaps the assumption that the earth moves in an elliptical shape and hence the model must provide the velocity vector when in fact the vector is only a consequence of the assumed elliptical orbital change.

I suspect that although your answer does seem to provide a solution, the solution may well involve an assumption tied to the assumption that the earth orbits in an ellipse and therefore the force from the sun must exist, when in fact the force may not exist at all.

JM

Your idea of elementary mathematics/mechanics sounds pretty confused to me.

 

[lesliedellow]

THE BOOK OF ENOCH.
CHAPTER 78

1. The names of the Sun are as follows: The first Oryares, and the second Tomases.

2. The Moon has four names: The first name is Asonya, and the second Ebla, and the third Benase, and the fourth Era’e.

3. These are the two great lights; their disc is like the disc of Heaven and in size the two are equal.

4. In the disc of the Sun, are seven parts of light, which are added to it more than to the Moon, and in fixed measure light is transferred to the Moon until a seventh part of the Sun is exhausted.

5. And they set, go into the Gates of the west, go round through the north, and rise through the Gates of the east, on the face of Heaven.

6. And when the Moon rises, it appears in the sky, and has a half of a seventh part of light, and on the fourteenth day it makes all its light full.

7. And fifteen parts of light are transferred to it, until on the fifteenth day its light is full, according to the sign of the year, and amounts to fifteen parts. And the Moon comes into being by halves of a seventh part.

8. And in its waning on the first day, it decreases to fourteen parts of its light. And on the second to thirteen parts, and on the third to twelve parts, on the fourth to eleven parts, and on the fifth to ten parts, and on the sixth to nine parts, and on the seventh to eight parts, and on the eighth to seven parts, and on the ninth to six parts, and on the tenth to five parts, and on the eleventh to four parts, and on the twelfth to three, and on the thirteenth to two, and on the fourteenth to half of a seventh part. And all the light that remains from the total disappears on the fifteenth day.

9. And in certain months the Moon has twenty-nine days and once twenty-eight.

10. And Uriel showed me another law: – when light is transferred to the Moon, and on which side it is transferred from the Sun.

11. All the time that the Moon is increasing in its light, it transfers as it becomes opposite the Sun, until in fourteen days it’s light is full in the sky; and when it is all ablaze, it’s light is full in the sky.

12. And on the first day it is called the New Moon, for on that, daylight rises on it.

13. And its light becomes full exactly on the day that as the Sun goes down in the west it rises from the east for the night. And the Moon shines for the whole night until the Sun rises opposite it, and the Moon is seen opposite the Sun.

14. And on the side on which the light of the Moon appears, there again it wanes, until all its light disappears, and the days of the Moon end and its disc remains empty without light.

15. And for three months, at its proper time, it achieves thirty days, and for three months, it achieves twenty-nine days, during which it completes its waning, in the first period, in the first Gate, 127 days.*

16. And in the time of it’s rising, for three months, it appears in each month with thirty days. And for three months it appears in each month with twenty-nine days

17. By night, for twenty days each time, it looks like a man, and by day like Heaven, for there is nothing else in it except it’s light.

The Book of Enoch is not even canonical, and that is your excuse for waving good bye to reality?

 

[I'm_Sorry]

The Book of Enoch is not even canonical, and that is your excuse for waving good bye to reality?

Neither is Darwin's theory of evolution.

Unless the universal church added it?

And The book of Enoch is referenced.

Book of Enoch (Jude 4,6,13,14–15,[22] 2 Peter 2:4;3:13[22][23])

Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible - Wikipedia

So are you sane because you believe in God? Lets ask an atheist.

 

[lesliedellow]

Neither is Darwin's theory of evolution.

The Theory of Evolution has empirical evidence in support of it. The Book of Enoch can lay claim to neither empirical evidence nor scriptural authority.

So are you sane because you believe in God? Lets ask an atheist.

I am sure Michael Ruse would have no difficulty believing in my sanity, even though he has plenty of problems with YEC.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

The Theory of Evolution has empirical evidence in support of it. The Book of Enoch can lay claim to neither empirical evidence nor scriptural authority.

Who created? God?

There is a problem here, please debate Dawkins to be put back in your Faith.

I am sure Michael Ruse would have no difficulty believing in my sanity, even though he has plenty of problems with YEC.

Did Jesus perform his miracles? Did He rise from the dead?

You're going to look insane soon.

 

[lesliedellow]

Who created? God?

There is a problem here, please debate Dawkins to be put back in your Faith.

The only person who thinks Dawkins is a profound philosopher is Dawkins.

Did Jesus perform his miracles? Did He rise from the dead?

You're going to look insane soon.

Michael Ruse knows what Christians believe, and his only problem is with YECs. He will quite happily appear on the same platform as a Christian.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

The only person who thinks Dawkins is a profound philosopher is Dawkins.

He's a biologist, with the null position.

Rational position.

You and I are irrational because We say God did it, yet have no evidence.

Michael Ruse knows what Christians believe, and his only problem is with YECs. He will quite happily appear on the same platform as a Christian.

Did Jesus perform his miracles? Did He rise from the dead?

You're going to look insane soon.

I want an answer please.

 

[lesliedellow]

He's a biologist, with the null position.

Rational position.

You and I are irrational because We say God did it, yet have no evidence.

People believe all sorts of things for which they have no evidence. They believe that child abuse is immoral, for example. Like I said, nobody has ever accused Dawkins of being a profound philosopher.

Did Jesus perform his miracles? Did He rise from the dead.

Yes he did. So what has that got to do with Michael Ruse's attitude towards Christians?

In any case, we are derailing this thread.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

People believe all sorts of things for which they have no evidence. They believe that child abuse is immoral, for example. Like I said, nobody has ever accused Dawkins of being a profound philosopher.

Like us, we believe in the miracles of Jesus and His resurrection.

Are you sane?

A 2000 y/o book told you and you believe.

Yes he did. So what has that got to do with Michael Ruse's attitude towards Christians?

Can you prove the miracles and resurrection?

Why does he have no problem with the above. But has a problem with the Chronology of Genesis?