tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post7654433757520323333..comments2018-06-08T05:34:16.399-04:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Geocentrism & the Barycenter. II.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-69899237399113865172012-03-11T19:53:13.683-04:002012-03-11T19:53:13.683-04:00To John Martin,
1) Kepler's laws in cases of...To John Martin,<br /><br />1) Kepler's laws in cases of more than two bodies are, at best, approximate,. We see an example of the 3-body case in the later post, <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/03/geocentrists-3-body-problem.html" rel="nofollow">Geocentrist 3-Body 'Problem'</a>. Both the Sun, "Earth", and "Jupiter" have no problem moving around the common CM of the system.<br /><br />2) Newtonian mechanics does not require absolute space, as demonstrated in <a href="http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2012/02/geocentrism-vs-inertial-frames.html" rel="nofollow">Geocentrism vs. Inertial Frames</a>. Newtonian mechanics only requires an absolute time. Newton's laws work just fine in any inertial frame which differ in position and velocity.<br /><br />3) Inertial frames do not have to deal with 'fictitious forces' (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictitious_force" rel="nofollow">wikipedia</a>). This is only an issue for non-inertial frames (accelerating or rotating). GR eliminates fictitious forces by incorporating them in the metric.<br /><br />4) "Action at a Distance", while a 'problem' is not a show stopper. "Action at a distance" happens in electromagnetism as well. We used the equations of fluid mechanics and gas dynamics long before we understood they were due to atoms. Not fully understanding how the mechanism works is not necessarily a problem when it comes to using the mathematical relationships describing the interaction. <br /><br />The equations still work. <br /><br />The fact that Mr. Martin is using a computer is proof that the math works. There is no telling how many other technologies Mr. Martin enjoys that rely on science he has chosen not to believe. It would be interesting to develop a more definitive test of Mr. Martin's understanding.<br /><br />Science works even if you don't believe it.<br /><br />Of course, if you choose to believe the WRONG science, you can pay a pretty high price if you make decisions based on the errors (<a href="http://whatstheharm.net/" rel="nofollow">Whatstheharm.net</a>)<br /><br /><i>"The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."</i><br />-- <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Orwell" rel="nofollow">George Orwell</a>, 1946W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-87153077975490708312012-03-06T07:06:06.805-05:002012-03-06T07:06:06.805-05:00Now here’s the problem with Tom’s conclusion –
To...Now here’s the problem with Tom’s conclusion –<br /><br />Tom quotes JM after Tom has shown us the results of a two body problem –<br /><br />1. The orbital mechanics of Newton dictates the earth orbits the sun’s center of mass in an ellipse, yet Newtonian mechanics states the earth also orbits the solar system barycenter. As the solar system barycenter is almost never at the center of mass of the sun, then the earth simply cannot be orbiting the sun in an ellipse. Therefore Newton’s principle of barycentric motion invalidates Kepler’s laws of elliptical motion. <br /><br />Tom - But now we can see these motions are perfectly compatible. The only evidence Mr. Martin presents for his claim is his 'say so'.<br /><br />JM – So Tom, my statement is concerned with the inconsistency between the barycenters required for the two body and n body problems. In the two body problem, the earth orbits the barycenter near the center of the sun. In the n body problem the earth orbits the CM of the solar system, which is usually located outside the sun. so Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent with Keplers laws and with itself. Why?<br /><br />Newtonian mechanics says the earth orbits the CM of the earth-sun system which is located near the sun’s center.<br /><br />Newtonian mechanics says the earth orbits the CM of the earth – solar system barycenter.<br /><br />The two barycenters are rarely at the same point in space, so the theory is self contradictory.<br /><br />Likewise Keplers laws say the earth orbits in space as an ellipse around a barycenter. So this barycenter is then at the center of the sun and not the center of the sun according to Newtonian mechanics. Therefore Newtonian mechanics is both self contradictory and contradicts Kepler’s laws.<br /><br />Tom - Notice that from the input frame, the Keplerian orbit is not fixed in space, but appears to be carried by the primary mass as the primary moves around the center of mass.<br /><br />JM – Tom’s efforts are all misdirected of course, because my objection to Newtonian mechanics requires an interaction between the 2 body and n body problems. That fact is that when we introduce the n body problem it is utterly impossible for bodies to have elliptical orbital paths due to the ever moving barycenter of the n body system.<br /><br />Once again, Newtonain mechanics is easily shown to be off only limited modeling value and does not propose an serious problems for geocentrism.<br /><br />JMjohn martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660610295915450085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-5978536581900591972012-03-06T06:57:41.751-05:002012-03-06T06:57:41.751-05:00Tom - the primary object, while it started out at ...Tom - the primary object, while it started out at the origin with zero velocity, did not stay at the origin. This is a problem for Geocentrists since it will happen for all objects moving under mutual forces.<br /><br />JM – It’s only a problem for geocentrists if we believe there are only two bodies in the universe Tom. We geocentrists believe Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally flawed anyway, so using a flawed model only produces flawed apparent problems for geocentrists which really don’t exist at all.<br /><br />Tom - both masses move around the center of mass point, the CM lying on the line between them. These are the motions measured when searching for planets by the radial velocity method (wikipedia).<br /><br />JM – CM is merely a maths figment that only exists in the minds of Newtonians and their models. It doesn’t exist in the real because mass attraction is a myth.<br /><br />Tom - Remember that I gave both objects an initial motion of 1AU/yr in the y-direction. Yet the CM is moving slightly faster, 1.34 AU/yr. This is again due to the fact that gravitation is a mutual force and Newton's laws require an action & reaction.<br /><br />JM – Newton’s laws also require fictional forces to be added in, in certain inertial frame, because the forces don’t exist in the model. So what are we to do with Newtonian mechanics? Do we admit it is of only limited quantitative value or do we over exaggerate the power of the model, even though geocentrists have said what most physicists already know about Newtonian mechanics – it’s a model based upon assumptions, geometry and maths and a small amount of physical experiment to determine some constants.<br /><br />Its also a model that does not correctly model the motions of galaxies and that why Newtonian mechanics has been modified to MOND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics<br /><br />Evidently, even with this large problem within the model, Tom thinks Newtonian mechanics still represents the real motion of many objects.<br /><br />Some questions for Tom – <br /><br />Newtonian mechanics proposes absolute space as a starting assumption within the model. What does modern science have to say experimentally concerning the existence of absolute space? How does absolute space stack up against the relative space f relativity?<br /><br />Newtonian mechanics proposes action at a distance, so how is this action known to exist experimentally? How does action at a distance occur under relativity at c, when there is no upper limit in Newtonian mechanics?<br /><br />. . .john martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660610295915450085noreply@blogger.com