Paradoxes and Dilemmas

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 11 months ago #4306 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Jim]: Why is my observation about a model and comments here about the facts of the model dynamics used by TVF to show how ignorant I am? The model says this and I'm just a messenger-so don't put the dumbness in my lap look at the model.

Previously, you said: "The real problem is the math is not applied to both bodies in the same way. There is no barycenter and if there was and it worked as the model says you can see (if you open your eyes) the small body pushing the big body and that is really a dumb model."

You said several things about the model contrary to reality and then called the model dumb. I corrected you. The rest is your interpretation.

The math is applied to both bodies in the same way. I.e., both bodies accelerate in the field of the other. There is a barycenter, just by definition. Neither body "pushes" the other, but both pull on each other. In gravitation, all forces are attractive and none are repulsive.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>:It is my opinion that the sun is not being moved by the planets because they are too small. A very large mass would be required to move the sun (~.05solar mass or more).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You forget one property of gravity that makes it special. As Galileo showed at the Tower of Pisa and Neil Armstrong showed with a hammer and a feather on the Moon, heavy and light bodies fall at the same rate in a gravitational field. That means a marble and the Sun fall at the same rate in the Earth's gravitational field. You err in the same way that everybody before Galileo erred in believing that large masses are harder for gravity to accelerate than light ones. Reality is not in accord with that belief.

So here is the self-test you must apply. Which are you going to hold as true -- your instinct, or the results of experiment? Every scientist must agree to subjugate his/her own opinions to the results of a fair test. If you disagree, then you are outside the domain of science.

This can be proven too with observations of the true motion of bodies rather than just hoping models are correct and dismissing anything that does not fit well with whatever theory is being touted at the moment. The simple fact is the observations that have been made are trimmed to suit theories that are well established and work well. It is very poor science to accept this as it is.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

This is not a valid claim. The real observers have no idea how their data will or won't fit the model at the time the measurements are taken. Nonetheless, the data shows that the Sun moves relative to the stars in response to the planets. Galileo was right, Newton was right, Neil Armstrong was right. What is your specific basis for disagreeing with these people and results? Just saying you don't like their experiment or don't believe it is not an adequate argument. You must use reason, observation, experiment, or citation here. This is a scientific process, not a social or political one. Beliefs that can't be tested are not a part of that process. -|Tom|-

Here's hoping for better mutual understanding in the New Year.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 11 months ago #4007 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[makis]
Living up to my ethical standard of not showing off, I have demonstrated only a small fraction of my knowledge about orbital mechanics, necessary to stimulate a discussion. This should be clear from the equations I wrote, which yourself did not seem to understand how I derived but threw an immediate aphorism just to concede later, presenting the same exact equations in a different condenced form, which hides several things but neverthlles, managed to confuse people, with your unecessary display of vector, while not understanding the full vector equation for acceleration I wrote and constantly claiming that there is no angular acceleration present...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

1) Demonstrating a deep knowledge of a technical subject is NOT showing off. But in fairness, some people will make the accusation. Ignore them.

2) I've wondered on several occasions if you might be sandbagging us. You seem here to be making such a confession. Have I misunderstood you?

Pretending to believe something just to start a discussion (and then continuing to deliberately "miss the point" just to keep the discussion going, and then pretending to be "hurt" when others raise the possibility that you might be a slow learner) is not normal behavior on a board like this. Most people will take you at face value, then just stop talking to you as soon as they realize you are not being truthful.

3) The presense of an angular acceleration in your equations is irrelevant. In the real world there is no (measurable) angular acceleration of the Earth's orbit. If there were, it would not still be in orbit of the Sun. An equation that makes such a prediction is, obviously, wrong in that regard.

============================
So, the question now is: since there is no angular acceleration of Earth's orbit, and since you secretly know this, why do you want us to talk about an equation that says there is?

And, you seem to want us to talk about it as if it were not wrong. Of course, as long as we believe your equation is wrong that isn't going to happen.

============================

We (or at least I) still have open minds, but that doesn't mean we will automatically believe everything that we see/hear/read.

Maybe it is time for you to start showing off. Time to stop pulling your punches.

Regards,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 11 months ago #4415 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I have demonstrated only a small fraction of my knowledge about orbital mechanics, necessary to stimulate a discussion. This should be clear from the equations I wrote, which yourself did not seem to understand how I derived<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

True, I haven't a clue where your equations came from. Would you care to elucidate, or is the derivation beyond the understanding of dim bulbs such as me?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>:presenting the same exact equations in a different condenced form<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Would you care to show how your equations and mine are the "same exact equations in a different condensed form"?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>while ... constantly claiming that there is no angular acceleration present<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It is easy to prove that, with Newtonian gravitational forces alone, there can be no angular acceleration. The "angle" in question is the angle made by the radius vector between the Sun and the Earth. Gravitational force always acts exactly along this radius vector, and never has a component perpendicular to this radius vector. Therefore, because no force acts in the "angular" direction, there can be no "angular acceleration". As I explained and every textbook on dynamics explains, angular momentum is unchanged moment by moment as speed and potential are changed from either one into the other, just as happens for a vertically falling rock on Earth.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Why you cannot concentrate on the question but keep shifting the focuss of the discussion to the personalities rather than the subject itself.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I addressed both your lack of elucidation of an understandable argument and the substance of your argument, as best I understand it. In your reply, you have failed to address the substance, but only complain about fairness. I don't understand your argument. Set it out again clearly, step-by-step, so even fools can understand your point; or go think some more about it. But don't claim you didn't have your chance. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jeremy
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 11 months ago #4008 by Jeremy

Replied by Jeremy on topic Reply from

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
And how is it Sir, that you can reach such conclusion? Are you maybe the Judge of a Dark Ages court? And, calling a 300+ years old theory new things?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Hmmm. Agora is a flat earther, I have too much posting momentum and Tom is a judge of a Dark Ages court. But yet you accuse Tom of a personality attack because he has spent a fair amount of his free time here trying to teach you something.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Living up to my ethical standard of not showing off, I have demonstrated only a small fraction of my knowledge about orbital mechanics, necessary to stimulate a discussion.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That's right Makis, we're all going to go home once our egos are shattered when you start showing off your full level of knowledge. I'm glad you're an ethical guy fighting with one hand behind your back like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
You do not show the same respect other people show to you. Insisting on a scientific point is not by any means an aggresive attitude.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You are one to talk about showing respect. You have flung mud at both Tom and Agora while similar insults have not been flung back. You have a bad tendency to start name calling when someone does not defer to your opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I could not figure out a way to erase my data from this board so I request that the moderate does that. There are certainly people on this board with unique perception and abilities from whome I learned something valuable.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Erase my data from the board? This is troll behavior. You didn't get what you wanted so now you are going to scorch the earth behind you to show all of us. Happy New Year to you too.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Quantum_Gravity
Offline
Premium Member

21 years 11 months ago #4307 by Quantum_Gravity

Replied by Quantum_Gravity on topic Reply from Randall damron

why did you post it in the first place. What were you trying to achieve? Can you go vent your frustrations out somewhere else

The intuitive mind

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 11 months ago #4011 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

Public opinion notwithstanding, if makis can reformulate the problem in clearer language and show why the answers already given do not explain it, I will have another go at it. Formulating the problem in clearer language might require a few days of thought, and addressing answers already given might involve a few drafts before the next message is sent. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.282 seconds