Sunday, April 15, 2012

Geocentrism Quiz: Is the Moon Gravitationally Bound to the Earth?

Here's a little mental exercise for the pseudo-scientists in general and the biblical geocentrists in particular.  It is a simple mathematical exercise that illustrates how easy it is to make wrong conclusions in physical sciences through a selective collection of your facts.

Me = Mass of Earth = 5.9742e24 kilograms

Mm = Mass of Moon = 7.36e22 kg

Ms = Mass of Sun = 1.98892e30 kg

Rem = Earth-Moon distance = 384400 km = 3.844e8 m
Rsm = Sun-Moon distance = 149597870.7 km = 1.495978707e11 m

Gravitational constant, G=6.673e-11 m^3/kg/s^2

Using Newton's law of gravitation, we can compute:

Gravitational force of the Sun on the Moon = Fsm = G*Ms*Mm/Rsm^2 =
= (6.673e-11 m^3/kg/s^2)* (1.98892e30 kg)*( 7.36e22 kg)/(1.49598e11 m)^2
= 4.36e20 kg m/s^2

Gravitational force of the Earth on the Moon = Fem = G*Me*Mm/Rem^2 =
= (6.673e-11 m^3/kg/s^2)* (5.9742e24 kg)*(7.36e22 kg)/(3.844e8 m)^2
= 1.98e20 kg m/s^2

Fsm/Fem = 2.2

We see that the gravitational force of the Sun on the Moon is significantly greater than the gravitational force of the Earth on the Moon, by over a factor of two.

So is the Moon really gravitationally bound to the Earth?

Clarify and explain.  Show your mathematical justification.

What important piece of information needs to be considered to reach the correct conclusion?

Note the Robert Gentry makes a similar error in his analysis of galaxy clusters (“Flaws In The Big Bang Point To GENESIS, A New Millennium Model Of The Cosmos: Part 3 – Galaxies Point To Flaws In Big Bang’s Expanding Balloon Illustration And To Smoking Gun Signatures Of GENESIS” (physics/0102094)”).


Jon Fleming said...

OK, I give up. Are you going to post the answer?

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

I was hoping to get some type of response from the Geocentrists, but they're awfully quiet of late.

Guess I need to start assembling the graphics for the result post.

However if you're interested in a hint, consider the three vectors between each object: Sun-Earth, Sun-Moon, and Earth-Moon. What is the relationship between them? Take two time derivatives to get the acceleration. What does that tell you about the forces between them?

Rick DeLano said...

Quiet, Tom?


And after all since you have shown yourself to be a reprehensible censor of our posts, we have, since your Hartnett debacle, put paid to you.

You will of course have very much to write about us soon.


W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

Hi Rick,

Of course, I see you were unable to answer the question in the post above.

I only made one error with Hartnett and that has been retracted. All the remaining series analysis and problems with quantized redshifts I describe are still quite valid and you have certainly not been able to identify any real flaw in them. Just the other day I was going through all the remaining quantized redshift issues I still have awaiting a write-up.

Censor? Why should I let you cut-n-paste pages and pages of your silliness into my comment stream when links suffice? You have your own blog to post your stuff should I not wish to bloat mine with your junk. You're just whining.

Do you FINALLY have an answer to my Lagrange point challenge? I've already demonstrated how n-body codes demonstrate them (see An Exploration of the Lagrange Points). Your acolyte John Martin has not returned since I provided a visual demonstration of his barycenter errors via N-body code (Geocentrism vs. the Barycenter, Geocentrism vs. Inertial Frames, Geocentrism & the Barycenter. II., The Geocentrists' 3-Body "Problem")

Then there's this simple demonstration that anyone can do which shows how a cosmological redshift makes any point look like the center and it's basic geometry: Geocentrism & Cosmological Redshift.

I'm eager to see an answer to these issues from you guys. After all, if we have no way to compute spacecraft trajectories in your model, how is the U.S. going to compete in space with the Russians, Chinese, and others who still have space faring capability? The Russians and Chinese don't use a Biblical Geocentrist model to compute their spacecraft trajectories. If you had been making these types of claims back in 1957, you might have been suspected of trying to undermine the U.S. space program in the race with the Soviet Union!

Kurt said...

I'm sorry if this is a little off topic but its related. Rick Delano is not one to be complaining about censoring. He invited me onto his blog to discuss the real reasons that Robert Sungenis bishop told him to take the name "Catholic" off his web site. His exact words were "Well bring it on." And then as soon as I started posting actual evidence showing what Sungenis had done to deserve being reprimanded by his bishop sure enough Rick censored all of my comments. So he doestn' really have anything to complain about.

Back on this topic I have noticed that its been more than two years since you challenged Rick on the lagrange points and he still has not come up with one word about it.

johnmartin said...

Tom - I'm eager to see an answer to these issues from you guys. After all, if we have no way to compute spacecraft trajectories in your model, how is the U.S. going to compete in space with the Russians, Chinese, and others who still have space faring capability?

JM - Seems simple enough Tom. Just use relativity theory and place the reference frame at the stationary earth rather than the usually assumed stationary solar system barycenter or stationary CMB.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

To Kurt,

Mr. Delano stuck his head above the radar a few months ago, from the previous comment. I have presented some of my (preliminary) results of the mainstream analysis of the Lagrange challenge linked above, but have yet to see anything from them. I'm not holding my breath. ;^)

W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

To Mr. Martin,

Giving up on your erroneous claims about the barycenter and multi-body problems (linked above)?

Relativity is the way the pros, and competent amateurs, do it. Downside for Geocentrists is that it works to make the 'center' at Mars, Mercury, Saturn, or anywhere else we might want to send a spacecraft. There is no favoritism for the Earth other than our own human prejudices and convenience.

But once you accept relativity, all your other claims about geocentrism become moot.

Are you admitting you were wrong on this issue, or just trolling?

johnmartin said...

Tom - Giving up on your erroneous claims about the barycenter and multi-body problems (linked above)?

JM – Nope. If the calcs come out the way you seem to have demonstrated in your n-body program then the circular orbit of the earth appears with the following. According to Newtonian mechanics, there are a two barycenters for the Earths orbit around the sun –

1. The earth’s orbit barycenter is located very close to the center of the sun, according to the Sun-earth system

2. The earth’s orbit barycenter is located in different locations relative to the sun, according to the Sun- Jupiter/earth system as representative of the solar system. The different locations of the barycenter are shown here -

Lets say the Sun’s diameter is 1,392,684 km and the solar system barycenter moves to approximately up to 2 times the radius outside the sun. Then the solar system to sun/earth barcenter distance difference is about 1,392,684 km. So according to Newtonian mechanics the earth is orbiting around either the solar system barycenter or the sun/earth barycenter, with a difference of up to about 1,392,684 km between barycenters. This shows us that Newtonian mechanics is logically inconsistent concerning the notion of the barycenter at one of the foci of the elliptical orbit of the earth.

The earth is about 149,600,000 km from the sun’s center, which means there is about a 0.93% difference between the barcenters. This small difference seems insignificant, yet the illogic of the barycenter within Newtonian mechanics shows the model to be logcally invalid, even if you believe the approximate mathematical solutions are good enough.

So no Tom, I am not giving up my critiques of Newtonian mechanics because you believe the pragmatic outcomes of the numbers within the model are satisfactory, even though the logic of the barycenters within the model is invalid.

Tom - Relativity is the way the pros, and competent amateurs, do it.

JM – So Tom flips to Relativity which teaches gravity is modelled as the bending of a mathematical space-time continuum and not by the masses attracting with action at a distance assumed in the Newtonian mechanics. Evidently modern physics is very eclectic concerning what gravity is. Tom thinks this is satisfactory provided the maths concludes to pragmatic outcomes. Yet the void in these models is the illogic required to conclude to the maths formulas in the first place. No doubt Tom will retort that it doesn’t matter because modern science has been successful in modelling flight paths planetary motions and so on, so the geocentric complaints about the models are moot.

But the point is Tom, then even with these modern pragmatic outcomes, the theory behind those formulas is logically invalid and has also been invalidated by experimental evidence. Therefore both Newtonian physics and relativity only “work” to have pragmatic outcomes within specific circumstances and specific assumptions. Outside these specifics, both theories have little or nor explanatory power at all. Infact because the scientific community is so set on these theories, the reality of gravity and other forces within the universe are probably poorly understood, which continue to be manifested in models such as the big bang with its failed dark energy and dark matter.

. . .


W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...

To Mr. Martin,

Your understanding of the barycenter is flawed.

Any system of one or more particles has a barycenter. The Earth has a barycenter at it's center. The Moon has a barycenter at it's center. The Earth-Moon system has a barycenter that is located about 1700 kilometers below the surface of the Earth on the Earth-Moon line. Then you can add the Sun, and Jupiter, and other planets which will have define more barycenters for the various subsets of the system, and they all move with respect to each other.

The barycenter is only guaranteed to move at a constant speed when the system of particles is subjected to only their own forces between each other and NO EXTERNAL FORCES. Since you set up a two-body system with the barycenter, and THEN added a third body, you add and external force and violate that condition so it is no surprise that the barycenter can move, as I demonstrate graphically (Geocentrism vs. the Barycenter, Geocentrism vs. Inertial Frames, Geocentrism & the Barycenter. II., The Geocentrists' 3-Body "Problem").

The fact that you recognize the math actually describes how the real world works reveals that *your* logic is flawed - much the way Zeno's logic 'proved' that Achilles would never overtake the Hair (Wikipedia).

Basically, you are demonstrating that your 'science' is incapable of building things in the modern world.