[geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
- From: <marc-veilleux@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Geocentric" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 22:45:33 -0400
Paul wrote: «it was stated that an observer on any body in the system would, on
pure observation and using the same reasoning as most here use to vindicate
their beliefs, come to the conclusion that he was on a stationary body at the
centre of the universe. They cannot all be right. I'll say it again -- they
cannot all be correct and there is no physical reason which gives a bias to the
Earth based observer.»
Well Paul, your statement would be sound if it was true that we could find
other observers on the planets revolving around the Sun. But since Earth is
the only place where we can observe physical life and physical intelligent
creatures living on it, your statement is biased by (one of) your gods : the
Sun. The Sun has no life in it, it was put there for the convenience of the
creatures (specially the intelligent ones) on Earth. To give as much
importance to the Sun as do the heliocentrists is (at least) half way
worshipping it.
Marc V.
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Deema
Sent: 26 août 2007 12:41
To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Earth and science
Marc V
you are showing every one on this forum that you can't grasp the "mind
buggling" problem of symetry between HC and GC and their being geometrically
interchangeable.
I flatter myself that I have some inkling of what you are referring to. I
understand that in a system of moving bodies such as the solar system, it is
possible, on the modelling board, to stick a pin in any one of the bodies in
that system so as to immobilise it and to observe the motions of all the other
bodies relative to the pinned object. The principle is well illustrated by the
system of planetary gears (the name is no accident) used in automatic
transmission gear boxes.
Some time in the past -- on this forum if I remember correctly -- it was
stated that an observer on any body in the system would, on pure observation
and using the same reasoning as most here use to vindicate their beliefs, come
to the conclusion that he was on a stationary body at the centre of the
universe. They cannot all be right. I'll say it again -- they cannot all be
correct and there is no physical reason which gives a bias to the Earth based
observer.
Now while "geometrically interchangeable" may have utility for explaining
something, this is not the same thing as physical interchangeability. Put very
simply, it takes more energy to accelerate a large mass to a given velocity
than to accelerate a small mass to the same velocity. Again, it takes more
energy to accelerate a small mass to a modest velocity than to accelerate the
same mass to a great velocity. Space missions will not succeed if the
assumptions about what is moving, in which direction and how fast are incorrect.
A further example -- if you immobilise the tub in a spin dryer and turn it on,
not only are you likely to wreck the laundry, but your clothes will not have
the water removed even if you do manage to get the machine to spin around the
tub.
Now if you wish to convince me that I am wrong, you'll need to demonstrate that
my example, including rough figures, is wrong. (I've reproduced it below).
Paul D
Here is my problem Marc.
HC says that Earth revolves around the Sun at a distance of 149.6 * 10^6 km; at
a velocity of 29.78 km/s; in a CCW direction (looking from the North);
Mars revolves around the Sun at a distance of 227.92 * 10^6 km; at a velocity
of 24.13 km/s; in a CCW direction (looking from the North);
and has a solid thoretical framework to explain why this is so.
The difference is thus -5.65 km/s in velocity and 78.32 * 10^6 km between
concentric, and essentially circular, orbits.
On the other hand, GS says the Earth is stationary;
Mars revolves (effectively) around the Earth in a CW direction (looking from
the North); at distances varying from 78.32 * 10^6 km and 377.52 * 10^6 km; at
velocities varying from (very roughly) 5.71 * 10^3 km/s and 27.53 * 10^3 km/s;
and has no explanation for these assumptions.
In the GS scenario, assuming we take the closest approach for a rendezvous,
Mars is travelling in the opposite direction from that which the planners of
the mission relied upon, at a velocity difference of 5.72 * 10^3 km/s + 5.65
km/s = 5.73 * 10^3 km/s. This is roughly Earth escape velocity -- a large
percentage of the maximum capability of our best launch vehicles -- about 1000
times the velocity difference expected and in the opposite direction! Should
the GS position be the truth, the chances of a successful rendezvous, if the
mission is based on HC data, are zilch, zippo, nil.
Feel safe with award winning spam protection on Yahoo!7 Mail. Find out more.
Other related posts:
