A proof against the Heliocentric Model

someone234

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Good post.

Ampersand

Where is the proof? This just seems to be you asking leading questions which could be answered by reading a child's science book or looking on Wikipedia, not actually presenting a proof.

I mean you haven't even really given enough specifics for me to get into detailed criticism, but it looks like your your comment about the earth repelling you don't understand the concept of momentum. It doesn't continue in the same direction because Earth's gravity is pulling it and changing its course. It maintains a consistent speed because forces have equal and opposite reactions as per Newton's third law so the pulling of the earth of the earth into a new direction cancels out some of its momentum which was causing it to travel in the opposite direction resulting in a circular motion.

someone234

@Ampersand and yet this falling remains totally consistent no matter what is elsewhere. it never gets closer nor further to the Earth and turns around its own axis at the same speed as it spins around the Earth, at all times ensuring we only ever see one side.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Where is the proof? This just seems to be you asking leading questions which could be answered by reading a child's science book or looking on Wikipedia, not actually presenting a proof.

I mean you haven't even really given enough specifics for me to get into detailed criticism, but it looks like your your comment about the earth repelling you don't understand the concept of momentum. It doesn't continue in the same direction because Earth's gravity is pulling it and changing its course. It maintains a consistent speed because forces have equal and opposite reactions as per Newton's third law so the pulling of the earth of the earth into a new direction cancels out some of its momentum which was causing it to travel in the opposite direction resulting in a circular motion.

Where is the proof against the Heliocentric Model? Maybe it went over your head. I used the analogy of the cars in traffic so that pretty much anyone, including my 10 year old could understand it. The moon doesn't appear to be going twice the speed sometimes, and half the speed others, and obviously it can't change it's speed at will, just so that we see it going along at the same speed.

CYDdharta

Erfisflat said:

Where is the proof against the Heliocentric Model? Maybe it went over your head. I used the analogy of the cars in traffic so that pretty much anyone, including my 10 year old could understand it. The moon doesn't appear to be going twice the speed sometimes, and half the speed others, and obviously it can't change it's speed at will, just so that we see it going along at the same speed.

He probably missed it because, the way you presented it, it's a really dumb analogy.  Rotational relationship remain the same regardless of the position of either object.  To use your analogy; there are only two cars, the one you are in and one moving 5 mph faster than you.

Erfisflat

CYDdharta said:

Erfisflat said:

Where is the proof against the Heliocentric Model? Maybe it went over your head. I used the analogy of the cars in traffic so that pretty much anyone, including my 10 year old could understand it. The moon doesn't appear to be going twice the speed sometimes, and half the speed others, and obviously it can't change it's speed at will, just so that we see it going along at the same speed.

He probably missed it because, the way you presented it, it's a really dumb analogy.  Rotational relationship remain the same regardless of the position of either object.  To use your analogy; there are only two cars, the one you are in and one moving 5 mph faster than you.

So, in other words you're ignoring the proposed motion of the earth.

CYDdharta

Erfisflat said:

So, in other words you're ignoring the proposed motion of the earth.

Not at all, the proposed motion of the earth is the 60 mph my vehicle doing.

Erfisflat

CYDdharta said:

Erfisflat said:

So, in other words you're ignoring the proposed motion of the earth.

Not at all, the proposed motion of the earth is the 60 mph my vehicle doing.

Then, when the moon is going in the opposite direction as the earth, it should go faster than when it is going in the same direction, correct? I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. Unless you propose that the moon ignores this motion.

Nope

Erfisflat said:

CYDdharta said:

Erfisflat said:

So, in other words you're ignoring the proposed motion of the earth.

Not at all, the proposed motion of the earth is the 60 mph my vehicle doing.

Then, when the moon is going in the opposite direction as the earth, it should go faster than when it is going in the same direction, correct? I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. Unless you propose that the moon ignores this motion.

Why?

CYDdharta

Erfisflat said:

Then, when the moon is going in the opposite direction as the earth, it should go faster than when it is going in the same direction, correct? I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. Unless you propose that the moon ignores this motion.

Um; the Earth's and moon's rotational direction don't change, so the moon never goes in the opposite direction.

Erfisflat

Nope said:

Erfisflat said:

CYDdharta said:

Erfisflat said:

So, in other words you're ignoring the proposed motion of the earth.

Not at all, the proposed motion of the earth is the 60 mph my vehicle doing.

Then, when the moon is going in the opposite direction as the earth, it should go faster than when it is going in the same direction, correct? I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. Unless you propose that the moon ignores this motion.

Why?

I have offered an analogy as to "why", the question at this point is why is it a "really dumb analogy".

This is an appeal to the stone fallacy so far.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Where is the proof? This just seems to be you asking leading questions which could be answered by reading a child's science book or looking on Wikipedia, not actually presenting a proof.

I mean you haven't even really given enough specifics for me to get into detailed criticism, but it looks like your your comment about the earth repelling you don't understand the concept of momentum. It doesn't continue in the same direction because Earth's gravity is pulling it and changing its course. It maintains a consistent speed because forces have equal and opposite reactions as per Newton's third law so the pulling of the earth of the earth into a new direction cancels out some of its momentum which was causing it to travel in the opposite direction resulting in a circular motion.

Where is the proof against the Heliocentric Model? Maybe it went over your head. I used the analogy of the cars in traffic so that pretty much anyone, including my 10 year old could understand it. The moon doesn't appear to be going twice the speed sometimes, and half the speed others, and obviously it can't change it's speed at will, just so that we see it going along at the same speed.

An analogy isn't proof.



Ergo by admitting all you have is an analogy, you admit you have no proof.

Any fool can have an opinion and can present that opinion via analogy, that doesn't make it right or relevant. Don't bother to @ me unless you're going to actually respond with proof like your thread title claims.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Where is the proof? This just seems to be you asking leading questions which could be answered by reading a child's science book or looking on Wikipedia, not actually presenting a proof.

I mean you haven't even really given enough specifics for me to get into detailed criticism, but it looks like your your comment about the earth repelling you don't understand the concept of momentum. It doesn't continue in the same direction because Earth's gravity is pulling it and changing its course. It maintains a consistent speed because forces have equal and opposite reactions as per Newton's third law so the pulling of the earth of the earth into a new direction cancels out some of its momentum which was causing it to travel in the opposite direction resulting in a circular motion.

Where is the proof against the Heliocentric Model? Maybe it went over your head. I used the analogy of the cars in traffic so that pretty much anyone, including my 10 year old could understand it. The moon doesn't appear to be going twice the speed sometimes, and half the speed others, and obviously it can't change it's speed at will, just so that we see it going along at the same speed.

An analogy isn't proof.



Ergo by admitting all you have is an analogy, you admit you have no proof.

Any fool can have an opinion and can present that opinion via analogy, that doesn't make it right or relevant. Don't bother to @ me unless you're going to actually respond with proof like your thread title claims.

The proof is the logic. The analogy was just to help the logically impaired to understand the basic physics behind the proof. It is scientifically sound, and until you or anyone here can give a valid reason why it is an incorrect analogy, it stands.

Erfisflat

CYDdharta said:

Erfisflat said:

Then, when the moon is going in the opposite direction as the earth, it should go faster than when it is going in the same direction, correct? I'm not entirely sure what your objection is. Unless you propose that the moon ignores this motion.

Um; the Earth's and moon's rotational direction don't change, so the moon never goes in the opposite direction.

So, you don't understand the physics involved. 

someone234

@Erfisflat Just to add to the flat earth stuff, keep hold of this link it's just a handy one.

Nope

Erfisflat
I am confused with what you are trying to say. 

EmeryPearson

"In order to understand this proof, we must consider an everyday observation."

Firstly, there is no proof in science, this is a colloquialism, there is evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

"So why does the moon travel the same speed twenty four hours a day, seven days a week?"

In relation to what? The moon relative to the Earth is traveling at 2,288 miles per hour.
The Moon is traveling about 67,000 mph relative to the sun.

Velocity Is relative.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relmot.html

CYDdharta

Nope said:

Erfisflat
I am confused with what you are trying to say. 

He's saying that a spinning ball spins in the opposite direction on one side than it does on the other.  It doesn't make any sense, but considering the source and the issue...

EmeryPearson

The Earth and Moon are orbiting at the same velocity in relation to the Sun. The moon does not need to speed up or down. 

It would take a change in velocity relative to the sun for there to be any change when the Moon passes in front of the Earth's direction of motion, as it's also the Moon's direction of motion. The Blue line in your diagram represents the velocity of both the Earth AND Moon in relation to the sun. They are traveling in at the same speed and direction, there's no logical need for the Moon to slow up or down if this is true.

To state simply, the Earth is Stationary in relation to the Moon. Without a change of velocity, there's no reason for this to change.

http://www.physicstutorials.org/home/mechanics/1d-kinematics/relative-motion

Erfisflat

Using the scientific method, I use an everyday observation to describe basic laws of physics. The motion of the earth, or moon, does not abide by these laws of physics. Why should we throw out basic observations and common sense in favor of unsubstantiated theories? This is an attempt, like @EmeryPearson here, substituting scientific evidence and experimentation for mathematics and theory. I'm reminded of a quote.

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

My understanding or lack there of doesn't change the fact that the moon and earth share the same velocity in relation to the sun.

You would still be wrong either way.

EmeryPearson

This is much like asking:

Why do two objects moving the same speed and direction not collide?

Basic Physics.

someone234

@EmeryPearson The problem with Erfisflat is he sets out to make the round earther feel inferior for believing what they believe.

It is a fault not only of his own doing but of the attitude of old Flat Earthers to the original Round Earthers. Then in retaliation the round Earthers taunt and bully the flat Earthers but don't burn them at the stake so thank you for the mercy.

The issue I have is that when you are on the defensive emotionally, you are never on the offensive intellectually. Please open up and I will have nice chat with you. You will be a valuable asset to the cause.

Let's observe what Erfisflat argues here.

He explains that the moon is zooming around the Earth but that as it moves away and toward it always looks the same. Same side, same distance from Earth same everything. He asks how this can be happening and why other big objects don't influence its orbit by pulling it here and there as it rotates the Earth.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Emotions are irrelevant.

The Moon and Earth are traveling at the same speed and direction. This argument only makes sense if this were untrue.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Please understand, emotions do matter.

The hostility and fervour with which you so vehemently defend Round Earth and the Outer Space conspiracy is the way you will eventually defend the truth.

Ask inside yourself 'am I ready to question everything I was ever taught?'

If the answer is a resounding 'yes' that glows within you, then ready you are my fellow warrior of the truth.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

No, Emotions do not matter, literally. They are unable to change facts.

You cannot provide any evidence that this argument works.

Take the original post, if the moon orbits the earth, and the earth orbits the sun, that places the Earth and Moon at the same velocity around the sun. Therefore negating any reason for a change in speed. 

Objects moving the same direction and speed mathematically, cannot collide. 

someone234

@EmeryPearson The model works if you assume the entire model is the actual reality. Yes, this I understood.

Questioning whether the model is the real one or not is where Erfisflat is trying to get at.

You are angry not because emotions don't matter. You are so angrily saying that they don't matter because they matter and you are suffering in your rage.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

The only one bringing up emotion is you, they are irrelevant. 

So if the model is incorrect, then prove that the Earth and Moon don't travel around the Sun at the same Velocity, and you have a case.

But this was admitted in the original post, as stated, he admits the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Moon orbits the Earth. He states this is true, therefore giving Earth and the Moon the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

someone234

@EmeryPearson We have proposed many things.

How can we prove it? The underworld of the North Pole will not let us expose them.

I tell only my emotional journey to the truth and the truth requires passion to fight against deception in order to maintain within one's mind.

When I came to this site, I passionately explained to Erfisflat how the Earth is Round and looks flat because of perspective and how a 3-D being can't perceive in 2-D. I then began to understand some things.

Aliens are not from the sky they are from underground. They rise via the North Pole's portal have no doubt.

We are level 3 of a 9-level complex. 3rd level, 3rd dimension, 3 branches form the North Pole (one towards Australia, the other towards South Africa and the last to whatever nations are on the bottom of South America). The Trident of Poseidon is related all the way through to other mythologies (Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto are the triforce of the demigods in Roman mythology). Understand that the devil will deceive you, understand that it will never be easy to see past deception, especially government-level deception.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

"How can we prove it? The underworld of the North Pole will not let us expose them."

Then this isn't proof. The original claim may be dismissed.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Emotions do matter, they are in fact the only thing that does in the end.

Erfisflat

It seems like most everyone misunderstood the evidence in sight of a typo in the Op. The earth is allegedly always in motion. Where the moon is now in the illustration, the moon would be in a race with the earth in it's path on the never-ending racetrack around the sun. Where the arrow is in the alleged orbit of the moon is where the moon would be going in the opposite direction than the earth.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

No, evidence does, and you just admitted to not having any.

someone234

@EmeryPearson The easiest answer rarely is the full marks answer.

I look at the evidence and piece the puzzle together, I don't just take a model for granted.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Irrelevant, as the original poster stated the model of Earth orbiting sun, and moon orbiting earth was the one he subscribed to. You cannot change that for him.

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

"It seems like most everyone misunderstood the evidence in sight of a typo in the Op. The earth is allegedly always in motion. Where the moon is now in the illustration, the moon would be in a race with the earth in it's path on the never-ending racetrack around the sun. Where the arrow is in the alleged orbit of the moon is where the moon would be going in the opposite direction than the earth."

This is incorrect, as you stated, the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits Earth. This places both objects at the same velocity in relation to the sun. Therefore, No collision can take place, mathematically so. Objects moving the same speed and direction cannot collide. 

someone234

@anonymousdebater Yes but it should not do so, the gravitational pull of the sun and other planets should be making it a much stranger orbiting pattern.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"It seems like most everyone misunderstood the evidence in sight of a typo in the Op. The earth is allegedly always in motion. Where the moon is now in the illustration, the moon would be in a race with the earth in it's path on the never-ending racetrack around the sun. Where the arrow is in the alleged orbit of the moon is where the moon would be going in the opposite direction than the earth."

This is incorrect, as you stated, the Earth orbits the Sun, the Moon orbits Earth. This places both objects at the same speed and velocity in relation to the sun. Therefore, No collision can take place, mathematically so. Objects moving the same speed and direction cannot collide. 

I was not reffering to the sun, I was referring to the motions of the moon relative to the motions of the earth. What you're doing is asserting that because of their paired orbit around the sun, they will always be relatively the same distance away, ignoring at least one motion, relative to the other, so that the moon is going in two opposite directions at once. It's what is known as pseudoscience, and can never be scaled or reproduced on any practical level. 

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

This is still incorrect, as the Moon is traveling at a constant 2,288 miles per hour in relation to earth, in an orbit.

The Earth is Stationary in relation to the Moon. 

No collision can take place.

Relative motion completely refutes this idea. It's one of the most basic concepts in physics.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Why can't it?

Erfisflat

"The Earth is Stationary in relation to the Moon."

Exactly as I stated, you've ignored the motion of the earth. You've assumed and even bolded, that the earth is stationary.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

There's no reason for it to. Objects traveling at the same speed and direction don't collide, mathematically so.
One object in a stable orbit of of another cannot collide, mathematically so.
An object stationary relative to another cannot collide, mathematically so.

someone234

@EmeryPearson but why don't other planets when they near Earth during their orbit of the sun tweak/pull the moon here and there with their massive gravitational pull (albeit lesser to Earth's)?

Why doesn't the moon fall into the Earth if it's being pulled in by Gravity?... It has no real motive to resist the Earth!

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

Then you've answered your own question. There is no collision, as the Earth is stationary relative to the Moon.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Because that's not how physics works. Velocity is relative. 

What you're proposing would require a change in velocity, through an outside force acting on moons and planets to cause a collision.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Think of the level of coincidence for the moon to turn around itself at identical speed all the time to its orbit of the Earth......

Erfisflat

You've thrown out very basic laws of physics from everyday observations because it is "space". You will never be able to validate your presumptions about the matter, but you assume it as gospel truth, dogmatic.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Why would it be hard to believe the moon is tidally locked? You see the same face of the moon regardless of time or place on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

someone234

@EmeryPearson So you admit that the Moon contradicts the laws of physics as it doesn't rotate on its own axis?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

Yet, you are unable to prove this.

Relative motion is basic physics, it's why you're wrong.