Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Day 2: Friar Broccoli Fails to prove that the Earth Translates and Broccoli is looking as foolish as Ray
14 views
Skip to first unread message
T Pagano
Mar 18, 2012, 2:58:54 PM3/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:10:51 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:45:47 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:31:40 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>wrote:
snip for brevity
>>
>>Nice try, but not quite good enough.
>
> .
>
>>1. Broccoli hasn't proved that Earth is, necessarily, part of the
>>same local system as the Sun and the eight other planets. He has
>>assumed it.
>
>Please read what I said - I assumed/said no such thing. The eight other
>planets are demonstrating that they are part of a single (rotating
>gravitationally bound) system centered around a location near the sun.
>> Which means he's assumed that the Earth translates around
>> the Sun and NOT proved it.
>
>Again:
>Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
>the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
>also orbit the sun.
The fact that Saturn's moons and Earth's moon don't obey this
necessity is a falsification of Friar Broccoli's nonsensical (and NON
Newtonian) claim. Further below this idiot refutes his own
"necessity" by admitting that it "is" possible for a body to be a part
of another system. This collapses everything. But let's continue to
show that Broccoli's nonsensical rule above has nothing whatsoever to
do with Newton's Laws.
***************************************************
NEWTON'S LAWS:
I. (Law of Motion 1) Every object in a state of uniform motion
tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is
applied to it. Every object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon
by an external force.
2. (Law of Motion 2) The acceleration a of a body is parallel and
directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to
the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
3. (Law of Motion 3) For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction.
4. (Law of Gravitation) Every point mass in the universe attracts
every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to
the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square
of the distance between them.
***************************************************
Newton's Laws of Motion (1), (2), and (3) provide necessity of motion
of a particular body only after one has knowledge of whether the body
is actually moving. Broccoli hasn't proved the Earth is moving but
assumed it. His above nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity
canNOT be derived from any of these.
Newton's Law of Gravitation explains gravity as an attractive force
along the lines between the centers of mass between EVERY BODY in the
ENTIRE UNIVERSE. This wouldn't explain the momentum of any of the
other eight planets. And this law places few restrictions on what
motions a body can have. Likewise Broccoli can't derive his
nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity from this law.
Finally Hubble observed that all the stars/galaxies that he could
observe with his available tools are situated in spherical shells with
earth at the center. These are the most dense masses in the universe.
That is strong evidence that the earth lies at the center of mass of
the universey and is completely immobile.
snip
>Planet/Lunar systems like those of Saturn and Jupiter are separate
>gravitationally bound sub-systems. Each of those gravitationally bound
>planetary sub-systems orbit the sun as a single unit.
Here Broccoli contradicts his own nonsensical, NON Newtonian rule of
necessity he uses above to prove that the Earth moves. If these moons
fail to orbit the center of mass of the system offers then there is no
necessity that any bodies do so. Newton's laws were impotent to
expalin how any body arrived at its initial position with its
momentum.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Broccoli is going down the same path as Ray. He will say and do
anything however illogical, irrational, and obviously false. Ray and
Broccoli are both headed to irrelevence. Which one will win the race
to rock bottom.
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:10:51 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:45:47 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:31:40 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>wrote:
snip for brevity
>>
>>Nice try, but not quite good enough.
>
> .
>
>>1. Broccoli hasn't proved that Earth is, necessarily, part of the
>>same local system as the Sun and the eight other planets. He has
>>assumed it.
>
>Please read what I said - I assumed/said no such thing. The eight other
>planets are demonstrating that they are part of a single (rotating
>gravitationally bound) system centered around a location near the sun.
>> Which means he's assumed that the Earth translates around
>> the Sun and NOT proved it.
>
>Again:
>Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
>the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
>also orbit the sun.
The fact that Saturn's moons and Earth's moon don't obey this
necessity is a falsification of Friar Broccoli's nonsensical (and NON
Newtonian) claim. Further below this idiot refutes his own
"necessity" by admitting that it "is" possible for a body to be a part
of another system. This collapses everything. But let's continue to
show that Broccoli's nonsensical rule above has nothing whatsoever to
do with Newton's Laws.
***************************************************
NEWTON'S LAWS:
I. (Law of Motion 1) Every object in a state of uniform motion
tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is
applied to it. Every object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon
by an external force.
2. (Law of Motion 2) The acceleration a of a body is parallel and
directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to
the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
3. (Law of Motion 3) For every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction.
4. (Law of Gravitation) Every point mass in the universe attracts
every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to
the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square
of the distance between them.
***************************************************
Newton's Laws of Motion (1), (2), and (3) provide necessity of motion
of a particular body only after one has knowledge of whether the body
is actually moving. Broccoli hasn't proved the Earth is moving but
assumed it. His above nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity
canNOT be derived from any of these.
Newton's Law of Gravitation explains gravity as an attractive force
along the lines between the centers of mass between EVERY BODY in the
ENTIRE UNIVERSE. This wouldn't explain the momentum of any of the
other eight planets. And this law places few restrictions on what
motions a body can have. Likewise Broccoli can't derive his
nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity from this law.
Finally Hubble observed that all the stars/galaxies that he could
observe with his available tools are situated in spherical shells with
earth at the center. These are the most dense masses in the universe.
That is strong evidence that the earth lies at the center of mass of
the universey and is completely immobile.
snip
>Planet/Lunar systems like those of Saturn and Jupiter are separate
>gravitationally bound sub-systems. Each of those gravitationally bound
>planetary sub-systems orbit the sun as a single unit.
Here Broccoli contradicts his own nonsensical, NON Newtonian rule of
necessity he uses above to prove that the Earth moves. If these moons
fail to orbit the center of mass of the system offers then there is no
necessity that any bodies do so. Newton's laws were impotent to
expalin how any body arrived at its initial position with its
momentum.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
Broccoli is going down the same path as Ray. He will say and do
anything however illogical, irrational, and obviously false. Ray and
Broccoli are both headed to irrelevence. Which one will win the race
to rock bottom.
shipmodeler1
Mar 18, 2012, 3:04:53 PM3/18/12
to
The best model makes the best predictions. So make some.
Free Lunch
Mar 18, 2012, 3:14:06 PM3/18/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:04:53 -0700 (PDT), shipmodeler1
<rog...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>The best model makes the best predictions. So make some.
And they fit with current observations, a problem for some folks.
<rog...@comcast.net> wrote in talk.origins:
>The best model makes the best predictions. So make some.
*Hemidactylus*
Mar 18, 2012, 3:27:38 PM3/18/12
to
entirety of the solar system. All the planets (including Earth) rotate
around the sun due to it's gravitational superiority. Each of these
planets could potentiall have stuff rotating around them as a subsystem
within the context of the solar system as a whole. Thus the moon and
human-made satellites rotate around the Earth with its gravity, yet the
Earth and its hangers on rotate as a subsystem around the sun.
And the gravity of the moon affects the Earth as witnessed by tides.
Even the Earth is influenced by other components of its subsystem, thus
the solar system as a whole. The moon and sun have gravitational
influences upon the Earth in their own ways. One recent notion that
blows you out of the water and your ignorance of reality is a Titanic
disaster:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/17/opinion/urry-moon-titanic/index.html
[quote]The absolute pull of the sun's gravity is far greater than the
pull of the moon -- that's why we're orbiting the sun, after all, rather
than the moon... [/quote]
Like the Titanic before you, you have hit icebergs you never expected
and are sinking into the bitterly cold depths. You cling to your beloved
geocentric life raft, but like Leo DiCaprio, you succumb and fade away.
BTW have you seen this aptly titled movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106273/
Have you hit the Duesberg iceberg too? You're not a good captain, boldly
steering through waters where icebergs reside. Maybe you'll trip into a
lifeboat.
--
*Hemidactylus*
-Victory? Victory you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of
the dark side has fallen. Begun the Privacy War has.
gdgu...@gmail.com
Mar 18, 2012, 6:59:21 PM3/18/12
to
On Mar 18, 2:58 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:10:51 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:45:47 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:31:40 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
Firstly, Saturn's moons and Earth's moon do in fact orbit the Sun, as
part of their respective planet-moon systems. Just as I orbit the Sun
as a consequence of being held by gravity to the Earth. I would
continue to orbit the Sun, albeit with slightly increased variability,
if I were on the International space station.
> Further below this idiot refutes his own
> "necessity" by admitting that it "is" possible for a body to be a part
> of another system. This collapses everything.
How?
> But let's continue to
> show that Broccoli's nonsensical rule above has nothing whatsoever to
> do with Newton's Laws.
>
> ***************************************************
> NEWTON'S LAWS:
> I. (Law of Motion 1) Every object in a state of uniform motion
> tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is
> applied to it. Every object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon
> by an external force.
> 2. (Law of Motion 2) The acceleration a of a body is parallel and
> directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to
> the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
Let's pay particular attention to that one. Under what circumstances
could an object be stationary?
> 3. (Law of Motion 3) For every action there is an equal and opposite
> reaction.
> 4. (Law of Gravitation) Every point mass in the universe attracts
> every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to
> the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square
> of the distance between them.
Let's also pay close attention to the second clause of the sentence
above.
> ***************************************************
>
> Newton's Laws of Motion (1), (2), and (3) provide necessity of motion
> of a particular body only after one has knowledge of whether the body
> is actually moving.
Incorrect. A body acted on by a non-zero net force must undergo
acceleration. And a body undergoing acceleration cannot be
stationary.
Broccoli hasn't proved the Earth is moving but
> assumed it. His above nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity
> canNOT be derived from any of these.
>
> Newton's Law of Gravitation explains gravity as an attractive force
> along the lines between the centers of mass between EVERY BODY in the
> ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
Here's where you forget the second clause of the sentence you quoted
"...and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
them". The Andromeda Galaxy has a heck of a lot of mass, yet I don't
worry about being sucked up into the sky when it's overhead.
Let's think about that a bit. Force causes acceleration. Acceleration
is commonly thought of as speeding up or slowing down, but it also
refers to a change of direction. In the absence of gravitational
forces, the Earth would either be stationary or travel in a straight
line. Gravitational forces from various bodies alter that course,
"curving" it.
Now let's consider the effect of "every body in the Universe", or a
few of them, anyway. I choose the Moon, the Sun and the Milky Way. The
Moon's mass is a tiny fraction of the Sun's, and the Sun's mass is a
tiny fraction of the Milky Way's. Yet the Moon causes a greater
deviation (tighter curvature) of the Earth trajectory than does the
Sun. And the Milky Way causes such a subtle curvature that our solar
system would take over 200 million years to make an orbit. I'm sure
that the other galaxies in our "neighborhood" must curve the
trajectory of the Milky Way as well, and the Solar System and the
Earth in turn, but to an even gentler degree.
That's because of distance. The puny gravitational force between the
Earth and my house keeps my house rooted where it is despite the
enormous masses found elsewhere. And as you never, ever address, the
mass necessary to balance the effect of the Sun simply cannot be
found. It's a sort of vicious cycle; the further away you go, the more
mass you need, but the more mass you try to include in the equation,
the further away it becomes, which requires more mass.
> This wouldn't explain the momentum of any of the
> other eight planets. And this law places few restrictions on what
> motions a body can have.
I have no idea what this means. Newton's laws do place pretty tight
restrictions on what sorts of motions objects can have, based on the
forces they encounter. I'd swear this rule is sometimes violated when
I drop a screw in my shop, but that's probably the less rational part
of my brain talking.
Likewise Broccoli can't derive his
> nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity from this law.
>
> Finally Hubble observed that all the stars/galaxies that he could
> observe with his available tools are situated in spherical shells with
> earth at the center.
You keep repeating this. Even were this actually so (it isn't), the
bodies whose masses dominate the gravitational effect on the Earth
cannot remotely be described as being arrayed in "spheres".
> These are the most dense masses in the universe.
What are the most dense masses? And why would it matter?
> That is strong evidence that the earth lies at the center of mass of
> the universey and is completely immobile.
>
> snip
>
> >Planet/Lunar systems like those of Saturn and Jupiter are separate
> >gravitationally bound sub-systems. Each of those gravitationally bound
> >planetary sub-systems orbit the sun as a single unit.
>
> Here Broccoli contradicts his own nonsensical, NON Newtonian rule of
> necessity he uses above to prove that the Earth moves. If these moons
> fail to orbit the center of mass of the system offers then there is no
> necessity that any bodies do so.
But they do. A child on a ferris wheel circles around the wheel's
axle, around the Earth, around the Sun and Around the Milky Way.
Newton's laws were impotent to
> expalin how any body arrived at its initial position with its
> momentum.
The "initial" position of a body which formed over eons from dust and
gas is a poorly-defined concept. But more importantly, it's
irrelevant. If we are discussing the concept of a stationary Earth, we
only need consider that those bodies are in motion NOW and are arrayed
such that they exert an unbalanced and continually changing net force
on the Earth; a net force that no observable or conceivable set of
masses could precisely counteract.
According to Newton, if there is a net force on a body, then it must
accelerate. According to Newton, gravitational forces vary inversely
with the square of the distance. The enormous distances involved
guarantee that the masses within our solar system will dominate the
gravitational effect on the Earth. (it's simple math, really - try it
yourself). The masses within our solar system are demonstrably NOT
balanced in their effect on the Earth, and the mass to counteract that
(continually-varying) imbalance cannot be found elsewhere.
So either Newton was wrong or the Earth must move.
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:10:51 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:45:47 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:31:40 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >>>wrote:
>
> snip for brevity
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Nice try, but not quite good enough.
>
> > .
>
> >>1. Broccoli hasn't proved that Earth is, necessarily, part of the
> >>same local system as the Sun and the eight other planets. He has
> >>assumed it.
>
> >Please read what I said - I assumed/said no such thing. The eight other
> >planets are demonstrating that they are part of a single (rotating
> >gravitationally bound) system centered around a location near the sun.
> >> Which means he's assumed that the Earth translates around
> >> the Sun and NOT proved it.
>
> >Again:
> >Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
> >the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
> >also orbit the sun.
>
> The fact that Saturn's moons and Earth's moon don't obey this
> necessity is a falsification of Friar Broccoli's nonsensical (and NON
> Newtonian) claim.
Wow. You have no feel for physics at all, do you?
>
> snip for brevity
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Nice try, but not quite good enough.
>
> > .
>
> >>1. Broccoli hasn't proved that Earth is, necessarily, part of the
> >>same local system as the Sun and the eight other planets. He has
> >>assumed it.
>
> >Please read what I said - I assumed/said no such thing. The eight other
> >planets are demonstrating that they are part of a single (rotating
> >gravitationally bound) system centered around a location near the sun.
> >> Which means he's assumed that the Earth translates around
> >> the Sun and NOT proved it.
>
> >Again:
> >Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
> >the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
> >also orbit the sun.
>
> The fact that Saturn's moons and Earth's moon don't obey this
> necessity is a falsification of Friar Broccoli's nonsensical (and NON
> Newtonian) claim.
Firstly, Saturn's moons and Earth's moon do in fact orbit the Sun, as
part of their respective planet-moon systems. Just as I orbit the Sun
as a consequence of being held by gravity to the Earth. I would
continue to orbit the Sun, albeit with slightly increased variability,
if I were on the International space station.
> Further below this idiot refutes his own
> "necessity" by admitting that it "is" possible for a body to be a part
> of another system. This collapses everything.
> But let's continue to
> show that Broccoli's nonsensical rule above has nothing whatsoever to
> do with Newton's Laws.
>
> ***************************************************
> NEWTON'S LAWS:
> I. (Law of Motion 1) Every object in a state of uniform motion
> tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is
> applied to it. Every object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon
> by an external force.
> 2. (Law of Motion 2) The acceleration a of a body is parallel and
> directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to
> the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
could an object be stationary?
> 3. (Law of Motion 3) For every action there is an equal and opposite
> reaction.
> 4. (Law of Gravitation) Every point mass in the universe attracts
> every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to
> the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square
> of the distance between them.
above.
> ***************************************************
>
> Newton's Laws of Motion (1), (2), and (3) provide necessity of motion
> of a particular body only after one has knowledge of whether the body
> is actually moving.
acceleration. And a body undergoing acceleration cannot be
stationary.
Broccoli hasn't proved the Earth is moving but
> assumed it. His above nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity
> canNOT be derived from any of these.
>
> Newton's Law of Gravitation explains gravity as an attractive force
> along the lines between the centers of mass between EVERY BODY in the
> ENTIRE UNIVERSE.
"...and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
them". The Andromeda Galaxy has a heck of a lot of mass, yet I don't
worry about being sucked up into the sky when it's overhead.
Let's think about that a bit. Force causes acceleration. Acceleration
is commonly thought of as speeding up or slowing down, but it also
refers to a change of direction. In the absence of gravitational
forces, the Earth would either be stationary or travel in a straight
line. Gravitational forces from various bodies alter that course,
"curving" it.
Now let's consider the effect of "every body in the Universe", or a
few of them, anyway. I choose the Moon, the Sun and the Milky Way. The
Moon's mass is a tiny fraction of the Sun's, and the Sun's mass is a
tiny fraction of the Milky Way's. Yet the Moon causes a greater
deviation (tighter curvature) of the Earth trajectory than does the
Sun. And the Milky Way causes such a subtle curvature that our solar
system would take over 200 million years to make an orbit. I'm sure
that the other galaxies in our "neighborhood" must curve the
trajectory of the Milky Way as well, and the Solar System and the
Earth in turn, but to an even gentler degree.
That's because of distance. The puny gravitational force between the
Earth and my house keeps my house rooted where it is despite the
enormous masses found elsewhere. And as you never, ever address, the
mass necessary to balance the effect of the Sun simply cannot be
found. It's a sort of vicious cycle; the further away you go, the more
mass you need, but the more mass you try to include in the equation,
the further away it becomes, which requires more mass.
> This wouldn't explain the momentum of any of the
> other eight planets. And this law places few restrictions on what
> motions a body can have.
restrictions on what sorts of motions objects can have, based on the
forces they encounter. I'd swear this rule is sometimes violated when
I drop a screw in my shop, but that's probably the less rational part
of my brain talking.
Likewise Broccoli can't derive his
> nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity from this law.
>
> Finally Hubble observed that all the stars/galaxies that he could
> observe with his available tools are situated in spherical shells with
> earth at the center.
bodies whose masses dominate the gravitational effect on the Earth
cannot remotely be described as being arrayed in "spheres".
> These are the most dense masses in the universe.
> That is strong evidence that the earth lies at the center of mass of
> the universey and is completely immobile.
>
> snip
>
> >Planet/Lunar systems like those of Saturn and Jupiter are separate
> >gravitationally bound sub-systems. Each of those gravitationally bound
> >planetary sub-systems orbit the sun as a single unit.
>
> Here Broccoli contradicts his own nonsensical, NON Newtonian rule of
> necessity he uses above to prove that the Earth moves. If these moons
> fail to orbit the center of mass of the system offers then there is no
> necessity that any bodies do so.
axle, around the Earth, around the Sun and Around the Milky Way.
Newton's laws were impotent to
> expalin how any body arrived at its initial position with its
> momentum.
gas is a poorly-defined concept. But more importantly, it's
irrelevant. If we are discussing the concept of a stationary Earth, we
only need consider that those bodies are in motion NOW and are arrayed
such that they exert an unbalanced and continually changing net force
on the Earth; a net force that no observable or conceivable set of
masses could precisely counteract.
According to Newton, if there is a net force on a body, then it must
accelerate. According to Newton, gravitational forces vary inversely
with the square of the distance. The enormous distances involved
guarantee that the masses within our solar system will dominate the
gravitational effect on the Earth. (it's simple math, really - try it
yourself). The masses within our solar system are demonstrably NOT
balanced in their effect on the Earth, and the mass to counteract that
(continually-varying) imbalance cannot be found elsewhere.
So either Newton was wrong or the Earth must move.
Friar Broccoli
Mar 19, 2012, 9:18:45 AM3/19/12
to
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 14:58:54 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
Hi Tony;
Reading this, I can see that you are genuinely confused, and I know from
personal experience how hard it is to shake erroneous ideas (even when
you believe the people you are talking to know more, and of course you
are convince that we are all Devil deluded atheists or something
similar)
To make matters worse I have a lot of other work to do, so don't have
the time I need to really explain things to you properly.
>>>1. Broccoli hasn't proved that Earth is, necessarily, part of the
>>>same local system as the Sun and the eight other planets. He has
>>>assumed it.
>>
>>Please read what I said - I assumed/said no such thing. The eight other
>>planets are demonstrating that they are part of a single (rotating
>>gravitationally bound) system centered around a location near the sun.
>
>>> Which means he's assumed that the Earth translates around
>>> the Sun and NOT proved it.
>>
>>Again:
.
>>Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
>>the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
>>also orbit the sun.
>
>The fact that Saturn's moons and Earth's moon don't obey this
>necessity is a falsification of Friar Broccoli's nonsensical (and NON
>Newtonian) claim. Further below this idiot refutes his own
>"necessity" by admitting that it "is" possible for a body to be a part
>of another system.
There is no contradiction here: The existence of sub-systems (like
Saturn's lunar system) does not prevent the existence of larger scale
systems (like our sun's planetary system and the rotating galactic
system).
It's a bit like arguing that the US federal government system cannot
exist because of State government systems, and those cannot exist
because of municipal government systems.
Think about it - you already know/agree that the moons of Saturn orbit
it, and the moons of Jupiter orbit it. Equally you know that Jupiter
and Saturn (with their moon families) orbit the sun. So there simple is
no reason to think that earth and its moon do anything different.
> This collapses everything. But let's continue to
>show that Broccoli's nonsensical rule above has nothing whatsoever to
>do with Newton's Laws.
>
>***************************************************
>NEWTON'S LAWS:
>I. (Law of Motion 1) Every object in a state of uniform motion
>tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is
>applied to it. Every object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon
>by an external force.
>2. (Law of Motion 2) The acceleration a of a body is parallel and
>directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to
>the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
>3. (Law of Motion 3) For every action there is an equal and opposite
>reaction.
>4. (Law of Gravitation) Every point mass in the universe attracts
>every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to
>the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square
>of the distance between them.
>***************************************************
>
>Newton's Laws of Motion (1), (2), and (3) provide necessity of motion
>of a particular body only after one has knowledge of whether the body
>is actually moving. Broccoli hasn't proved the Earth is moving but
>assumed it.
No. The earth is following the same laws as all the other planets in
response to the same applied forces.
All the other planets are orbiting the sun because if they were just
standing still, the gravitational force (4th law) from the sun would
cause those planets to fall like stones (2nd law) into the sun.
Similarly if the earth were stationary, the greater gravitational force
of the sun would immediately pull the earth in and swallow it. The
earth MUST orbit in order to avoid falling into the sun.
> His above nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity
> can NOT be derived from any of these.
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
wrote:
Hi Tony;
Reading this, I can see that you are genuinely confused, and I know from
personal experience how hard it is to shake erroneous ideas (even when
you believe the people you are talking to know more, and of course you
are convince that we are all Devil deluded atheists or something
similar)
To make matters worse I have a lot of other work to do, so don't have
the time I need to really explain things to you properly.
>>>1. Broccoli hasn't proved that Earth is, necessarily, part of the
>>>same local system as the Sun and the eight other planets. He has
>>>assumed it.
>>
>>Please read what I said - I assumed/said no such thing. The eight other
>>planets are demonstrating that they are part of a single (rotating
>>gravitationally bound) system centered around a location near the sun.
>
>>> Which means he's assumed that the Earth translates around
>>> the Sun and NOT proved it.
>>
>>Again:
>>Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
>>the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
>>also orbit the sun.
>
>The fact that Saturn's moons and Earth's moon don't obey this
>necessity is a falsification of Friar Broccoli's nonsensical (and NON
>Newtonian) claim. Further below this idiot refutes his own
>"necessity" by admitting that it "is" possible for a body to be a part
>of another system.
Saturn's lunar system) does not prevent the existence of larger scale
systems (like our sun's planetary system and the rotating galactic
system).
It's a bit like arguing that the US federal government system cannot
exist because of State government systems, and those cannot exist
because of municipal government systems.
Think about it - you already know/agree that the moons of Saturn orbit
it, and the moons of Jupiter orbit it. Equally you know that Jupiter
and Saturn (with their moon families) orbit the sun. So there simple is
no reason to think that earth and its moon do anything different.
> This collapses everything. But let's continue to
>show that Broccoli's nonsensical rule above has nothing whatsoever to
>do with Newton's Laws.
>
>***************************************************
>NEWTON'S LAWS:
>I. (Law of Motion 1) Every object in a state of uniform motion
>tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is
>applied to it. Every object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon
>by an external force.
>2. (Law of Motion 2) The acceleration a of a body is parallel and
>directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to
>the mass m, i.e., F = ma.
>3. (Law of Motion 3) For every action there is an equal and opposite
>reaction.
>4. (Law of Gravitation) Every point mass in the universe attracts
>every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to
>the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square
>of the distance between them.
>***************************************************
>
>Newton's Laws of Motion (1), (2), and (3) provide necessity of motion
>of a particular body only after one has knowledge of whether the body
>is actually moving. Broccoli hasn't proved the Earth is moving but
>assumed it.
response to the same applied forces.
All the other planets are orbiting the sun because if they were just
standing still, the gravitational force (4th law) from the sun would
cause those planets to fall like stones (2nd law) into the sun.
Similarly if the earth were stationary, the greater gravitational force
of the sun would immediately pull the earth in and swallow it. The
earth MUST orbit in order to avoid falling into the sun.
> His above nonsensical, non Newtonian rule of necessity
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
Boikat
Mar 19, 2012, 1:47:50 PM3/19/12
to
On Mar 18, 1:58 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:10:51 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:45:47 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:31:40 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
<Snip mimbling>
IIRC, you've never adequatly responded to thequestion about how
geosynchronus satellites manage to stay in place. Aside from that,
maybe you could you explain why there are no satellites in a *polar*
geosynchronus orbit?
Boikat
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:10:51 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:45:47 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 13:31:40 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
IIRC, you've never adequatly responded to thequestion about how
geosynchronus satellites manage to stay in place. Aside from that,
maybe you could you explain why there are no satellites in a *polar*
geosynchronus orbit?
Boikat
Mike Duffy
Mar 19, 2012, 7:36:21 PM3/19/12
to
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:37aem7pq86aq1g24d...@4ax.com:
> To make matters worse I have a lot of other work to do, so don't have
> the time I need to really explain things to you properly.
I rather doubt that anyone has enough time to explain it to him.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
news:37aem7pq86aq1g24d...@4ax.com:
> To make matters worse I have a lot of other work to do, so don't have
> the time I need to really explain things to you properly.
--
http://pages.videotron.ca/duffym/index.htm
Mark Isaak
Mar 19, 2012, 7:40:24 PM3/19/12
to
On 3/18/12 11:58 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip for brevity
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 08:26:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
snip for more brevity, since others have demolished what you have said
about Newton's laws.
> Finally Hubble observed that all the stars/galaxies that he could
> observe with his available tools are situated in spherical shells with
> earth at the center. These are the most dense masses in the universe.
> That is strong evidence that the earth lies at the center of mass of
> the universey and is completely immobile.
Tens of millions, at least, of stars and galaxies have been mapped, and
the map shows no hint of spherical shells, much less spheres with the
earth at the center.
Furthermore, Hubble's work led to the discovery of the most primal, with
the most distant origin, of all things -- the cosmic microwave
background. Measurements of that background show that the earth is
moving 627 +/- 22 km/sec roughly towards the constellation Leo [1]. If
you want a measure of earth's absolute motion, that is it.
[1] M. White et al., 1994, "Anisotropies in the cosmic microwave
background", _Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics_ 32: 319.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
0 new messages