A proof against the Heliocentric Model

EmeryPearson

@someone234

No, that's a Straw Man. I stated the Moon was tidally locked.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Tidal. So tell to me, does the moon's rotation make the tide or the tide make the moon rotate?

Erfisflat

I mean, I was expecting more of an argument that a concession. The earth is stationary, which means geocentricity is obvious.

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

Also a Straw Man, the Earth is stationary Relative to the Moon.

Geocentricity proposes the Earth is Stationary Relative to the Sun.
.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

I provided a reference to assist you in understanding Tidal Locking. Do you need me to explain it for you?

someone234

@EmeryPearson It is true because it rotates by electromagnetism. Have no doubt about it.  

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Gravity by far has the greatest impact on the orbit of the Moon and Earth. Unless you have proof otherwise.

someone234

@EmeryPearson I do but you will say it's not proof.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Opinions are not evidence.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Proof is not critical thinking.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Neither is disregarding logic and physics.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Logic, never. You are putting words in my mouth. I am the purest logician of the history of logicians.

Physics, when it's false, I will disregard.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Disregarding relative motion is to disregard physics, science, and logic.

someone234

@EmeryPearson No, I do not disregard logic ever.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Your actions speak otherwise.

someone234

@EmeryPearson So far sure.

I don't intend to get famous just yet. I will pace my journey to the paradise of the north pole as the aliens/god guide(s) me.

Truth is beyond your talk, truth is beyond your opinion of me. Truth is about thinking beyond even when you think you can think is thinkable.

Yes. There are layers of logic and I get to the rawest level.

You cannot out-think me, only out-word me.

Observe the moon, observe the sun, observe the ground, observe your accuracy of observing and ignore everything other than the ultimate truth deep within. 

The weak soldiers of fate will soak in a lot and dish out next to nothing other than what they absorbed. The real gangsters know life is about fighting against all foe to the bitter end and staying loyal only to the realest of the real.

You can tell me Newton was a cool guy, I tell you he was Satan himself.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Irrelevant, your beliefs and emotions cannot change fact.

someone234

@EmeryPearson That is what they program you to believe. We can achieve the demigod status, we can CHANGE REALITY that is the truth. The key is in the North Pole to the next level.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Your faith isn't evidence.

someone234

@EmeryPearson Your faith in your science isn't evidence.

EmeryPearson

@someone234

Faith is belief without evidence. As I have some, it is simply not the same thing.

someone234

@EmeryPearson I do not dislike you because I truly know deep inside my soul that it was you who was misled and not you who did the misleading to preach what you preach.

Erfisflat

The idea that we should ignore the motion of the earth to set the motions of the moon correct doesn't ring any alarm bells to you? You aren't assuming a motion like that claimed of the earth's, then ignoring it for a valid reason, are you. 

EmeryPearson

@someone234

To preach would be for me to make claims without evidence. As I have evidence, this also inaccurate. 

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

I am not ignoring anything, this is a Straw Man. Motion is relative. Velocity changes based on which object you measure speed and direction from. Relative motion is your hang up.

Nope

EmeryPearson said:

@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.

The moon of earth is the largest satellite compared to its planet in are solar system. The Earth wobbles.

EmeryPearson

@Nope

Earth's Wobble doesn't impact the orbit of the Moon, at least not measurably enough to cause it to destabilize. 

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

I am not ignoring anything, this is a Straw Man. Motion is relative. Velocity changes based on which object you measure speed and direction from. Relative motion is your hang up.

Sorry, but by saying that the earth is stationary, you are ignoring that motion. I've given a practical example of relative motion in the OP. It is your position that these practical experiments and everyday observations, such as the traffic analogy must be discarded. The only way you can "fix" it is to park the car. 

Erfisflat

My only "hang up" here is the pseudoscientific position that you hold.

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

"Sorry, but by saying that the earth is stationary, you are ignoring that motion."

This is a Straw man. The Earth is stationary relative to the moon, but moving at about 68,000 miles per hour in relation to the Sun.

"I've given a practical example of relative motion in the OP. "

You've explained that you reject the concept of relative motion, and basic physics.

"it is your position that these practical experiments and everyday observations, such as the traffic analogy must be discarded. "

Also a Straw man. Your analogy disregards relative motion.

"My only "hang up" here is the pseudoscientific position that you hold."

Incorrect. It's your inability to grasp relative motion.

Erfisflat

"This is a Straw man. The Earth is stationary relative to the moon, but moving at about 68,000 miles per hour in relation to the Sun."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

I'm well aware of the theory, are you aware of the fact that I've given a logical reason why these motions don't match what we see in reality? You are assuming both that the earth moves, yet it doesn't. That the moon goes around the earth in one direction, and that it goes in two opposite directions simultaneously. 

"You've explained that you reject the concept of relative motion, and basic physics."

Basic physics are physics which apply to everyday observations and experimentation. If your version of "basic physics" ignores the earth's motions, well, I accept your concession.

"Also a Straw man. Your analogy disregards relative motion."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

"https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion"

You asserted this. You stated the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Moon orbits the Earth.

"I'm well aware of the theory, are you aware of the fact that I've given a logical reason why these motions don't match what we see in reality? You are assuming both that the earth moves, yet it doesn't. That the moon goes around the earth in one direction, and that it goes in two opposite directions simultaneously. "

That's because velocity is relative. You would need to disprove realitive motion for this to make sense.

"Basic physics are physics which apply to everyday observations and experimentation. If your version of "basic physics" ignores the earth's motions, well, I accept your concession."

This is a straw man, relative motion doesn't ignore motion.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion"

You asserted this. You stated the Earth orbits the Sun, and the Moon orbits the Earth.

"I'm well aware of the theory, are you aware of the fact that I've given a logical reason why these motions don't match what we see in reality? You are assuming both that the earth moves, yet it doesn't. That the moon goes around the earth in one direction, and that it goes in two opposite directions simultaneously. "

That's because velocity is relative. You would need to disprove realitive motion for this to make sense.

"Basic physics are physics which apply to everyday observations and experimentation. If your version of "basic physics" ignores the earth's motions, well, I accept your concession."

This is a straw man, relative motion doesn't ignore motion.

In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? 

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

Erfisflat

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

So, when the goes into the part of it's orbit where it goes against or away from the direction that the earth is going around the sun, it is presumably still going in the same direction as the earth, effectively 2 opposite directions simultaneously. This is your position, yes?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

So, when the goes into the part of it's orbit where it goes against or away from the direction that the earth is going around the sun, it is presumably still going in the same direction as the earth, effectively 2 opposite directions simultaneously. This is your position, yes?

You're describing relative motion. You're getting it.

Regardless of what the moon is orbiting, it's still traveling at about 68.000 miles per hour realitive the sun, just as the Earth is. Simply having an orbit wouldn't result in a collision. What direction an object appears to be going is relative. 

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

So, when the goes into the part of it's orbit where it goes against or away from the direction that the earth is going around the sun, it is presumably still going in the same direction as the earth, effectively 2 opposite directions simultaneously. This is your position, yes?

The moon never goes away from the direction the earth is going around the sun, it goes around in the same direction but does so slower and faster and wobbles a bit from side to side.

Your problem is you're thinking of it as two sets of traffic, one set going one direction and one going the other. It's not, a better analogy is 3 lanes of traffic going in the same direction with your car being in the middle lane. At one point a car goes past you in the passing lane. A little bit it's moved over to the slow lane and you overtake it. It's gone from side to side a bit as it's switches lanes and its speed has changed a little, but it's never stopped going the same direction as you. The result is it still overtakes you then ends up behind you, but it never goes the opposite direction form you from an independent viewpoint.

Ampersand

I've got an easy way of showing how you don't understand what is being explained to you, as basically the issue is your poor spatial awareness, why don't you draw how you think 2 months of the moon's orbit would look like from the perspective of the sun. No need to draw the earth, just draw a single line that will curve.

Ampersand

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

I think it would help clarify the matter to say that the moon is travelling at an average of around 48,000 miles per hour relative to the sun but that this varies, sometimes being ~70,000 and sometimes ~66,000 with the faster speed being when it overtakes the earth and vice versa, with the change in motion relative to the sun being caused by the gravity of Earth. 

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

So, when the goes into the part of it's orbit where it goes against or away from the direction that the earth is going around the sun, it is presumably still going in the same direction as the earth, effectively 2 opposite directions simultaneously. This is your position, yes?

The moon never goes away from the direction the earth is going around the sun, it goes around in the same direction but does so slower and faster and wobbles a bit from side to side.

Your problem is you're thinking of it as two sets of traffic, one set going one direction and one going the other. It's not, a better analogy is 3 lanes of traffic going in the same direction with your car being in the middle lane. At one point a car goes past you in the passing lane. A little bit it's moved over to the slow lane and you overtake it. It's gone from side to side a bit as it's switches lanes and its speed has changed a little, but it's never stopped going the same direction as you. The result is it still overtakes you then ends up behind you, but it never goes the opposite direction form you from an independent viewpoint.

What you're describing is an acceleration and desceleration of those cars. Are you insinuating that the moon has a gas pedal?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

This is a straw man. Velocity is relative.

Relative to the earth, the moon did not change speed.

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

So, when the goes into the part of it's orbit where it goes against or away from the direction that the earth is going around the sun, it is presumably still going in the same direction as the earth, effectively 2 opposite directions simultaneously. This is your position, yes?

The moon never goes away from the direction the earth is going around the sun, it goes around in the same direction but does so slower and faster and wobbles a bit from side to side.

Your problem is you're thinking of it as two sets of traffic, one set going one direction and one going the other. It's not, a better analogy is 3 lanes of traffic going in the same direction with your car being in the middle lane. At one point a car goes past you in the passing lane. A little bit it's moved over to the slow lane and you overtake it. It's gone from side to side a bit as it's switches lanes and its speed has changed a little, but it's never stopped going the same direction as you. The result is it still overtakes you then ends up behind you, but it never goes the opposite direction form you from an independent viewpoint.

What you're describing is an acceleration and desceleration of those cars. Are you insinuating that the moon has a gas pedal?

Does the fact that you used the analogy of cars in your opening post to represent the Earth and the Moon mean you think they are both metal wheeled vehicles a few square metres in size? Obviously not, so perhaps don't bother with such useless questions and think next time instead.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

So, when the goes into the part of it's orbit where it goes against or away from the direction that the earth is going around the sun, it is presumably still going in the same direction as the earth, effectively 2 opposite directions simultaneously. This is your position, yes?

The moon never goes away from the direction the earth is going around the sun, it goes around in the same direction but does so slower and faster and wobbles a bit from side to side.

Your problem is you're thinking of it as two sets of traffic, one set going one direction and one going the other. It's not, a better analogy is 3 lanes of traffic going in the same direction with your car being in the middle lane. At one point a car goes past you in the passing lane. A little bit it's moved over to the slow lane and you overtake it. It's gone from side to side a bit as it's switches lanes and its speed has changed a little, but it's never stopped going the same direction as you. The result is it still overtakes you then ends up behind you, but it never goes the opposite direction form you from an independent viewpoint.

What you're describing is an acceleration and desceleration of those cars. Are you insinuating that the moon has a gas pedal?

Does the fact that you used the analogy of cars in your opening post to represent the Earth and the Moon mean you think they are both metal wheeled vehicles a few square metres in size? Obviously not, so perhaps don't bother with such useless questions and think next time instead.

The point is not the bodies that are in motion are not alike in texture or size, it is the directional velocity, relative to us, the observer, or the earth. You used the same analogy, albeit wrong, to try and counterexplain the evidence, and when I counter that, now it is an innacurate analogy again?

EmeryPearson

@Erfisflat

The analogy doesn't work, as you don't account for relative motion. 

someone234

@anonymousdebater why doesn't the moon landing on the Earth?

Ampersand

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

Ampersand said:

Erfisflat said:

EmeryPearson said:

@Erfisflat

"In your own words, you said that relative motion means that the earth is stationary, relative to the moon. So I ask, how is it logical that a body orbiting a body ignores that bodies' motion? "

Because they are traveling the same speed and direction. They share the same velocity in relation to the Sun.

The Earth is Stationary Relative to the Moon.
The Moon is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Earth is traveling at about 68,000 miles per hour relative to the Sun.
The Moon is Traveling at 2,288 miles per hour realitive to the Earth.

So, when the goes into the part of it's orbit where it goes against or away from the direction that the earth is going around the sun, it is presumably still going in the same direction as the earth, effectively 2 opposite directions simultaneously. This is your position, yes?

The moon never goes away from the direction the earth is going around the sun, it goes around in the same direction but does so slower and faster and wobbles a bit from side to side.

Your problem is you're thinking of it as two sets of traffic, one set going one direction and one going the other. It's not, a better analogy is 3 lanes of traffic going in the same direction with your car being in the middle lane. At one point a car goes past you in the passing lane. A little bit it's moved over to the slow lane and you overtake it. It's gone from side to side a bit as it's switches lanes and its speed has changed a little, but it's never stopped going the same direction as you. The result is it still overtakes you then ends up behind you, but it never goes the opposite direction form you from an independent viewpoint.

What you're describing is an acceleration and desceleration of those cars. Are you insinuating that the moon has a gas pedal?

Does the fact that you used the analogy of cars in your opening post to represent the Earth and the Moon mean you think they are both metal wheeled vehicles a few square metres in size? Obviously not, so perhaps don't bother with such useless questions and think next time instead.

The point is not the bodies that are in motion are not alike in texture or size, it is the directional velocity, relative to us, the observer, or the earth. You used the same analogy, albeit wrong, to try and counterexplain the evidence, and when I counter that, now it is an innacurate analogy again?

Please don't resort to delusion to protect your ego from being wrong so quickly.

Your claim to countering my example is asking if the moon has a gas pedal. Presumably if I'd used an analogy of a bird overtaking the other you'd have asked if the moon had wings. If you want to you can attempt to make some kind of defence "E.g. as the Moon does X it should have a gas pedal, but Ampersand claims it doesn't therefore Y". Instead you have just asked a dumb question and then for no reason declared victory.

someone234

@Ampersand Using the words dumb and delusional as well as wrong and wings means very little in the end.
You got no counterargument, thanks and bye.

Erfisflat

@ampersand,  I really didn't think I had to explain the point I was making this much. Accelerating moon's are impossible. This is what I meant by a gas pedal. Not a literal one.

Ampersand

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

Erfisflat

Ampersand said:

@Erfisflat

As per Newtons laws, all objects in universe can accelerate if an appropriate force is applied to them. Why do you think moons are some magical exception to this universal constant?

Saying something is impossible while giving no reason that it is impossible as you have done is a child's argument. Do better.

So your position, opposite of @EmeryPearson, is that a force is propelling and slowing the moon on it's course around the earth so that it appears to go along at the same speed.