A Brief Summary of Broccoli's Failures and a Starting Point for Him to Begin Anew

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:24:50 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:58:44 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:26:59 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>


snip for brevity


>
>Neither I nor Hemidactylus has any idea what *false rule of motion* you
>are talking about. I don't believe I ever used anything from
>Hemidactylus (or anybody else here) in any post on mass, gravity and
>orbits in the solar system. This all seems to be a projection from your
>imagination.
>

I reposted the false rule so often that this claim of ignorance isn't
very convincing. I'll offer it again:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BEGIN BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE OF MOTION]*************************
>>>>>>>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.
[END BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE]*********************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After Broccoli repudiated the false rule of motion on/about Day 4
Broccoli admitted that his argument amounted to this:

1. IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
crashes into the sun.

2. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.

3. Therefore the heliocentric model is true.

I agree that premises (1) and (2) are true independently. However the
collective argument (with its conclusion) suffers terribly from the
FALLACY OF ASSERTING THE CONSEQUENT. It means that the conclusion and
the argument is INVALID. See Wilkins (and not Harshman) for a further
explanation if necessary.


>Please just consider the arguments and forget about who said what.

Unfortunately my time is limited (as is yours) and considering the
source is a wise means of avoiding wasting one's time. Wouldn't you
agree?

>
>
>>If your new best shot is devastating to me even one reply from me will
>>be useless. I give my lone replies my best shot. It either works or
>>it doesn't. I win or I lose.
>
>The problem is that you have so far misinterpreted each of the arguments
>I have presented, and only refuted/defeated your misinterpretation of my
>argument.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BEGIN BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE OF MOTION]*************************
>>>>>>>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.
[END BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE]*********************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can only parse what you offer. This false rule was contradicted by
any other body which did not directly orbit the sun (every moon in the
system). Then Broccoli offered an exception to his rule which, more
or less, indicated that it wasn't a necessary rule at all.

>
>I can only get you to address my actual argument, if you give me a
>series of posts to correct your misinterpretations, so that eventually
>you reply to the point I am actually trying to make.

But you finally did dispense with the false rule of motion because it
not only didn't prove the Earth moved it led to a number of problems.
On or about Day 4 Broccoli did repudiate the false rule of motion in
favor of this:

1. IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
crashes into the sun.

2. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.

3. Therefore the heliocentric model is true (and by extension the
neoTychoan model is not).


Premises (1) and (2) are perfectly fine as independent statements,
unfortunately the collective argument and hence the final conclusion
is fallacious; that is, it suffers from the Fallacy of Asserting the
Consequent. See Wilkins (and not Harshman) for further details on
this invalidity.

>
>Will you agree to remain in a discussion with me on mass, gravity and
>orbits in our solar system, long enough to make you understand my actual
>argument?

If you can offer an argument which proves that the Earth moves or that
the NeoTychoan model is not possible given the Laws of Physics then
offer it. I will respond. If your argument requires endless
discussion then it can't be very good.


>
>My argument is about the force (usually gravitational) needed to change
>the direction of a moving (with inertial force) body (here usually the
>sun, although the effect of gravity on the earth and moon may become
>part of the issue).

So Broccoli is clear about things:
1. I agree that IF the heliocentric model is true the Earth must move
or the Earth crashes into the sun.
2. Unfortunately there are good scientific reasons to believe that
heliocentricism is false. There is no independent evidence that the
Earth moves, but there is independent evidence that it is at the
center of the universe. Broccoli offered an example of that evidence
with his graphic of the super clusters.

So Broccoli's vague beginning of an argument (shown immediately above)
barks up the wrong tree with regard to the neoTychoan model and
indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Newton's Laws.

In the heliocentric system all the bodies rotate about the center of
mass (and not the Sun though the COM is close to the Sun). While the
bodies rotating around the center of mass have gravitational effects
on each other their only effect on the center of mass is to cause it
to be fixed and immobile. That is, its acceleration is Zero.

In the case of the neoTychoan model the Earth is the center of mass in
a completely different rotating system. Newton's Laws indicate that
the acceleration of the center of mass (in this case the Earth) of the
neoTychoan rotating system has an acceleration of zero. In other
words,

* IF the neoTychoan model is true, not only does the Earth NOT move
but it cannot move.

_________________________________________________________
WHAT MUST FRIAR BROCCOLI SHOW TO PREVAIL?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. He must offer independent evidence that the Earth moves.

2. He must prove that space "must" be curved and that Euclidean space
is ruled out.

3. He must show that the Earth is not at the center of the universe
or can't be at the center.

4. He must show that the universe is not rotating or that rotation is
ruled out.


Regards,
T Pagano

I practically begged you to take a break but your buddies egged you
on. So be it.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:48:46 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

Cutting to your claims:

>So Broccoli's vague beginning of an argument (shown immediately above)
>barks up the wrong tree with regard to the neoTychoan model and
>indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Newton's Laws.
>
>In the heliocentric system all the bodies rotate about the center of
>mass (and not the Sun though the COM is close to the Sun). While the
>bodies rotating around the center of mass have gravitational effects
>on each other their only effect on the center of mass is to cause it
>to be fixed and immobile. That is, its acceleration is Zero.
>
>In the case of the neoTychoan model the Earth is the center of mass in
>a completely different rotating system. Newton's Laws indicate that
>the acceleration of the center of mass (in this case the Earth) of the
>neoTychoan rotating system has an acceleration of zero. In other
>words,
>
>* IF the neoTychoan model is true, not only does the Earth NOT move
>but it cannot move.

I will begin with a question:

Your Tychonian model has the sun orbiting a stationary earth. That
means the sun (whose inertia would, if undisturbed, keep it moving in a
straight line [Newton's first law]) is gradually changing to move in the
opposite direction every six months (or half day - if you think the
earth is not rotating).

To change the direction of sun in such an orbit requires a force (a
black hole 300,000 times the mass of the sun at the earth's location
would be close to sufficient).

In your model where does the force come from that causes the sun to
change direction (orbit) around a tiny stationary earth?

The above sentence is my question. When I have a reply I will continue.

--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views

[Rolf]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:24:50 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:58:44 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:26:59 -0400, Friar Broccoli
>>> <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
> snip for brevity
>
>

even more snippage

I keep wondering: We observe all objects in the sky moving - both in orbits
as well as in some general direction - away form, or towards us, or any
other direction. In short, the universe is not acting like a solid orbiting
object, and cannot have a fixed and evenly distributed gravitational force
on the Earth. And from Einstein we have learned that mass cause change to
space time. That's the reason celestial objects stay in orbit, like the moon
around the Earth.

But with all the movement in the universe I can only conclude that the
gravitational force acting on the Earth is not uniform from time to time; it
keep changing all the time. Which means that the Earth will be moving hither
or tither all the time - and cannot be a fixed pivot for the rest of the
universe to orbit around.

That's just my layman's thinking; I don't pretend to know better than Tony
or anybosy else; I just try to understand the universe based on the facts
available to me.

[A.Carlson]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:48:46 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

WRONG! If *the law of Gravity* is valid, irrespective of whether it
is the heliocentric, geocentric, or tychoan model being argued, one
would reasonably expect that objects that exert a gravitational pull
on each other would either reflect some sort of orbital relationship
or they would be crashing towards each other.

>2. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.

Ergo the earth, being the body with the less mass, would be expected
to be the one orbiting the sun.

>3. Therefore the heliocentric model is true.

Works for me as well as the virtually all of the astronomical
community. One should also note that ALL relative masses are being
taken into account here.

>I agree that premises (1) and (2) are true independently. However the
>collective argument (with its conclusion) suffers terribly from the
>FALLACY OF ASSERTING THE CONSEQUENT. It means that the conclusion and
>the argument is INVALID. See Wilkins (and not Harshman) for a further
>explanation if necessary.

The real question here is whether this distortion of yours reflects
ignorance or evasion on your part. Considering your past I expect the
latter.

>
>>Please just consider the arguments and forget about who said what.
>
>Unfortunately my time is limited (as is yours) and considering the
>source is a wise means of avoiding wasting one's time. Wouldn't you
>agree?
>
>>
>>
>>>If your new best shot is devastating to me even one reply from me will
>>>be useless. I give my lone replies my best shot. It either works or
>>>it doesn't. I win or I lose.
>>
>>The problem is that you have so far misinterpreted each of the arguments
>>I have presented, and only refuted/defeated your misinterpretation of my
>>argument.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>[BEGIN BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE OF MOTION]*************************
>>>>>>>>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.
>[END BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE]*********************
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I can only parse what you offer. This false rule was contradicted by
>any other body which did not directly orbit the sun (every moon in the
>system). Then Broccoli offered an exception to his rule which, more
>or less, indicated that it wasn't a necessary rule at all.

Again, ALL relative masses are being taken into account. Given the
distance squared rule it stands to reason that a relatively massive
body can capture a celestial body that is small enough and close
enough for it to orbit such body, which explains the many satellites
orbiting most of our solar system's planets.

What Broccoli was actually pointing out was that if the sun was
massive enough to rein in planets both farther and more massive than
the earth then it would also be expected rein in the earth as well.

As far as the relevance of planetary systems which retain their own
satellites, this is why I have repeatedly asked you to explain
lagrangian points as they relate to *relative* gravitational forces.

Any object closer to the earth than L1 would be expected to be
captured by earth's own gravitational force as it would be greater
than the gravitational force of the sun for that object.

Given the fact that L1 is significantly closer to the earth than the
sun, it stands to reason that the mass of the sun is much greater than
the mass of the earth and therefore the earth should be orbiting
around the sun and not the other way around.

>>I can only get you to address my actual argument, if you give me a
>>series of posts to correct your misinterpretations, so that eventually
>>you reply to the point I am actually trying to make.
>
>But you finally did dispense with the false rule of motion because it
>not only didn't prove the Earth moved it led to a number of problems.
>On or about Day 4 Broccoli did repudiate the false rule of motion in
>favor of this:
>
>1. IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
>crashes into the sun.

Ain't gravity a bitch!

>2. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.
>
>3. Therefore the heliocentric model is true (and by extension the
>neoTychoan model is not).

The existence of gravity is what did in the Tychoan model - centuries
ago!

The distortion that you are offering above appears to be a tautology.
The evidence for the heliocentric model lays outside the heliocentric
model itself. The earth not crashing into the sun is merely what
*follows* from the actual evidence available that you chose to leave
out.

>Premises (1) and (2) are perfectly fine as independent statements,
>unfortunately the collective argument and hence the final conclusion
>is fallacious; that is, it suffers from the Fallacy of Asserting the
>Consequent. See Wilkins (and not Harshman) for further details on
>this invalidity.

Of course the real argument is more like:

1. If the force of gravity exists then objects within our solar
system would either be moving towards or orbit each other relative to
their respective masses.

2. Since the force of gravity is relative to the collective mass of
any two objects, the object with the lesser mass will orbit the object
with the greater mass. And yes, the center of gravity (or barycenter
if you prefer, but NOT the center of mass) may very well lay outside
of the more massive object. The relationship that Pluto has with its
moon reflects this.

3. With respect to the distance squared rule, When an object with a
lesser mass than its closest neighbor but close enough to that
neighbor so that the shared gravitational pull is greater than the
pull of a more massive third body located farther away, the object
will orbit the closest neighbor and not the larger body farther away.

Following these rules, it is clear that our solar system does indeed
follow the heliocentric model with the earth orbiting the sun.

>>Will you agree to remain in a discussion with me on mass, gravity and
>>orbits in our solar system, long enough to make you understand my actual
>>argument?
>
>If you can offer an argument which proves that the Earth moves or that
>the NeoTychoan model is not possible given the Laws of Physics then
>offer it. I will respond. If your argument requires endless
>discussion then it can't be very good.

But you've been repeatedly dodging the significance that gravity plays
all along. Do you not consider gravity to be part of the 'Laws of
Physics'? You certainly haven't accounted for it.

Again, care to discuss the existence and significance of lagrangian
points with respect to relative gravitational pulls and their
locations?

>>My argument is about the force (usually gravitational) needed to change
>>the direction of a moving (with inertial force) body (here usually the
>>sun, although the effect of gravity on the earth and moon may become
>>part of the issue).
>
>So Broccoli is clear about things:
>1. I agree that IF the heliocentric model is true the Earth must move
>or the Earth crashes into the sun.

If gravity exists then it follows that the heliocentric model is true.
It also separately follows that, because of the force of gravity (not
*because of* the heliocentric model), the earth must move or crash

into the sun.

>2. Unfortunately there are good scientific reasons to believe that
>heliocentricism is false.

Name one!

>There is no independent evidence that the
>Earth moves, but there is independent evidence that it is at the
>center of the universe. Broccoli offered an example of that evidence
>with his graphic of the super clusters.

Broadly speaking, the earth is located in the middle of things, just
as with pretty much every other celestial object visible to the naked
eye.

>So Broccoli's vague beginning of an argument (shown immediately above)
>barks up the wrong tree with regard to the neoTychoan model and
>indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Newton's Laws.

Pot, meet kettle!

>In the heliocentric system all the bodies rotate about the center of
>mass (and not the Sun though the COM is close to the Sun). While the
>bodies rotating around the center of mass have gravitational effects
>on each other their only effect on the center of mass is to cause it
>to be fixed and immobile. That is, its acceleration is Zero.

Actually, the center of *gravity* or barycenter shifts in a dynamic
way relative to the location of all bodies at any given moment.

>In the case of the neoTychoan model the Earth is the center of mass in
>a completely different rotating system.

The earth *is* the center of mass or it is coincidentally *located at*
the center of mass (or barycenter)? Pick one!

For the first to be true the earth itself must have a mass greater
than the sun, just for starters. At a minimum this would lead to a
majority of the planets (the outer ones at least) rotating around the
earth and not the sun. This would also lead to the lagrangian points
being in a completely different location than where they are currently
observed to be.

A great deal of special pleading would be necessary for the second to
be true and just because the earth might just coincidentally be at
that location does not mean that it somehow magically takes on
characteristics as though its own mass is what is creating the effect
of that particular location. The earth would still be subject to the
same gravitational forces as always and can easily be pulled away from
such a location by a nearby object with sufficient mass (like the
sun).

>Newton's Laws indicate that
>the acceleration of the center of mass (in this case the Earth) of the
>neoTychoan rotating system has an acceleration of zero. In other
>words,

In other words, you're full of shit!

>* IF the neoTychoan model is true, not only does the Earth NOT move
>but it cannot move.

It looks like you disproved the neyTychoan model on your own then. The
earth both can and does move.

>_______________________________________________________
>WHAT MUST FRIAR BROCCOLI SHOW TO PREVAIL?
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>1. He must offer independent evidence that the Earth moves.
>
>2. He must prove that space "must" be curved and that Euclidean space
>is ruled out.
>
>3. He must show that the Earth is not at the center of the universe
>or can't be at the center.
>
>4. He must show that the universe is not rotating or that rotation is
>ruled out.

What? Nothing about gravitational forces? Really?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 03/24/2012 11:48 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:24:50 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:58:44 -0400, T Pagano<not....@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:26:59 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>
>
> snip for brevity
>
>
>>
>> Neither I nor Hemidactylus has any idea what *false rule of motion* you
>> are talking about. I don't believe I ever used anything from
>> Hemidactylus (or anybody else here) in any post on mass, gravity and
>> orbits in the solar system. This all seems to be a projection from your
>> imagination.
>>
>
> I reposted the false rule so often that this claim of ignorance isn't
> very convincing. I'll offer it again:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [BEGIN BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE OF MOTION]*************************
>>>>>>>> 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.
> [END BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE]*********************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please provide the post where I proposed a false rule of motion that led
to this false rule you keep harping on about. I will provide space below
for you to show your work:

[insert reference here]



--
*Hemidactylus*
-Victory? Victory you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of
the dark side has fallen. Begun the Privacy War has.

[David Canzi]

T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:
>After Broccoli repudiated the false rule of motion on/about Day 4
>Broccoli admitted that his argument amounted to this:
>
>1. IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
>crashes into the sun.
>
>2. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.
>
>3. Therefore the heliocentric model is true.
>
>I agree that premises (1) and (2) are true independently. However the
>collective argument (with its conclusion) suffers terribly from the
>FALLACY OF ASSERTING THE CONSEQUENT.

The statement I can find by Friar Broccoli that most resembles
statement #1 above is this:

"Newton's laws show that earth would immediately fall into the
sun if earth was not orbiting the sun."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/4c046db9877b5c7e

By affirming the antecedent (Newton's laws), we can conclude that
Earth either orbits or falls into the sun. Noting that Earth is
not falling into the sun, we can conclude that Earth is orbiting.
There is no affirming of consequents going on here.

Unless you can provide accurate quotes from, and a link to, an
article in which Friar Broccoli made the invalid argument you
claim he made, I and most people reading this will consider you
to have distorted and misportrayed the valid argument that we
know he did make.

--
David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
| Wrong Way To Do It

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Mar 24, 10:48 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:

>
> After Broccoli repudiated the false rule of motion on/about Day 4
> Broccoli admitted that his argument amounted to this:

No he didn't.

> 1.  IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
> crashes into the sun.
>
> 2.  The Earth didn't crash into the sun.
>
> 3.  Therefore the heliocentric model is true.

I took his argument (or at least the closest part of it to what you
seem to be referring to) to be something like the following:

All of the objects in our solar system orbit about its center of mass.
The orbits of the planets show us where the center of mass of our
solar system is. It is effectively the Sun.

> I can only parse what you offer.  This false rule was contradicted by
> any other body which did not directly orbit the sun (every moon in the
> system).  Then Broccoli offered an exception to his rule which, more
> or less, indicated that it wasn't a necessary rule at all.

But every moon in the system does in fact orbit the Sun, that they
orbit it with a minor "wiggle" due to being part of subsystems with a
host planet doesn't change that. The word "exception" doesn't apply.

>
> >My argument is about the force (usually gravitational) needed to change
> >the direction of a moving (with inertial force) body (here usually the
> >sun, although the effect of gravity on the earth and moon may become
> >part of the issue).
>
> So Broccoli is clear about things:
> 1.  I agree that IF the heliocentric model is true the Earth must move
> or the Earth crashes into the sun.
> 2.  Unfortunately there are good scientific reasons to believe that
> heliocentricism is false.   There is no independent evidence that the
> Earth moves, but there is independent evidence that it is at the
> center of the universe.  Broccoli offered an example of that evidence
> with his graphic of the super clusters.

Your answers here have nothing whatever to do with the paragraph you
are replying to. He's asking what force makes the Sun "curve"?

> Broccoli offered an example of that evidence
> with his graphic of the super clusters.

I try to be polite, but this sort of cluelessness stretches my
capabilities to the limit. Look at the graphic again.

> So Broccoli's vague beginning of an argument (shown immediately above)
> barks up the wrong tree with regard to the neoTychoan model and
> indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Newton's Laws.
>
> In the heliocentric system all the bodies rotate about the center of
> mass (and not the Sun though the COM is close to the Sun).  While the
> bodies rotating around the center of mass have gravitational effects
> on each other their only effect on the center of mass is to cause it
> to be fixed and immobile.  That is, its acceleration is Zero.

With respect to the Sun, the Solar System's center of mass does indeed
move, or perhaps you'd like to see it as the Sun moving. Either way,
we have established the difference between the center of mass and an
object that may be at that center.

> In the case of the neoTychoan model the Earth is the center of mass in
> a completely different rotating system.  Newton's Laws indicate that
> the acceleration of the center of mass (in this case the Earth) of the
> neoTychoan rotating system has an acceleration of zero.  In other

> words,\

This is simply untrue, as the example of the Sun demonstrates. Even
were we able to call some point in the universe the center of mass, it
does not follow that an object that occupied that spot could never be
moved. Local variations in gravity predominate in a mathematically
predictable way.

>

> _________________________________________________________
> WHAT MUST FRIAR BROCCOLI SHOW TO PREVAIL?
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 1.  He must offer independent evidence that the Earth moves.

As I see it, it's simpler than that. You have, at least up to now,
accepted Newtonian physics. We can show that a stationary Earth is
contrary to Newton's laws, as is a Sun whose trajectory curves without
any observable mass to make it do so.

> 2.  He must prove that space "must" be curved and that Euclidean space
> is ruled out.

Not necessary. The Earth is observably in a position of unbalanced
gravitation that simply cannot be counteracted by any combination of
masses that we can find, unless Newton's laws are false.

> 3.  He must show that the Earth is not at the center of the universe
> or can't be at the center.

What we have already shown is that the Earth is not at the center of
mass of the Solar System or of the Galaxy. The Sun, despite being at
the center of mass of the Solar System, moves as a result of the
gravity of the other planets. The Sun does so even though it has the
advantage of BEING most of the mass.

> 4.  He must show that the universe is not rotating or that rotation is
> ruled out.

The universe may be rotating, or not, but it is irrelevant.

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:34:06 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:48:46 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>Cutting to your claims:
>
>>So Broccoli's vague beginning of an argument (shown immediately above)
>>barks up the wrong tree with regard to the neoTychoan model and
>>indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Newton's Laws.
>>
>>In the heliocentric system all the bodies rotate about the center of
>>mass (and not the Sun though the COM is close to the Sun). While the
>>bodies rotating around the center of mass have gravitational effects
>>on each other their only effect on the center of mass is to cause it
>>to be fixed and immobile. That is, its acceleration is Zero.
>>
>>In the case of the neoTychoan model the Earth is the center of mass in
>>a completely different rotating system. Newton's Laws indicate that
>>the acceleration of the center of mass (in this case the Earth) of the
>>neoTychoan rotating system has an acceleration of zero. In other
>>words,
>>
>>* IF the neoTychoan model is true, not only does the Earth NOT move
>>but it cannot move.
>
>I will begin with a question:

>
>Your Tychonian model has the sun orbiting a stationary earth.

1. Our Sun is not merely orbiting a stationary Earth but the Center
of Mass of the neoTychoan System. The neoTychoan System is not a
local system (like the Heliocentric System) but comprises the whole
universe. The neoTychoan System is rotating. The Center of Mass is
an important concept which Broccoli has consistently either ignored or
grossly misunderstood.

2. Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body. In
the heliocentric system the Center of Mass in not at the center of the
Sun. In a rotating binary star system the stars rotate about the
Center of Mass betwen them and not about some massive star in between.

>That
>means the sun (whose inertia would, if undisturbed, keep it moving in a
>straight line [Newton's first law]) is gradually changing to move in the
>opposite direction every six months (or half day - if you think the
>earth is not rotating).
>
>To change the direction of sun in such an orbit requires a force (a
>black hole 300,000 times the mass of the sun at the earth's location
>would be close to sufficient).
>In your model where does the force come from that causes the sun to
>change direction (orbit) around a tiny stationary earth?
>
>The above sentence is my question. When I have a reply I will continue.

So I can't be accused of misinterpreting you: Are you asserting that
the neoTychoan Model is impossible because of this?

Remember it is you who accused me of being anti science because of my
skepticism of the heliocentric model. As such it is your obligation
to do the proving that my skepticism is unwarranted and not mine to
play 20 questions. You either know what you're talking about or you
don't.

If you assert unequivocally that your understanding above sinks the
neoTychoan model you're going down for the count because I'm going to
demonstrate that you don't have clue. And Lethe, who egged you on, is
gonna escape without a scratch.

Or punt, take some time off, and be sure of your position. Come back
to fight another day. Your choice. My pounding response is already
qued up.

Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 14:00:03 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com>

1. I must admit I haven't a clue what any of this means.

2. If the Earth was placed 93 million miles from the Sun with no
momentum and nothing holding it fixed then Newton's Law of Gravity
would predict an attractive force between the two along a line between
their centers of mass. This force would propel the Earth directly to
the sun and not into an orbit around it.

3. Since the Sun makes up 99+ percent of the mass in the Solar System
the gravitational forces of all the other planets combined would be
insufficient to either pull it into an orbit or prevent it from
crashing into the sun.

4. Apparently Carlson knows even less than Friar Broccoli. Who knew.
.. . .


As such the rest snipped as useless.


Regards,
T Pagano

[A.Carlson]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:31:45 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

Not surprising. Putting two separate thoughts together does not
appear to be your strong point.

>2. If the Earth was placed 93 million miles from the Sun with no
>momentum and nothing holding it fixed then Newton's Law of Gravity
>would predict an attractive force between the two along a line between
>their centers of mass.

So far so good...

>This force would propel the Earth directly to
>the sun and not into an orbit around it.

Do you honestly believe that this is the only scenario or that this is
what I was alluding to? Or is honesty even in your makeup?

I was well aware of the potential of this bogus interpretation of
yours which is why I spelled out an either/or scenario. I would have
hoped that you had at least a rudimentary knowledge of how the vast
majority of scientists have come to believe our own solar system
developed.

It stands to reason that since the earth is actually in orbit around
the sun that the earth didn't go crashing towards it - that was the
point! I laid out two potential scenarios and you chose the obviously
wrong one to argue against.

Since the arguments are very similar perhaps this also explains why
you have repeatedly failed to grasp the significance of the existence
of geostationary satellites.

>This force would propel the Earth directly to
>the sun and not into an orbit around it.

Unless of course the earth was formed from the accumulation of
material already rotating around a central mass and was therefore
rotating around it to begin with. Good god you're ignorant. Is it
willful ignorance on your part or are you really that uninformed?

>3. Since the Sun makes up 99+ percent of the mass in the Solar System
>the gravitational forces of all the other planets combined would be
>insufficient to either pull it into an orbit or prevent it from
>crashing into the sun.

U-N-L-E-S-S T-H-E M-A-T-E-R-I-A-L I-T F-O-R-M-E-D F-R-O-M W-A-S
A-L-R-E-A-D-Y I-N O-R-B-I-T A-R-O-U-N-D A C-E-N-T-R-A- L M-A-S-S

So, how can someone represent himself as knowing so much about a
subject and yet actually know so little? Are you even vaguely aware
of the standard model of the formation and evolution of our solar
system or is this just a big act where you just choose to ignore
evidence not suitable to your own pet theory?

>4. Apparently Carlson knows even less than Friar Broccoli. Who knew.

Coming from you this is hardly an insult.

>As such the rest snipped as useless.

Yup. Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. Then delete the material that
you can't answer or doesn't confirm to your own biases.

Your feeble attempt at an argument remind me of those from McNameless,
where he would grossly misrepresent his opponent's argument and then
argue against his own misrepresentation as opposed to the real
arguments being given.

Of course in the process he would just pass over those arguments he
had no clear answer for.

[A.Carlson]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:22 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

So, in your own warped view is the earth the cause of the center of
mass or does it just coincidentally reside at the same location of the
center of mass? Or is there a third scenario?

P.S. Neither of the two scenarios stand up to honest scrutiny. I
have already posted my critique of this but you just clipped and
ignored it as is your modus operandi.

>2. Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body.

Has anyone stated otherwise?

>In the heliocentric system the Center of Mass in not at the center of the
>Sun. In a rotating binary star system the stars rotate about the
>Center of Mass betwen them and not about some massive star in between.

So far so good, but it is important to note also that in our own solar
system the sun contains almost 99.9% of the entire system's mass and
the barycenter ranges from within the sun's radius or relatively close
to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg

IOW in our own solar system the planets do indeed rotate around the
sun, which also happens to be the system's largest body by far.

>>That
>>means the sun (whose inertia would, if undisturbed, keep it moving in a
>>straight line [Newton's first law]) is gradually changing to move in the
>>opposite direction every six months (or half day - if you think the
>>earth is not rotating).
>>
>>To change the direction of sun in such an orbit requires a force (a
>>black hole 300,000 times the mass of the sun at the earth's location
>>would be close to sufficient).
>>In your model where does the force come from that causes the sun to
>>change direction (orbit) around a tiny stationary earth?
>>
>>The above sentence is my question. When I have a reply I will continue.
>
>
>So I can't be accused of misinterpreting you: Are you asserting that
>the neoTychoan Model is impossible because of this?

Do you have any other (rational) explanation as to how the sun, with
its far greater mass (several hundred thousand times that of the
earth), would be rotating around the relatively puny little earth
without such a force acting upon it?

>Remember it is you who accused me of being anti science because of my
>skepticism of the heliocentric model. As such it is your obligation
>to do the proving that my skepticism is unwarranted and not mine to
>play 20 questions. You either know what you're talking about or you
>don't.

At it's most fundamental level you are not taking the force of gravity
into account or are grossly misrepresenting relative issues.

>If you assert unequivocally that your understanding above sinks the
>neoTychoan model you're going down for the count because I'm going to
>demonstrate that you don't have clue. And Lethe, who egged you on, is
>gonna escape without a scratch.

To just try and start a discussion related to your misunderstanding
(or is it misrepresentation?) of the situation I'll ask again, fully
expecting yet another dodge:

Is the earth the cause of the center of mass in your model or just
merely residing at that particular location?

Do you understand the difference between center of mass and
barycenter?

Do you understand the significance of the force of gravity between
nearby massive objects and how any prospective center of mass has
little if any relevance given the distance squared issue? (This is one
of the issues that Friar Broccoli was addressing here)

Are you willing to accept the fact that observed redshift (and
blueshift) shows, among many other things, that most celestial objects
are moving away from the earth while many of them (such as the
Andromeda galaxy) are moving towards us and that galaxies are observed
to be rotating? How does this fit into your claim of concentric
spheres or the implication of your model that the universe is somehow
perfectly balanced with the earth at its very center of gravity.

Are you willing to concede that your model would require the vast
majority of celestial objects throughout the universe to travel at
speeds far greater than the speed of light in order to rotate around a
stationary earth? Or is this not the case?

>Or punt, take some time off, and be sure of your position. Come back
>to fight another day. Your choice. My pounding response is already
>qued up.

Yes, time again to weave and dodge, weave and dodge....

>Regards,
>T Pagano

[Rolf]

It is all pretty obvious but if you don't want it to be true it is of course
possible to invent any objections you want to support your delusion.



Removing the sun would cause the Earth to shoot off in the direction of its
free fall path. Newtonian free fall is the rule; modified into orbit by
gravity.



What's keeping the stationary Earth from being sucked up by the sun pronto
remains a mystery that only TP can solve. Or maybe the solution is what
Einstein said: The curvature of space caused by the mass of the sun keeps
the Earth in orbit.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:17:22 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 12:34:06 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:48:46 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:

[cutting and reorganizing for clarity]

>>>In the heliocentric system all the bodies rotate about the center of
>>>mass (and not the Sun though the COM is close to the Sun). While the
>>>bodies rotating around the center of mass have gravitational effects
>>>on each other their only effect on the center of mass is to cause it
>>>to be fixed and immobile. That is, its acceleration is Zero.
>>>
>>>In the case of the neoTychoan model the Earth is the center of mass in
>>>a completely different rotating system. Newton's Laws indicate that
>>>the acceleration of the center of mass (in this case the Earth) of the
>>>neoTychoan rotating system has an acceleration of zero. In other
>>>words,

.

>>>* IF the neoTychoan model is true, not only does the Earth NOT move
>>>but it cannot move.
>>
>>I will begin with a question:

.

>>Your Tychonian model has the sun orbiting a stationary earth.

.

>>In your model where does the force come from that causes the sun to
>>change direction (orbit) around a tiny stationary earth?

.

>1. Our Sun is not merely orbiting a stationary Earth but the Center
>of Mass of the neoTychoan System. The neoTychoan System is not a
>local system (like the Heliocentric System) but comprises the whole
>universe. The neoTychoan System is rotating. The Center of Mass is
>an important concept which Broccoli has consistently either ignored or
>grossly misunderstood.
>
>2. Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body. In
>the heliocentric system the Center of Mass in not at the center of the
>Sun. In a rotating binary star system the stars rotate about the
>Center of Mass betwen them and not about some massive star in between.

OK. Earth's moon orbits the earth at a different rate than the sun does
(in your model). What force prevents the earth from moving back and
forth around the "Center of Mass" between the earth and it's moon?

[Ernest Major]

In message <apagano-2j5sm7pd13t88...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

>1. Our Sun is not merely orbiting a stationary Earth but the Center of
>Mass of the neoTychoan System. The neoTychoan System is not a local
>system (like the Heliocentric System) but comprises the whole universe.
>The neoTychoan System is rotating. The Center of Mass is an important
>concept which Broccoli has consistently either ignored or grossly
>misunderstood.

The Centre of Mass is an important concept which you have consistently
misunderstood or misrepresented. The Centre of Mass is only a Centre of
Gravity in some systems (which happen to included 2-body systems).

To reiterate

"The centre of mass is an abstraction, and has no mass, and therefore
has no gravitational forces acting on it.

The situation is different for a mass situated at the centre of mass.

The centre of mass is defined as the integral over space of the product
of the density function and the position function (that is rho(r)*r,
where r is a vector), divided by the total mass.

Consider a simple situation, with a mass 4m at (-x,0,0), and a mass m at
(4x,0,0). The centre of mass is then at (0,0,0,). However if you place a
test mass at the centre of mass the gravitation force from the larger
and closer body is 64 times that of the smaller body, and there is a net
force on the test mass, which therefore does not remain at the centre of
mass."

>
>2. Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body. In the
>heliocentric system the Center of Mass in not at the center of the Sun.
>In a rotating binary star system the stars rotate about the Center of
>Mass betwen them and not about some massive star in between.

You're confusing Pagano's Laws with Newton's Laws again.

"You wish to claim that the forces are balanced at the location of the
earth. You however haven't attempted to identify the masses which
produce those balanced forces. If you did, I expect you would find it
necessary to postulate amounts of unobserved ("dark") matter greatly in
excess of that postulated by mainstream astronomers, and with less
observational support.

To give an example of the magnitude of your problem the 3 stars of the
Alpha Centauri system have a total mass about 2.1 times that of the Sun.
They are about 275,000 times further away. Therefore their combined
gravitational force on the earth is 36 billion weaker than the sun's

A supermassive black hole with a mass of 4 million solar masses is
inferred to lie at the heart of our galaxy. At a distance of 26,000
light years, this has a gravitational pull on the earth 20 times weaker
than Alpha Centauri's.

(In both cases assuming no errors of arithmetic.)"

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <apagano-2j5sm7pd13t88...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

>2. Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body. In the
>heliocentric system the Center of Mass in not at the center of the Sun.
>In a rotating binary star system the stars rotate about the Center of
>Mass betwen them and not about some massive star in between.

Axiom TP1: In a rotating system Newton's Laws imply that ALL the bodies
revolve (sic) about the Centre of Mass.

Axiom TP2: The Earth is situated at the Centre of Mass.

Observation: Mars orbits the Sun, not the Earth.

Conclusion: If Tony's axioms are true, then either

1) the Neotychonian System is false, or
2) Newton's Laws are false.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Friar Broccoli]

I know it is annoying to have someone else answer for Tony, but he has
an "answer" for this:

He is claiming that the rest of the solar system is a sub-system of the
primary earth centered system, in the same way Jupiter and its moons and
Saturn with its moons are subsystems of the Solar System. Yes this is
crazy, but I couldn't see an uncomplicated way of getting that across to
Tony, which is why I am exploring the simpler Sun/Earth/Moon
relationship.

[Ernest Major]

In message <qsutm7p7v66n161qh...@4ax.com>, Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com> writes

As you say it's crazy. It's also not an answer. It contradicts his own
axiom.

Also, if there is a sufficient force (of unspecified origin) for the sun
to orbit the earth, why is that force not also acting on Mars (which is
at times closer to the earth than either is to the sun) and forcing it
to orbit the Earth?

>
>--
> Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
> I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:10:20 -0700, "A.Carlson" <amc...@hotmail.com>

1. Since you actually argued against this conditional statement you
argued AGAINST Friar Broccoli because this was his argument.

2. And his argument is "valid" and "true" if the Heliocentric model
is true.

3. It is an argument in favor of the Heliocentric Model. It implies
that the Earth "is" orbiting "if" the Heliocentric model is true.

4. The Heliocentric model never explains how the Earth or the other
planets came to be orbiting; it presumes it. Furthermore "how"
those planets (including the Earth) came to be orbiting was never
really entertained by anyone. Which means you haven't read the
threads.

>>
>>1. I must admit I haven't a clue what any of this means.
>
>Not surprising. Putting two separate thoughts together does not
>appear to be your strong point.
>
>>2. If the Earth was placed 93 million miles from the Sun with no
>>momentum and nothing holding it fixed then Newton's Law of Gravity
>>would predict an attractive force between the two along a line between
>>their centers of mass.
>
>So far so good...
>
>>This force would propel the Earth directly to
>>the sun and not into an orbit around it.
>
>Do you honestly believe that this is the only scenario or that this is
>what I was alluding to? Or is honesty even in your makeup?

Since you argued against Heliocentricism I had to see just how stupid
you really were. Pretty damn stupid.


snip


Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 05:05:13 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

Apparently Broccoli can't prove either

1. that the earth is moving or
2. that the neoTychoan Model is prohibited or false based on Newton's
Laws or anything else.


Until Broccoli develops some confidence to definitively show either
(1) or (2) he remains defeated, embarrassed, humbled and wrong.


After Day 5 of his drubbing Broccoli has been like the (justifiably)
terrified infantryman faced with a mine field that he must move
through. He tentatively pokes the ground in front of him trembling
that the next poke will blow him to Kingdom Come. Lethe would be the
one at a safe distance with the megaphone telling Broccoli how to
proceed.


When Friar Broccoli thinks he can prove either
1. that the earth is moving or
2. that the neoTychoan Model is prohibited or false based on Newton's
Laws or anything else,

just start a new thread because I shan't return to this one. It's
OVER.


Regards,
T Pagano


.. . .he jumps, he shoots, and S W I S S S S H.

This is what victory looks like.

[John Harshman]

The problems here are twofold. First, you can't demonstrate that the
earth is located at the center of mass of the universe. In order for
that to be true, the universe would have to be highly asymmetrical. You
need that asymmetry to balance the sun, which, being so close to the
center, must dominate in its effect over all those far-away objects. Yet
all your claims are for extreme symmetry. Doesn't fit.

Second, you don't seem to understand the difference between center of
mass and center of gravitational attraction. If the earth were at the
center of mass, it would instantly be perturbed out of that center by
that nearby mass of the sun. The center of mass is not a stable position
for an object to be, just an abstract point. The point is by definition
motionless, but that property is not shared by objects that happen to be
there at the moment.

> 2. Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
> rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body. In
> the heliocentric system the Center of Mass in not at the center of the
> Sun. In a rotating binary star system the stars rotate about the
> Center of Mass betwen them and not about some massive star in between.

Yes, by definition. If you use that coordinate system instead of some
other one. It's definitely the simplest. But earth isn't at the center
of mass.

>> That
>> means the sun (whose inertia would, if undisturbed, keep it moving in a
>> straight line [Newton's first law]) is gradually changing to move in the
>> opposite direction every six months (or half day - if you think the
>> earth is not rotating).
>>
>> To change the direction of sun in such an orbit requires a force (a
>> black hole 300,000 times the mass of the sun at the earth's location
>> would be close to sufficient).
>> In your model where does the force come from that causes the sun to
>> change direction (orbit) around a tiny stationary earth?
>>
>> The above sentence is my question. When I have a reply I will continue.
>
> So I can't be accused of misinterpreting you: Are you asserting that
> the neoTychoan Model is impossible because of this?

Is answering a question with a question a good way to inspire confidence?

> Remember it is you who accused me of being anti science because of my
> skepticism of the heliocentric model. As such it is your obligation
> to do the proving that my skepticism is unwarranted and not mine to
> play 20 questions. You either know what you're talking about or you
> don't.
>
> If you assert unequivocally that your understanding above sinks the
> neoTychoan model you're going down for the count because I'm going to
> demonstrate that you don't have clue. And Lethe, who egged you on, is
> gonna escape without a scratch.
>
> Or punt, take some time off, and be sure of your position. Come back
> to fight another day. Your choice. My pounding response is already
> qued up.

Stalling for time, eh?

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:02:42 +0100, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>
wrote:

You make a lot of sense to me. ISTM Tony's arguments make no logical
sense, and his conclusions aren't logically possible. Of course, I am
just a layman on this point as much as you.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:31:45 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

Yet another hypothetical without showing its relevance to the
argument. How do you think such an hypothetical actually happen? Why
assume the Earth was placed uniquely in position, and not any of the
other planets?

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:24:05 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

.

>just start a new thread because I shan't return to this one. It's
>OVER.

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/4c5a8b8a6322162e

[A.Carlson]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 07:54:42 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

Yet again you totally missed the point. I was emphasizing that
gravity is the key to understanding relative movements of celestial
bodies and that your own gross misrepresentation of Friar Broccoli's
argument was laid out as though the purpose was to evade this key
issue. Even Friar Broccoli has pointed out to you that your
representation of his position was in fact not his position.

Gravity exists and has consequences obvious to most everyone but you.
Again, there is a reason why your model was rejected centuries ago for
one that better matches our current understanding of the way things
work.

>2. And his argument is "valid" and "true" if the Heliocentric model
>is true.

Are we talking about his argument here or your gross distortion of his
argument?

His argument was in defense of the force of gravity as the factor in
play here. Since the existence of gravity is what causes your own
warped version of a long bankrupt model to fail I can only assume that
you are deliberately leaving this key factor out of your
misrepresentation of Friar Broccoli's argument.

>3. It is an argument in favor of the Heliocentric Model. It implies
>that the Earth "is" orbiting "if" the Heliocentric model is true.

Nope. Again, not even close. The earth is orbiting *BECAUSE OF* the
existence of gravity. The fact that other planets, even those more
massive and further away than earth from the sun, are reined in by the
sun's gravity (which has 99.9 percent of the mass of our own solar
system) raised the absolutely legitimate question which you continue
to dodge WHY NOT THE EARTH AS WELL THEN?

>4. The Heliocentric model never explains how the Earth or the other
>planets came to be orbiting; it presumes it.

WHO THE HELL CARES?!?!?!?! IT DOESN'T NEED TO!?!?!? Regardless of
how our solar system came to be it is still abundantly clear that:

1. Gravity exists - get over it
2. The movements of all of the planets, along with their satellites
are proscribed by the law of gravity.

>Furthermore "how"
>those planets (including the Earth) came to be orbiting was never
>really entertained by anyone. Which means you haven't read the
>threads.

Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what is being discussed here!

>>>1. I must admit I haven't a clue what any of this means.
>>
>>Not surprising. Putting two separate thoughts together does not
>>appear to be your strong point.
>>
>>>2. If the Earth was placed 93 million miles from the Sun with no
>>>momentum and nothing holding it fixed then Newton's Law of Gravity
>>>would predict an attractive force between the two along a line between
>>>their centers of mass.
>>
>>So far so good...
>>
>>>This force would propel the Earth directly to
>>>the sun and not into an orbit around it.
>>
>>Do you honestly believe that this is the only scenario or that this is
>>what I was alluding to? Or is honesty even in your makeup?
>
>Since you argued against Heliocentricism I had to see just how stupid
>you really were. Pretty damn stupid.

And yet it is you who distorts other's arguments in order to argue
against your own invalid point. BTW not only have I been defending
the heliocentric model here I have been attempting to make it very
clear as to the *actual reason* why the heliocentric model is valid.

I still can't tell whether you are being stupid or dishonest here. Not
only do you have a grossly distorted view of the world you also so
readily grossly distort others arguments in defense of your own gross
distortions.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 06:57:55 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:

Threefold. At least.

> First, you can't demonstrate that the
>earth is located at the center of mass of the universe. In order for
>that to be true, the universe would have to be highly asymmetrical. You
>need that asymmetry to balance the sun, which, being so close to the
>center, must dominate in its effect over all those far-away objects. Yet
>all your claims are for extreme symmetry. Doesn't fit.
>
>Second, you don't seem to understand the difference between center of
>mass and center of gravitational attraction. If the earth were at the
>center of mass, it would instantly be perturbed out of that center by
>that nearby mass of the sun. The center of mass is not a stable position
>for an object to be, just an abstract point. The point is by definition
>motionless, but that property is not shared by objects that happen to be
>there at the moment.

Third, he has to account for the fact that all objects
further from Earth than approximately the orbit of Neptune
must move at velocities greater than c in order to be seen
to orbit the Earth in 24 hours. He's ignored this for
months, if not years, exactly as he's ignored the "multiple
geosynchronous satellites" problem as it relates to a
non-rotating Earth.

Nope, just pounding. *What* he's pounding is the question.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless