When Can I Expect Broccoli's Retraction and Admission? The GeoCentric/HelioCentric Battle.

[T Pagano]

When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model? His
attempts to rule out the neoTychoan model wee based upon a faulty
understanding of rotating systems and faulty logic.

And he has not been alone. Just as none of the atheists can produce a
shred of evidence of neoDarwinian transformational change no one
(including Broccoli) can produce a single observation which rules out
the neoTychoan model. And none of them can produce the cold dark
matter "fairy" dust needed to keep Big Bang afloat.

This warrants an admission from Broccoli that the neoTychoan Model
isn't as outlandish as his atheist upbringing lead him to believe. And
it warrants a public retraction of his assertion that I am
anti-science based upon his false understanding of the facts in hand.


Regards,
T Pagano

So far only Lethe and Camp have had the courage and intellectual
honesty to do the right thing. Even Harshman has been unable to do
the right thing even though he knows he should.

Mistaken I may be, but anti-science I ain't.

[TomS]

"On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, in article
<apagano-m8ndo756rb9pl...@4ax.com>, T Pagano stated..."

What is the position of the Discovery Institute on geocentrism?

How about Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, the Institute
for Creation Research, ...?

How about Liberty University, Patrick Henry College, Franciscan
University of Steubenville, ...?

Do they measure up to your standards?


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
>anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model?

You have repeatedly stated that:
"(the neoTychoan model proposes a rotating universe) all bodies will
revolve around the center of mass."

Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
*different* centers of mass at different times; what prevents the earth
from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
neoTychonian model?

As soon as you've explained why this obvious contradiction is not a
contradiction, I will apologize.

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

[John Harshman]

Actually, your refusal to honestly engage in discussion is about as
antithetical to science as you can get (or at least science as it ought
to be). You're not fooling anyone, you know.

[raven1]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>And he has not been alone. Just as none of the atheists can produce a
>shred of evidence of neoDarwinian transformational change no one
>(including Broccoli) can produce a single observation which rules out
>the neoTychoan model.

Objects can't travel faster than light. Your model requires it for
most of the universe.

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:47:25 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
>>anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model?
>
>You have repeatedly stated that:
>"(the neoTychoan model proposes a rotating universe) all bodies will
>revolve around the center of mass."

And as I pointed out Newton's Laws do not prevent the existence of sub
systems. Friar Broccoli was forced to admit this on Day 1.

>
>Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>*different* centers of mass at different times;

How do you figure that?

In the neoTychoanic Model the moon is revolving directly around an
immobile Earth (which is the COM of that model). And the Solar
System's LOCAL center of mass is revolving directly around the same
immobile Earth.

In our Solar System (as in any other sub system of rotating bodies)
one may consider all the mass of that subsystem to be located at its
center of mass. And since the Sun makes up 99+ percent of the mass of
the Solar system and is very close to its center of mass this isn't
even that hard to visualize.

If you can't visualize the motions in the neoTychoanic model you'll
never get this. I'll assume you've seen a working mechanical orrey of
our Solar System. In order to simulate the neoTychoanic Model one
need only grab hold of the Earth in that mechanical model and allow
everything to revolve accordingly. The resultant motions would be
those found in the neoTychoanic model (except for the revolving of all
the other stars and bodies in the universe). Your hand holding the
Earth would not model any real force but merely represent that the
Earth is at rest and remains at rest.

>what prevents the earth
>from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
>neoTychonian model?

The neoTychoan Model is nothing more than a system of rotating bodies
like our Solar Sysem. It must obey all the same Laws that any other
rotating system obeys. Chief among those rules is that no net force
is appled to the COM. The acceleration of the COM is zero. If the
COM is at rest it will remain at rest in a rotating system of bodies.
The Earth is at rest in the neoTychoan model. Secularists have been
unable to produce independent evidence that the Earth moves.

The moon and the LOCAL center of mass of the Solar System are both
revolving directly around the neoTychoan Model COM which is colocated
with the Earth. There is no contradiction; there is no violation of
any of Newton's Laws.

>
>As soon as you've explained why this obvious contradiction is not a
>contradiction, I will apologize.

Though Broccoli intended to besmirch me personally his error was a
mistake in his understanding of Newton's Laws and rotating systems.
This kind of error does not warrant an apology; it warrants an
admission of his error. That is, your understanding of the neoTychoan
model was faulty. This would not be an admission that the model is
true.

Once that admission is made it would be good form to retract his claim
that that my skepticism of the heliocentric model made me anti
science.


Regards,
T Pagano

[Vincent Maycock]

"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-vb5eo757qhc50...@4ax.com...

What keeps it at rest? Wouldn't it "try" to orbit the COM of the solar
system?

>>what prevents the earth
>>from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
>>neoTychonian model?
>
> The neoTychoan Model is nothing more than a system of rotating bodies
> like our Solar Sysem. It must obey all the same Laws that any other
> rotating system obeys. Chief among those rules is that no net force
> is appled to the COM. The acceleration of the COM is zero. If the
> COM is at rest it will remain at rest in a rotating system of bodies.
> The Earth is at rest in the neoTychoan model. Secularists have been
> unable to produce independent evidence that the Earth moves.
>
> The moon and the LOCAL center of mass of the Solar System are both
> revolving directly around the neoTychoan Model COM which is colocated
> with the Earth.

How did it get there?

snip

[John Harshman]

The problem with this is that there are net forces on the earth which
would cause it not to remain at rest. You actually need something in
your model that grabs hold of the earth and prevents it from moving.
Your hand-wave at the rest of the universe is inadequate since it can
easily be shown (and several posters have shown) that all the rest of
the universe exerts less gravitational influence on the earth than does
the sun. It's that pesky inverse square of distance again.

Further, just because the earth is (hypothetically) at the center of
mass doesn't mean it *is* the center of mass; that is it could easily
move away from the center of mass, and would if there were any force
acting on it. And there is.

>> what prevents the earth
>>from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
>> neoTychonian model?
>
> The neoTychoan Model is nothing more than a system of rotating bodies
> like our Solar Sysem. It must obey all the same Laws that any other
> rotating system obeys. Chief among those rules is that no net force
> is appled to the COM.

Sorry, but that's a rule that you just made up. It just isn't true, as a
cursory look at the earth-moon system would show, and as you have been
told many times.

> The acceleration of the COM is zero. If the
> COM is at rest it will remain at rest in a rotating system of bodies.
> The Earth is at rest in the neoTychoan model.

Again you confuse a body at the COM with the COM itself. The center of
mass is an imaginary point. It has no mass, interacts with nothing. The
earth, on the other hand, is real, has mass, and interacts. E pur si muove.

> Secularists have been
> unable to produce independent evidence that the Earth moves.

You mean not evidence you're willing to believe.

> The moon and the LOCAL center of mass of the Solar System are both
> revolving directly around the neoTychoan Model COM which is colocated
> with the Earth. There is no contradiction; there is no violation of
> any of Newton's Laws.

Any attempt at the math will show the contradiction, and this is perhaps
why you haven't attempted any and ignore all attempts by others.

>> As soon as you've explained why this obvious contradiction is not a
>> contradiction, I will apologize.
>
> Though Broccoli intended to besmirch me personally his error was a
> mistake in his understanding of Newton's Laws and rotating systems.
> This kind of error does not warrant an apology; it warrants an
> admission of his error. That is, your understanding of the neoTychoan
> model was faulty. This would not be an admission that the model is
> true.
>
> Once that admission is made it would be good form to retract his claim
> that that my skepticism of the heliocentric model made me anti
> science.

This willful ignorance is about as anti-science as it gets.

[*Hemidactylus*]

> This kind of error does not warrant an apology; it mwarrants an

> admission of his error. That is, your understanding of the neoTychoan
> model was faulty. This would not be an admission that the model is
> true.
>
> Once that admission is made it would be good form to retract his claim
> that that my skepticism of the heliocentric model made me anti
> science.

How did a neoTychoan solar system come to be given the historicity
inherent in the nebular process first put forth by Kant and Laplace? The
historicity of the universe trumps you. Game over.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/nebular.html


--
*Hemidactylus*

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/12/12 1:44 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> [...]

Where did you go to Law School? I have never heard of such a law.

> The acceleration of the COM is zero.

This works fine if all the bodies are fixed relative to each other. But
they aren't, so the acceleration of the COM is always nonzero (except
momentarily; it is always changing) relative to every body in the
system. Try it and see for yourself.

> If the
> COM is at rest it will remain at rest in a rotating system of bodies.
> The Earth is at rest in the neoTychoan model. Secularists have been
> unable to produce independent evidence that the Earth moves.

Thank you for recognizing my evidence that the Earth moves and finally
admitting that I am not an atheist! However, I should point out that I
do consider myself a secularist.

--
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

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:44:16 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:47:25 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
>>>anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model?
>>
>>You have repeatedly stated that:
>>"(the neoTychoan model proposes a rotating universe) all bodies will
>>revolve around the center of mass."
>

.

>And as I pointed out Newton's Laws do not prevent the existence of sub
>systems. Friar Broccoli was forced to admit this on Day 1.

True. But in other subsystems like Saturn/Titan or Neptune/Triton
*BOTH* bodies in the orbiting subsystem are moving around a Common
Center of Mass (COM). So both bodies are moving.

>>Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>>*different* centers of mass at different times;
>
>How do you figure that?

They (earth/moon and earth/sun) are each orbiting subsystems like the
ones you forced me to admit existed. Are you now asserting that the
earth and moon do not form an orbiting subsystem and are therefore not
orbiting a COM?

>In the neoTychoanic Model the moon is revolving directly around an
>immobile Earth (which is the COM of that model). And the Solar
>System's LOCAL center of mass is revolving directly around the same
>immobile Earth.
>
>In our Solar System (as in any other sub system of rotating bodies)
>one may consider all the mass of that subsystem to be located at its
>center of mass. And since the Sun makes up 99+ percent of the mass of
>the Solar system and is very close to its center of mass this isn't
>even that hard to visualize.
>
>If you can't visualize the motions in the neoTychoanic model you'll
>never get this. I'll assume you've seen a working mechanical orrey of
>our Solar System. In order to simulate the neoTychoanic Model one
>need only grab hold of the Earth in that mechanical model and allow
>everything to revolve accordingly. The resultant motions would be
>those found in the neoTychoanic model (except for the revolving of all
>the other stars and bodies in the universe). Your hand holding the
>Earth would not model any real force but merely represent that the
>Earth is at rest and remains at rest.

Let me begin by saying that if you tell me that the Hand of God or some
other supernatural force is holding the earth in place I will stop
arguing with you.

However you are claiming that the earth is floating freely in space and
being held in place *only* by forces consistent with Newton's Laws.

Within those laws you can (absurdly) make an argument that the earth is
held in an equilibrium position by forces from the sun which are exactly
balanced by opposing forces from the rest of the universe.

However, the forces/masses that balance the effects of the sun cannot
balance the forces from an orbiting moon, because the moon is in a
completely _different_orbit_ around the earth. So according to your
often repeated version of Newton's Laws the earth and the moon MUST
orbit there own COM somewhere between the earth and the moon.

If the earth and moon are orbiting a mutual COM, the earth MUST be
moving.

You must explain why the earth and moon (as a subsystem) are not
orbiting a separate COM, or accept your anti-science branding.

[Earle Jones]

In article <apagano-m8ndo756rb9pl...@4ax.com>,

T Pagano <not....@address.net> wrote:

> When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
> anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model?

*
When Ray's book is published.

earle
*

[Michael Siemon]

In article <earle.jones-4424...@news.giganews.com>,

Rather, I suggest, "when Hell freezes over". Or (equivalently), when
Pagano actually presents an honest (i.e., not full court press
sophistical) argument for any position whatsoever. Pagano is not
"sceptical" of ordinary rational argumentation -- he is actively
engaged in every conceivable tactic of denial of reality and its
honest and critical study. Every tactic, that is, except an actual
engagement with real argument and real data.

[Mike Dworetsky]

If the Earth is immobile, as you claim, how do you account for the existence
of stellar parallax? It cannot be accounted for by claiming that somehow
the Universe wobbles around as if attached to the Sun, because parallax in a
given part of the sky is always observed to be in phase with the Earth's
position in its orbit, and the phase is independent of distance of the star.
Yet the stars are at vastly different distances, and cannot be in phase in
your model because the information about where the Earth or Sun is cannot
travel faster than the speed of light. So you have to throw out some
well-established physics to make it "work".

The same applies to the annual doppler shift of stars, observed by
astronomers. How do stars know "how to dance" in phase even though they are
at vastly different distances in each individual case?

>
>> what prevents the earth
>> from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
>> neoTychonian model?
>
> The neoTychoan Model is nothing more than a system of rotating bodies
> like our Solar Sysem. It must obey all the same Laws that any other
> rotating system obeys. Chief among those rules is that no net force
> is appled to the COM. The acceleration of the COM is zero. If the
> COM is at rest it will remain at rest in a rotating system of bodies.
> The Earth is at rest in the neoTychoan model. Secularists have been
> unable to produce independent evidence that the Earth moves.

Parallax, annual doppler shift, aberration of starlight. These cannot be
explained by a neotychonian model. You can't hand-wave them away, they
present real problems for you.

>
> The moon and the LOCAL center of mass of the Solar System are both
> revolving directly around the neoTychoan Model COM which is colocated
> with the Earth. There is no contradiction; there is no violation of

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> any of Newton's Laws.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>

!!!! Boggle!!!!

>
>>
>> As soon as you've explained why this obvious contradiction is not a
>> contradiction, I will apologize.
>
> Though Broccoli intended to besmirch me personally his error was a
> mistake in his understanding of Newton's Laws and rotating systems.
> This kind of error does not warrant an apology; it warrants an
> admission of his error. That is, your understanding of the neoTychoan
> model was faulty. This would not be an admission that the model is
> true.
>
> Once that admission is made it would be good form to retract his claim
> that that my skepticism of the heliocentric model made me anti
> science.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[TomS]

"On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:30:31 +0100, in article
<-pWdnVDxnbCHSxrS...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
[...snip...]

>If the Earth is immobile, as you claim, how do you account for the existence
>of stellar parallax? It cannot be accounted for by claiming that somehow
>the Universe wobbles around as if attached to the Sun, because parallax in a
>given part of the sky is always observed to be in phase with the Earth's
>position in its orbit, and the phase is independent of distance of the star.
>Yet the stars are at vastly different distances, and cannot be in phase in
>your model because the information about where the Earth or Sun is cannot
>travel faster than the speed of light. So you have to throw out some
>well-established physics to make it "work".
>
>The same applies to the annual doppler shift of stars, observed by
>astronomers. How do stars know "how to dance" in phase even though they are
>at vastly different distances in each individual case?

[...snip...]

And the same applies to other variations in the "motions of the
heavens", such as the "precession of the equinoxes", a regular motion
which has been observed for more than 2000 years.

[Mike Dworetsky]

TomS wrote:
> "On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:30:31 +0100, in article
> <-pWdnVDxnbCHSxrS...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
> [...snip...]
>> If the Earth is immobile, as you claim, how do you account for the
>> existence of stellar parallax? It cannot be accounted for by
>> claiming that somehow the Universe wobbles around as if attached to
>> the Sun, because parallax in a given part of the sky is always
>> observed to be in phase with the Earth's position in its orbit, and
>> the phase is independent of distance of the star. Yet the stars are
>> at vastly different distances, and cannot be in phase in your model
>> because the information about where the Earth or Sun is cannot
>> travel faster than the speed of light. So you have to throw out
>> some well-established physics to make it "work".
>>
>> The same applies to the annual doppler shift of stars, observed by
>> astronomers. How do stars know "how to dance" in phase even though
>> they are at vastly different distances in each individual case?
> [...snip...]
>
> And the same applies to other variations in the "motions of the
> heavens", such as the "precession of the equinoxes", a regular motion
> which has been observed for more than 2000 years.

Tony seems to have abandoned his claim that the Earth does not rotate,
though you would not know it from his repetition of his debunked claims on
his list. If you allow Earth to rotate, precession is also permissible, and
NASA scientists are telling the truth about launching to the east.

[Greg Guarino]

When the Earth stands still

[John Harshman]

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>> "On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:30:31 +0100, in article
>> <-pWdnVDxnbCHSxrS...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>> [...snip...]
>>> If the Earth is immobile, as you claim, how do you account for the
>>> existence of stellar parallax? It cannot be accounted for by
>>> claiming that somehow the Universe wobbles around as if attached to
>>> the Sun, because parallax in a given part of the sky is always
>>> observed to be in phase with the Earth's position in its orbit, and
>>> the phase is independent of distance of the star. Yet the stars are
>>> at vastly different distances, and cannot be in phase in your model
>>> because the information about where the Earth or Sun is cannot
>>> travel faster than the speed of light. So you have to throw out
>>> some well-established physics to make it "work".
>>>
>>> The same applies to the annual doppler shift of stars, observed by
>>> astronomers. How do stars know "how to dance" in phase even though
>>> they are at vastly different distances in each individual case?
>> [...snip...]
>>
>> And the same applies to other variations in the "motions of the
>> heavens", such as the "precession of the equinoxes", a regular motion
>> which has been observed for more than 2000 years.
>
> Tony seems to have abandoned his claim that the Earth does not rotate,

He has? Where?

[jillery]

Accepting that the Earth rotates would make moot much of the most
obvious criticisms against Tony's assertions, but it would destroy the
foundation of his claim of an unmoving Earth.

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:44:16 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:47:25 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
>>>>anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model?
>>>
>>>You have repeatedly stated that:
>>>"(the neoTychoan model proposes a rotating universe) all bodies will
>>>revolve around the center of mass."
>>
>
> .
>
>>And as I pointed out Newton's Laws do not prevent the existence of sub
>>systems. Friar Broccoli was forced to admit this on Day 1.
>
>True. But in other subsystems like Saturn/Titan or Neptune/Triton
>*BOTH* bodies in the orbiting subsystem are moving around a Common
>Center of Mass (COM). So both bodies are moving.

1. In both the heliocentric and the neoTychoaninc model Saturn is a
local sub system of rotating bodies (it has revolving moons) with its
own local center of mass. No difference.

2.. In both the heliocentric and the neoTychoaninc model the
Saturn-Titan rotating subsystem is moving around the Solar System's
local center of mass. No difference.

3. In both the heliocentric and the neoTychoaninc model those
revolving moons of Saturn are NOT causing any net force to act upon
the center of mass of that "Saturn-moons" local subsystem. The motion
of Saturn's moons neither accelerates nor decelerates the Saturn-moons
local center of mass. According to Newton's Laws if the center of
mass of that subsystem is moving it will continue to move as it always
had.

3. In the heliocentric the revolving sub systems in the Solar System
do not produce any net force on the Solar System's local center of
mass (which is NOT located at the center of the Sun). That is, if
the Solar System's local center of mass is at rest it will remain at
rest and if it is moving it will continue moving without being
accelerated or decelerated.

4. And finally in the neoTychoan Model the Earth and the moon are not
part of the Solar System rotational system. That is they do NOT
revolve around the Solar System's local center of mass. In the
neoTychoan model the Earth is at rest and is at the COM of the entire
universe. In rotating systems there is no net force induced on the
COM and if at rest will remain at rest. The moon and the solar
systems local center of mass revolve around the universe's COM
(colocated with the Earth). And that COM is at rest (together with
the Earth).

>
>>>Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>>>*different* centers of mass at different times;
>>
>>How do you figure that?
>
>They (earth/moon and earth/sun) are each orbiting subsystems like the
>ones you forced me to admit existed. Are you now asserting that the
>earth and moon do not form an orbiting subsystem and are therefore not
>orbiting a COM?

I simply showed that your false rule of motion did not even allow the
sub systems of your own heliocentric model to work. It had little to
do with the neoTychoanic Model. Let's review where you went wrong:

1. Broccoli's False Rule of Motion: "Since eight (or seven) other
planets orbit the "center of mass" (near he sun) it follows
necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must also orbit the
sun."

2. Under this false rule if the Earth was by necessity required to
directly revolve around the Sun then so was every other body in the
heliocentric system including all the moons. The existence of sub
systems falsified your rule. I showed that your false rule was not
even consistent with the heliocentric model.

3. Finally while the RELATIVE motions of the heliocentric and
neoTychoan are virtually the same the centers of mass and some of the
forces are NOT all the same.


more to follow as time permits.

Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

1. Apparently you don't read too good. Immediately above I wrote:
"Your hand holding the Earth would not model any real force but merely

represents that the Earth is at rest and remains at rest."

2. You still fail to understand that in a rotating system of bodies,
those bodies will revolve around its center of mass and that the net
forces on the center of mass is ZERO. Those revolving masses will NOT
accelerate the center of mass. If the center of mass is at rest it
WILL REMAIN AT REST. In the neoTychoan Model the intial conditions
are that the COM (colocated with the Earth) is at rest. The Hand of
God is not required to explain why the COM will "remain" at rest only
Newton's Laws are required.

3. How the neoTychoan Model's COM (co-located with the Earth) came to
be at rest is not explained; it is an initial condition. In the
neoTychoan model the initial conditions are these: The Earth is
co-located at the COM of the entire universe, this COM (and the Earth
with it) is at rest while all the bodies and sub systems in the
universe revolving around it.

4. In scientific theories and models initial conditions are routinely
assumed; that is they are rarely testable in historical
investigations. The initial conditions of the Heliocentric Model are
also assumed. Big Bang does not explain how the Solar System of
revolving bodies came to be. So the problem is not to explain why the
neoTychoan Model's COM (co located with the Earth) is at rest but
whether the model (as formulated) obeys the laws of nature. It does.

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

Newton's First Law of Motion: 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.

The intial conditions of the neoTychoan Model is that its COM
(co-located with the Earth) is at rest. In a rotating system there is
no net force applied on the center of mass. It is not being
accelerated by the bodies revolving around it. Therefore if the
Earth (COM) is at rest it will remain at rest.

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

1. First (and most importantly) the location of the COM in a rotating
system is independent of the gravitational forces. Its location is
the sole function of the distribution of masses. Your presentation of
the graphic of the super clusters is evidence that you are interested
in the truth. And that graphic shows the Earth is surround by a
distribution of uncountably large number of stars. Hubble said the
same---that they were located in shells with the Earth at the center.

2. In a rotating system of masses, Newton's Laws imply that those
bodies will not induce any net force on the COM (in the neoTychoan
model colocated with the Earth). If the Earth is at rest it will
remain at rest. The fact that the Sun is relatively close is
irrelevent in a rotating system. In the neoTychoan model every body
in the universe is revolving around the Earth. The gravitational
vector of each body and sub system pointing towards the COM is balance
by its centrifugal force vector.

3. The model may not reflect what actually happens but it is in
complete compliance with Newton's Laws. It does not require exotic
space, it does not suffer from the cold dard matter problem, or any
of other intractable problem of Big Bang.

>
>However, the forces/masses that balance the effects of the sun cannot
>balance the forces from an orbiting moon, because the moon is in a
>completely _different_orbit_ around the earth. So according to your
>often repeated version of Newton's Laws the earth and the moon MUST
>orbit there own COM somewhere between the earth and the moon.

I'm afraid that Broccoli is unable to take in the big picture. He
sees local bodies but is unable to visualize the neoTychoanic model or
understand Newton's Laws.

In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant. First
consider that the Milky Way alone has 100 billion stars. Then bring
in Broccoli's graphic of the super clusters (billions of galaxies).
Bill Rogers pointed this fact out (that is, that the sun and moon are
insignificant) and Bill demonstrated that he understood this by
actually performing a simple "center of mass" calculation for two
bodies in one dimension.

Again (and ad nauseum), in the neoTychoan model the COM (colocated
with the Earth) is at REST. It is at the center of mass of the ENTIRE
universe. The moon revolves around this COM which is immobile. The
Solar System's LOCAL center of mass also revolves around the immobile
COM of the universe.

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

1. As I pointed out the RELATIVE motions in the heliocentric model
and the neoTychoan model are virtually eqivalent; however, the centers
of mass and the forces are not all the same.

2. In the heliocentric model the Earth-moon system rotate about their
own local center of mass which is located somewhere below the surface
of the Earth but not at the Earth's center.

3. In the neoTychoan model the COM of the universe is colocated at
the Earth's center. That COM (colocated at the Earth's center) is at
complete rest in that model. The moon revolves around "that" COM (of
the universe) and not merely around the Earth The distinction is that
the Earth is not merely some free floating body in the neoTychoanic
model but is also colocated at the Center of Mass of the entire
Universe. It is a distinction missed by Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
Isaak and virtually every other secular/atheist.

4. Together with our moon, our Solar System's local center of mass
ALSO revolves around the universe's COM and not merely a free floating
Earth (which is colocated at the COM).

5. It's obvious that Broccoli is unable to visualize the model. Try
looking at this Youtube graphic for a rough visualization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LLBMhGmkhlo

Everything above has been asked and answered. Ready for the admission
and retraction?

Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

Well of course no force acts on the center of mass. Forces act on
matter, and the center of mass is an imaginary point. You continue to
confuse the center of mass itself with an object that happens to be
located at that center. Big difference. There are indeed net forces
acting on objects at the center of mass. The math here isn't very
complicated, and even you could do it if you tried.

> 3. In the heliocentric the revolving sub systems in the Solar System
> do not produce any net force on the Solar System's local center of
> mass (which is NOT located at the center of the Sun). That is, if
> the Solar System's local center of mass is at rest it will remain at
> rest and if it is moving it will continue moving without being
> accelerated or decelerated.

Again, you confuse imaginary points with actual bodies located at those
points.

> 4. And finally in the neoTychoan Model the Earth and the moon are not
> part of the Solar System rotational system. That is they do NOT
> revolve around the Solar System's local center of mass. In the
> neoTychoan model the Earth is at rest and is at the COM of the entire
> universe.

And again, it doesn't follow that the earth will remain at the COM. It
won't unless the forces balance, and there is no way that they could
according to Newton. You could try resorting to Einstein, but of course
you reject general relativity, so that won't help (and I doubt it would
anyway).

> In rotating systems there is no net force induced on the
> COM and if at rest will remain at rest.

Again, the COM is an imaginary point and can't have any force induced on
it by definition. Objects at the COM do indeed have net forces on them,
as has been demonstrated to you many times.

> The moon and the solar
> systems local center of mass revolve around the universe's COM
> (colocated with the Earth). And that COM is at rest (together with
> the Earth).

The bit about "together with the earth" is a fatal flaw in your
theories. You need some special, additional force that nails the earth
in place. Where does it come from?

>>>> Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>>>> *different* centers of mass at different times;
>>> How do you figure that?
>> They (earth/moon and earth/sun) are each orbiting subsystems like the
>> ones you forced me to admit existed. Are you now asserting that the
>> earth and moon do not form an orbiting subsystem and are therefore not
>> orbiting a COM?
>
> I simply showed that your false rule of motion did not even allow the
> sub systems of your own heliocentric model to work. It had little to
> do with the neoTychoanic Model. Let's review where you went wrong:
>
> 1. Broccoli's False Rule of Motion: "Since eight (or seven) other
> planets orbit the "center of mass" (near he sun) it follows
> necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must also orbit the
> sun."

He never, ever said that. It's your own strawman. Shame on you.

[snip remainder of the strawman argument]

[John Harshman]

Ah, but why does it remain at rest? That's the problem. According to
Newton, it shouldn't.

> 2. You still fail to understand that in a rotating system of bodies,
> those bodies will revolve around its center of mass and that the net
> forces on the center of mass is ZERO. Those revolving masses will NOT
> accelerate the center of mass. If the center of mass is at rest it
> WILL REMAIN AT REST. In the neoTychoan Model the intial conditions
> are that the COM (colocated with the Earth) is at rest. The Hand of
> God is not required to explain why the COM will "remain" at rest only
> Newton's Laws are required.

Why this second post? You're just repeating the nonsense in your first
one. Your claim just isn't true. Again, to use Fr. Broccoli's
demonstration. Suppose that the earth and moon were the only bodies in
the universe, and were revolving around their common center of mass. Put
a baseball, stationary, at that center. What happens to the baseball?
According to you, it just sits there. According to Newton, it starts
accelerating toward the earth. Who is right? (OK, this doesn't actually
work because the center of mass is about a thousand miles below the
earth's surface. But that just makes it worse for you. Is there any net
gravitational force on an object a thousand miles below earth's surface?
I'm thinking there is. How about you?)

> 3. How the neoTychoan Model's COM (co-located with the Earth) came to
> be at rest is not explained; it is an initial condition.

Not at issue. The issue is why the earth would stay at the COM. Your
claim of no net force is just wrong, and easily shown to be so.

[remainder, based on this false assumption, mercifully snipped]

[Ernest Major]

In message <b8idncpok70...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes

Tony may not realise it, but he has just claimed that the sun (and solar
system) is not orbiting the earth (or that there are huge amounts of
dark matter involved that keep the COM on a straight line - or point -
while the sun describes a complicated curve around the earth). As the
Neotychonian model has the sun (and solar system) orbiting the earth
this should be a problem for him.

I also have the impression that he thinks that solar gravity exerts no
force on, for example, Titan. That is he thinks that Kepler's Laws are
accurate, rather than approximate (ignoring relativity, they are
accurate - with certain additional assumptions - for isolated two body
systems.

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

It occurs to me that under Tony's physics, since the center of gravity
of the earth-moon system is 1000 miles under the earth, that whenever
the moon is overhead you should start rising into the sky in its direction.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:52:07 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>>If the earth and moon are orbiting a mutual COM, the earth MUST be
>>moving.
>
>1. As I pointed out the RELATIVE motions in the heliocentric model
>and the neoTychoan model are virtually eqivalent; however, the centers
>of mass and the forces are not all the same.
>
>2. In the heliocentric model the Earth-moon system rotate about their
>own local center of mass which is located somewhere below the surface
>of the Earth but not at the Earth's center.
>
>3. In the neoTychoan model the COM of the universe is colocated at
>the Earth's center. That COM (colocated at the Earth's center) is at
>complete rest in that model. The moon revolves around "that" COM (of
>the universe) and not merely around the Earth The distinction is that
>the Earth is not merely some free floating body in the neoTychoanic
>model but is also colocated at the Center of Mass of the entire
>Universe. It is a distinction missed by Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
>Isaak and virtually every other secular/atheist.

What you have failed to address in any of your five posts are two
related facts:

1) The sun and moon are real objects with mass and those masses
therefore affect the location of the COM.
2) The relative positions of the sun and moon are constantly changing
relative to each other, and thus the location of the COM must also be
changing unless somehow balanced.

What balances the _changing_relative_positions_ of the sun and moon so
that the COM remains fixed at the center of the earth?

.

>Everything above has been asked and answered. Ready for the admission
>and retraction?

You have not addressed the changing relative positions of the sun and
moon which must change the position of the COM unless balanced by a
changing external force or mass.

Until you can explain that your anti-science label remains firmly
affixed.

[RAM]

On Apr 13, 3:39 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:52:07 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>

Even should he accomplish the above, which is highly doubtful; he will
remain an anti-science advocate and clown as long as he continues to
support the creationist/ID tripe.

[John Vreeland]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:34:54 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

You had led him to believe that you were confusing the Earth and the
COM. The latter is, of course, an imaginary point defined by the
relevant equations applied to the mass in the system, and for any real
finite system will NOT be permanently coincident with any point on any
body of mass. Indeed, for any real finite system, the COM will always
appear to be moving with respect to any observer who is part of the
system.

>3. How the neoTychoan Model's COM (co-located with the Earth) came to
>be at rest is not explained; it is an initial condition. In the
>neoTychoan model the initial conditions are these: The Earth is
>co-located at the COM of the entire universe, this COM (and the Earth
>with it) is at rest while all the bodies and sub systems in the
>universe revolving around it.

Assuming an infinite Universe gets around the restriction I mentioned
above; however, it is a meaningless assumption that is impossible to
prove. I can just as readily assert that the Universe revolves around
my penis. The problem is that for an infinite Universe the COM is
undefined.

In one sense it is strictly true that /I/ am at the center of my
Universe as /you/ are at the center of your part of it, your part of
the Universe being that part of it extending out to your closest event
horizons (the distant limits where the expansion of space exceeds the
speed of light) which will be a teensy, tiny bit different from my
event horizons. That will not make either one of us the COM of
anything, however, except by the wildest possible coincidence, and
certainly not for more than a moment as we race through it.

For any real, finite system, no object may remain at rest with respect
to the COM.

>4. In scientific theories and models initial conditions are routinely
>assumed; that is they are rarely testable in historical
>investigations. The initial conditions of the Heliocentric Model are
>also assumed. Big Bang does not explain how the Solar System of
>revolving bodies came to be.

Of course it does. Maybe I don't understand you.

--
Some aspects of life would be a lot easier if Creationists were required to carry warning signs. Fortunately, many of them already do.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/13/12 9:34 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>
> 2. You still fail to understand that in a rotating system of bodies,
> those bodies will revolve around its center of mass and that the net
> forces on the center of mass is ZERO.

Your net forces on the center of mass makes as much sense as the marital
status of the center of mass. The COM is a mathematical abstraction;
there is nothing there for forces to act on.

> Those revolving masses will NOT
> accelerate the center of mass. If the center of mass is at rest it
> WILL REMAIN AT REST.

If you say so. But that means that everything else in the universe is
moving. Including the Earth. Do the math.

[snip the rest, irrelevant now that Pagano has proven that the Earth moves]

[John Vreeland]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:39:08 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You are missing Tony's point, or at least one of them. This may have
been his original claim, but his claims have become more refined.

He is now claiming that the Earth sits at the COM of the Universe.

I would say he is mistaken for the following line of reasoning.

1) If the Universe is finite then there can be no object within that
does not move with respect to the COM. It is possible to imagine such
a fantastically improbably structure, such as two identical objects
orbiting a stationary one, but in the real Universe such a system
would immediately begin to decay from perfection due even to such tiny
effects infra-red photon radiation from the two bodies not quite
matching up.

2) If, OTOH, the Universe is infinite, then it does not have a COM. I
dare you to attempt the integration. This is probably irrelevant as
the Universe is observably finite unless the rules change
significantly just beyond what we can see. Due to the expansion of
the Universe you will reach an event horizon at a certain distance
where the expansion of space exceeds the speed of light. Beyond that
point the Universe effective does not exist relative to you, thus:
finite; thus paragraph 1.

[Friar Broccoli]

As far as I know, he has always claimed that.

>
>I would say he is mistaken for the following line of reasoning.
>
>1) If the Universe is finite then there can be no object within that
>does not move with respect to the COM. It is possible to imagine such
>a fantastically improbably structure, such as two identical objects
>orbiting a stationary one, but in the real Universe such a system
>would immediately begin to decay from perfection due even to such tiny
>effects infra-red photon radiation from the two bodies not quite
>matching up.

When the moon changes it's position (relative to the sun) you have a lot
more applied force in a new direction (toward the new position of the
moon).

>
>2) If, OTOH, the Universe is infinite, then it does not have a COM. I
>dare you to attempt the integration. This is probably irrelevant as
>the Universe is observably finite unless the rules change
>significantly just beyond what we can see. Due to the expansion of
>the Universe you will reach an event horizon at a certain distance
>where the expansion of space exceeds the speed of light. Beyond that
>point the Universe effective does not exist relative to you, thus:
>finite; thus paragraph 1.

--

[John Vreeland]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:12:26 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>

I was trying to postulate an imaginary setup where a massive body
could be permanently co-local to a COM. It was meant to be ridiculous.

If you choose the COM to be your reference point then it is stationary
by definition, but no body within that system may then also be
stationary. If you shoose a body (the Earth) to be your reference
point, then the COM must be in motion. I am not sure Pagano
understands this, but talking about the COM of the Universe seems to
be an attempt to evade the point. For a finite Universe, it does not.

>>2) If, OTOH, the Universe is infinite, then it does not have a COM. I
>>dare you to attempt the integration. This is probably irrelevant as
>>the Universe is observably finite unless the rules change
>>significantly just beyond what we can see. Due to the expansion of
>>the Universe you will reach an event horizon at a certain distance
>>where the expansion of space exceeds the speed of light. Beyond that
>>point the Universe effective does not exist relative to you, thus:
>>finite; thus paragraph 1.
--

[John Harshman]

That's an interesting question. This would be the L1 point of the
system, which is unstable to perturbations except in a plane
perpendicular to the line between the masses. But is this true if the
masses are precisely equal? I suppose it would be. Not that this has
anything to do with Tony's silly notions, except that it shows them to
be false even if there were an invisible sun (dark matter?) directly
opposite the sun from us.

[John Vreeland]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:59:03 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:

>On 4/13/12 9:34 AM, T Pagano wrote:
>>
>> 2. You still fail to understand that in a rotating system of bodies,
>> those bodies will revolve around its center of mass and that the net
>> forces on the center of mass is ZERO.
>
>Your net forces on the center of mass makes as much sense as the marital
>status of the center of mass. The COM is a mathematical abstraction;
>there is nothing there for forces to act on.

I think Pagano is confusing himself. What he means is that none of
forces acting within the system will move the COM, ASSUMING THAT THE
COM IS YOUR REFERENCE POINT. This is, of course, a tautology.
Everything else in the system will then be in motion with respect to
the COM.

I think his mistake is that he assumes you can just define by fiat
where the COM is. Of course you cannot, you must apply the proper
physics, which shows in the case of the solar system that the COM is
close to the center of the sun. In the case of the Universe as a
whole, the COM either does not exist or is moving with respect to the
Earth.

>> Those revolving masses will NOT
>> accelerate the center of mass. If the center of mass is at rest it
>> WILL REMAIN AT REST.
>
>If you say so. But that means that everything else in the universe is
>moving. Including the Earth. Do the math.

Perfectly correct.

[John Vreeland]

We can imagine that the finite Universe exists in such a fashion that
the Earth just happens to permanently occupy its COM. This wildly
improbabl and unstable position could be said to have occured through
Divine Intervention (maintained by angels) or through the careful
planning of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator, who set things up in
such a way so as to make it always true.

Newton's Angels could be tested for, empirically, but the artful
deistic Creator I imagine here is probably not, unless the Universe is
considerably smaller and easier to see in the entire than I suppose.

[Ernest Major]

In message <6gbho7p2bc2q46qir...@4ax.com>, John Vreeland
<john.v...@ieee.org> writes

Tony nominally accepts Newton, but not Einstein. Newtonian gravity
includes instantaneous action at a distance, so Tony's universe doesn't
have a gravitational event horizon.

For certain distributions of matter the centre of mass of an infinite
universe does exist. Of course the observed distribution of matter in
the real universe suggests that the distribution of matter in it is not
one of these.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <PNSdnRoTj8J...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes

I thought of suggesting something on those lines, that is

1) for every body in the universe there is a shadow matter body of
identical mass exactly opposite it relative to the earth.
2) there is no gravitational force between matter and shadow matter.
3) the earth is composed of both matter and shadow matter, so that the
matter and shadow matter gravitational forces balance
4) there is an unknown physical mechanism that ties the earth and shadow
earth together (the invisibility of all the shadow bodies eliminates the
electromagnetic interactions, point 2 above eliminates gravitational
interactions, and their short times scales eliminate strong and weak
interactions.
5) there is a shadow Tony in the shadow US (above the southern Indian
Ocean) shadow typing the same nonsense.

How many Loki points do I get if Tony adopts this model?
--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message <9aeho75lmi0ab8mos...@4ax.com>, John Vreeland
<john.v...@ieee.org> writes

We can also look at the distribution of visible matter in the universe,
and conclude that Tony has to invoke dark matter or unknown forces to
hold the earth at the COM.

>
>Newton's Angels could be tested for, empirically, but the artful
>deistic Creator I imagine here is probably not, unless the Universe is
>considerably smaller and easier to see in the entire than I suppose.
>

--

alias Ernest Major

[Mike Dworetsky]

This reply by me to one of Tony's missives is a reply to what appears to be
a concession that the Earth may indeed be rotating. See near the end...

T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:19:03 -0000, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:09:05 -0700, Josh <Jo...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> How about it, Tony? Does NASA lie to children? In response to your
>>>> claim that no one has presented any evidence that the earth
>>>> rotates, I provided you a link to a NASA web page for students.
>>>> You ignored this link and then went on to claim in at least one
>>>> other thread that no one had provided any evidence that the earth
>>>> rotates or translates.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's odd because NASA sure seems to be providing you just what
>>>> you asked for. This page discusses 'launch windows' for
>>>> spacecraft. NASA is claiming that spacecraft are launched at
>>>> precise times in order to take advantage of both the earth's
>>>> rotational velocity and its orbital velocity around the sun.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the link once again.
>>>>
>>>> <http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/launch-windows/>
>>>>
>>>> Are you going to continue ignoring such evidence? If not, how do
>>>> you explain these assertions by NASA? How especially do you
>>>> explain their claim that vehicles launched from low earth orbit
>>>> into deep space during a favorable launch window receive a 107,
>>>> 000 kilometer per hour boost from earth's orbital velocity around
>>>> the sun? Is NASA lying when they say this is what they do? Or are
>>>> they mistaken that a boost is actually obtained by this means? If
>>>> they're mistaken, how have they managed to put those probes
>>>> precisely where they wanted them after voyages of years and
>>>> sometimes billions of kilometers?
>>>>
>>>> You've ignored this once. Will you ever respond to what seems a
>>>> clear disproof of your claims about the earth's supposed lack of
>>>> motion?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll check it out.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano
>>
>> Did you ever get an answer to the letter I asked you to write to the
>> Director of NASA? The one about the difference in fuel consumption
>> between eastwards launches vs westwards (or polar) launches?
>>
>> Your letter to the Director would have looked something like this:
>>
>> "Dear Director,
>>
>> "I am very concerned that your organization is perpetrating a
>> massive fraud on the entire nation. I believe the Earth does not
>> rotate (as God said in the Bible) and your claims that the eastward
>> speed of rotation helps to launch satellites and Space Shuttles are
>> a cover-up for something sinister. The conspiracy seems to be very
>> wide as it involves every physicist (including all the physics
>> students) and space engineer, including the authors of all the
>> standard textbooks.
>>
>> "In order to check on you and reveal the cover up, I would be
>> grateful if you could ask someone in NASA to send me all the raw
>> telemetry from each launch, then add the telemetry for westward
>> launches from Vandenberg. I will then go through the data (could
>> someone be detailed to show me how to do this? I'm pretty ignorant
>> of scientific stuff) and compare the results. Meanwhile I have gone
>> public with my suspicions, so be warned.
>>
>> "Sincerely (no, really!)
>>
>> "Tony Pagano"
>
> Since it was "your" claim, this was your obligation. By now you would
> have received an answer.

The claim that NASA was lying about this, or covering up a conspiracy of
some sort, was your claim. When I quoted direct evidence (passages from
textbooks on astronautics, etc) you dismissed this as non-evidence.

>
> But mere acknowledgement from NASA would never have been sufficient.
> It must be accompanied by data. It woulld have to show launch data of
> identical vehicles from different cardinal directions vs. fuel
> consumption with all other conditions fixed. I doubt such data
> exists. And as I repeatedly point out the rotational boost, if true,

Well, I certainly do not claim that this evidence is nonexistent; this is
your claim and your claim alone. The only way for you to find out for sure
is to send the letter. I don't need to waste any postage on it.

> would only prove that the Earth spins and not that it translates in
> space.

So you concede that Earth rotates, not the entire universe spinning around a
fixed Earth? This is certainly a big concession on your part, and cancels
out your claims that, for example, the Sagnac experiments shows the Earth
does not rotate, and several other claims that you have made here in
talk.origins.

>
> Your redemption is not at hand yet. You are still among the defeated.

Ho, ho, ho. Tony, I didn't realise you had a sense of humour.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Friar Broccoli]

I can see no obvious problems with this model, apart from the invocation
of completely unevidenced phenomena, but persons of faith cannot object
on that account.

>5) there is a shadow Tony in the shadow US (above the southern Indian
>Ocean) shadow typing the same nonsense.

It is not obvious to me that shadow earth needs to be a 3 dimensional
mirror image. Wouldn't a direct overlay (corresponding perhaps to
invisible souls) work better?

>How many Loki points do I get if Tony adopts this model?

No new points have been available since the beginning of the republican
primary.

[John Harshman]

Isn't it more parsimonious to say that the angels move the planets and
the crystal spheres around?

[John Harshman]

-------------------------------------

>> But mere acknowledgement from NASA would never have been sufficient.
>> It must be accompanied by data. It woulld have to show launch data of
>> identical vehicles from different cardinal directions vs. fuel
>> consumption with all other conditions fixed. I doubt such data
>> exists. And as I repeatedly point out the rotational boost, if true,
>
> Well, I certainly do not claim that this evidence is nonexistent; this is
> your claim and your claim alone. The only way for you to find out for sure
> is to send the letter. I don't need to waste any postage on it.
>
>> would only prove that the Earth spins and not that it translates in
>> space.
>
> So you concede that Earth rotates, not the entire universe spinning around a
> fixed Earth? This is certainly a big concession on your part, and cancels
> out your claims that, for example, the Sagnac experiments shows the Earth
> does not rotate, and several other claims that you have made here in
> talk.origins.

--------------------------------------
No, Tony hasn't conceded anything. He's merely said that if it were
somehow shown that the earth rotates (which he doubts) that wouldn't
change the fact that it's fixed in the center of the universe. He's just
weaseling. While there are logical problems in even that hypothetical
scenario, Tony won't see them.

[John Harshman]

I see a problem. Is even that system stable to small perturbations? As
far as earth is concerned, isn't it exactly like being at the L1 point
of the sun/dark-sun system?

[TomS]

"On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 06:09:57 -0700, in article
<JrudnR_s14K...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."

I think that the crystal spheres can be ruled out. As long as one
admits that Venus and Mercury are some times closer than the Sun and
some times farther than the Sun, as well as other features of any
Tychonian model, there can't be any crystal spheres.


--
---Tom S.
"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it"
Lucy Lawless, the Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror X: Desperately Xeeking Xena"
(1999)

[Dana Tweedy]

On 4/14/12 7:58 AM, TomS wrote:
snip

>>
>> Isn't it more parsimonious to say that the angels move the planets and
>> the crystal spheres around?
>>
>
> I think that the crystal spheres can be ruled out. As long as one
> admits that Venus and Mercury are some times closer than the Sun and
> some times farther than the Sun, as well as other features of any
> Tychonian model, there can't be any crystal spheres.

Lucite spheres?

DJT


>
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/13/2012 12:29 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:44:16 -0400, T Pagano<not....@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:47:25 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano<not....@address.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
>>>>> anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model?
>>>>
>>>> You have repeatedly stated that:
>>>> "(the neoTychoan model proposes a rotating universe) all bodies will
>>>> revolve around the center of mass."
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>> And as I pointed out Newton's Laws do not prevent the existence of sub
>>> systems. Friar Broccoli was forced to admit this on Day 1.
>>
>> True. But in other subsystems like Saturn/Titan or Neptune/Triton
>> *BOTH* bodies in the orbiting subsystem are moving around a Common
>> Center of Mass (COM). So both bodies are moving.
>

> 1. In both the heliocentric and the neoTychoaninc model Saturn is a
> local sub system of rotating bodies (it has revolving moons) with its
> own local center of mass. No difference.
>
> 2.. In both the heliocentric and the neoTychoaninc model the
> Saturn-Titan rotating subsystem is moving around the Solar System's
> local center of mass. No difference.
>
> 3. In both the heliocentric and the neoTychoaninc model those
> revolving moons of Saturn are NOT causing any net force to act upon
> the center of mass of that "Saturn-moons" local subsystem. The motion
> of Saturn's moons neither accelerates nor decelerates the Saturn-moons
> local center of mass. According to Newton's Laws if the center of
> mass of that subsystem is moving it will continue to move as it always
> had.
>

> 3. In the heliocentric the revolving sub systems in the Solar System
> do not produce any net force on the Solar System's local center of
> mass (which is NOT located at the center of the Sun). That is, if
> the Solar System's local center of mass is at rest it will remain at
> rest and if it is moving it will continue moving without being
> accelerated or decelerated.
>

> 4. And finally in the neoTychoan Model the Earth and the moon are not
> part of the Solar System rotational system. That is they do NOT

> revolve around the Solar System's local center of mass. In the
> neoTychoan model the Earth is at rest and is at the COM of the entire
> universe. In rotating systems there is no net force induced on the
> COM and if at rest will remain at rest. The moon and the solar

> systems local center of mass revolve around the universe's COM
> (colocated with the Earth). And that COM is at rest (together with
> the Earth).
>
>>

>>>> Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>>>> *different* centers of mass at different times;
>>>
>>> How do you figure that?
>>
>> They (earth/moon and earth/sun) are each orbiting subsystems like the
>> ones you forced me to admit existed. Are you now asserting that the
>> earth and moon do not form an orbiting subsystem and are therefore not
>> orbiting a COM?
>

> I simply showed that your false rule of motion did not even allow the
> sub systems of your own heliocentric model to work. It had little to
> do with the neoTychoanic Model. Let's review where you went wrong:
>
> 1. Broccoli's False Rule of Motion: "Since eight (or seven) other
> planets orbit the "center of mass" (near he sun) it follows
> necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must also orbit the
> sun."
>

> 2. Under this false rule if the Earth was by necessity required to
> directly revolve around the Sun then so was every other body in the
> heliocentric system including all the moons. The existence of sub
> systems falsified your rule. I showed that your false rule was not
> even consistent with the heliocentric model.
>
> 3. Finally while the RELATIVE motions of the heliocentric and
> neoTychoan are virtually the same the centers of mass and some of the
> forces are NOT all the same.
>
>
> more to follow as time permits.

Account for historical implications of nebular hypothesis. How could
Earth arise as a CoM in a universe the preceded it and our solar
system? How could Earth arise as CoM in a rotational system centered
upon the protosun?

You crash and burn.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 04/13/2012 12:34 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:44:16 -0400, T Pagano<not....@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:47:25 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano<not....@address.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When can I expect Broccoli's retraction of his assertion that I am
>>>>> anti-science based upon my scepticism of the heliocentric model?
>>>>
>>>> You have repeatedly stated that:
>>>> "(the neoTychoan model proposes a rotating universe) all bodies will
>>>> revolve around the center of mass."
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>> And as I pointed out Newton's Laws do not prevent the existence of sub
>>> systems. Friar Broccoli was forced to admit this on Day 1.
>>
>> True. But in other subsystems like Saturn/Titan or Neptune/Triton
>> *BOTH* bodies in the orbiting subsystem are moving around a Common
>> Center of Mass (COM). So both bodies are moving.
>>

>>>> Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>>>> *different* centers of mass at different times;
>>>
>>> How do you figure that?
>>
>> They (earth/moon and earth/sun) are each orbiting subsystems like the
>> ones you forced me to admit existed. Are you now asserting that the
>> earth and moon do not form an orbiting subsystem and are therefore not
>> orbiting a COM?
>>

>>> In the neoTychoanic Model the moon is revolving directly around an
>>> immobile Earth (which is the COM of that model). And the Solar
>>> System's LOCAL center of mass is revolving directly around the same
>>> immobile Earth.
>>>
>>> In our Solar System (as in any other sub system of rotating bodies)
>>> one may consider all the mass of that subsystem to be located at its
>>> center of mass. And since the Sun makes up 99+ percent of the mass of
>>> the Solar system and is very close to its center of mass this isn't
>>> even that hard to visualize.
>>>
>>> If you can't visualize the motions in the neoTychoanic model you'll
>>> never get this. I'll assume you've seen a working mechanical orrey of
>>> our Solar System. In order to simulate the neoTychoanic Model one
>>> need only grab hold of the Earth in that mechanical model and allow
>>> everything to revolve accordingly. The resultant motions would be
>>> those found in the neoTychoanic model (except for the revolving of all
>>> the other stars and bodies in the universe). Your hand holding the
>>> Earth would not model any real force but merely represent that the
>>> Earth is at rest and remains at rest.
>>
>> Let me begin by saying that if you tell me that the Hand of God or some
>> other supernatural force is holding the earth in place I will stop
>> arguing with you.
>
> 1. Apparently you don't read too good. Immediately above I wrote:
> "Your hand holding the Earth would not model any real force but merely

> represents that the Earth is at rest and remains at rest."

>
> 2. You still fail to understand that in a rotating system of bodies,
> those bodies will revolve around its center of mass and that the net

> forces on the center of mass is ZERO. Those revolving masses will NOT
> accelerate the center of mass. If the center of mass is at rest it
> WILL REMAIN AT REST. In the neoTychoan Model the intial conditions
> are that the COM (colocated with the Earth) is at rest. The Hand of
> God is not required to explain why the COM will "remain" at rest only
> Newton's Laws are required.
>

> 3. How the neoTychoan Model's COM (co-located with the Earth) came to
> be at rest is not explained; it is an initial condition. In the
> neoTychoan model the initial conditions are these: The Earth is
> co-located at the COM of the entire universe, this COM (and the Earth
> with it) is at rest while all the bodies and sub systems in the
> universe revolving around it.
>

> 4. In scientific theories and models initial conditions are routinely
> assumed; that is they are rarely testable in historical
> investigations. The initial conditions of the Heliocentric Model are
> also assumed. Big Bang does not explain how the Solar System of

> revolving bodies came to be. So the problem is not to explain why the
> neoTychoan Model's COM (co located with the Earth) is at rest but
> whether the model (as formulated) obeys the laws of nature. It does.

>
>
>
> more to follow as time permits.

How many years took place between the big bang and the development of
our solar system? Could Earth have been CoM in those years if it didn't
exist? And when our solar system developed was the protosun subsumed by
Earth as CoM? Is this a possibility under Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis?

You know more than Kant did?


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

>> However you are claiming that the earth is floating freely in space and
>> being held in place *only* by forces consistent with Newton's Laws.
>
> Newton's First Law of Motion: 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.
>
> The intial conditions of the neoTychoan Model is that its COM
> (co-located with the Earth) is at rest. In a rotating system there is
> no net force applied on the center of mass. It is not being
> accelerated by the bodies revolving around it. Therefore if the
> Earth (COM) is at rest it will remain at rest.


What happened is that long after the Big Bang our solar system began to
develop, centered upon our protosun (Ref- nebular hypothesis).

The Earth is not CoM for universe or our solar system.

And what about those awkward objects travelling faster than light speed
to make it round the Earth once a day? Is yours a burritoverse?


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

>> Within those laws you can (absurdly) make an argument that the earth is
>> held in an equilibrium position by forces from the sun which are exactly
>> balanced by opposing forces from the rest of the universe.
>
> 1. First (and most importantly) the location of the COM in a rotating
> system is independent of the gravitational forces. Its location is
> the sole function of the distribution of masses. Your presentation of
> the graphic of the super clusters is evidence that you are interested
> in the truth. And that graphic shows the Earth is surround by a
> distribution of uncountably large number of stars. Hubble said the
> same---that they were located in shells with the Earth at the center.
>
> 2. In a rotating system of masses, Newton's Laws imply that those
> bodies will not induce any net force on the COM (in the neoTychoan
> model colocated with the Earth). If the Earth is at rest it will
> remain at rest. The fact that the Sun is relatively close is
> irrelevent in a rotating system. In the neoTychoan model every body
> in the universe is revolving around the Earth. The gravitational
> vector of each body and sub system pointing towards the COM is balance
> by its centrifugal force vector.
>
> 3. The model may not reflect what actually happens but it is in
> complete compliance with Newton's Laws. It does not require exotic
> space, it does not suffer from the cold dard matter problem, or any
> of other intractable problem of Big Bang.
>
>>
>> However, the forces/masses that balance the effects of the sun cannot
>> balance the forces from an orbiting moon, because the moon is in a
>> completely _different_orbit_ around the earth. So according to your
>> often repeated version of Newton's Laws the earth and the moon MUST
>> orbit there own COM somewhere between the earth and the moon.
>
> I'm afraid that Broccoli is unable to take in the big picture. He
> sees local bodies but is unable to visualize the neoTychoanic model or
> understand Newton's Laws.
>
> In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
> universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant. First
> consider that the Milky Way alone has 100 billion stars. Then bring
> in Broccoli's graphic of the super clusters (billions of galaxies).
> Bill Rogers pointed this fact out (that is, that the sun and moon are
> insignificant) and Bill demonstrated that he understood this by
> actually performing a simple "center of mass" calculation for two
> bodies in one dimension.
>
> Again (and ad nauseum), in the neoTychoan model the COM (colocated
> with the Earth) is at REST. It is at the center of mass of the ENTIRE
> universe. The moon revolves around this COM which is immobile. The
> Solar System's LOCAL center of mass also revolves around the immobile
> COM of the universe.

>
> more to follow as time permits.

Account for historical development of our solar system (nebular
hypothesis) and how the Eart being CoM of solar system and universe
rendered impossible by this simple history lesson.

Big Bang...Nebular Hypothesis for Development of our solar
system...Earth not center.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[*Hemidactylus*]

>> However, the forces/masses that balance the effects of the sun cannot
>> balance the forces from an orbiting moon, because the moon is in a
>> completely _different_orbit_ around the earth. So according to your
>> often repeated version of Newton's Laws the earth and the moon MUST
>> orbit there own COM somewhere between the earth and the moon.
>>

>> If the earth and moon are orbiting a mutual COM, the earth MUST be
>> moving.
>
> 1. As I pointed out the RELATIVE motions in the heliocentric model
> and the neoTychoan model are virtually eqivalent; however, the centers
> of mass and the forces are not all the same.
>
> 2. In the heliocentric model the Earth-moon system rotate about their
> own local center of mass which is located somewhere below the surface
> of the Earth but not at the Earth's center.
>
> 3. In the neoTychoan model the COM of the universe is colocated at
> the Earth's center. That COM (colocated at the Earth's center) is at
> complete rest in that model. The moon revolves around "that" COM (of
> the universe) and not merely around the Earth The distinction is that
> the Earth is not merely some free floating body in the neoTychoanic
> model but is also colocated at the Center of Mass of the entire
> Universe. It is a distinction missed by Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
> Isaak and virtually every other secular/atheist.
>

> 4. Together with our moon, our Solar System's local center of mass
> ALSO revolves around the universe's COM and not merely a free floating
> Earth (which is colocated at the COM).
>
> 5. It's obvious that Broccoli is unable to visualize the model. Try
> looking at this Youtube graphic for a rough visualization:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=LLBMhGmkhlo
>
>>
>> You must explain why the earth and moon (as a subsystem) are not
>> orbiting a separate COM, or accept your anti-science branding.
>>
>>>> what prevents the earth
>>> >from moving contradicting the fundamental requirement of your
>>>> neoTychonian model?
>>>
>>> The neoTychoan Model is nothing more than a system of rotating bodies
>>> like our Solar Sysem. It must obey all the same Laws that any other
>>> rotating system obeys. Chief among those rules is that no net force
>>> is appled to the COM. The acceleration of the COM is zero. If the
>>> COM is at rest it will remain at rest in a rotating system of bodies.
>>> The Earth is at rest in the neoTychoan model. Secularists have been
>>> unable to produce independent evidence that the Earth moves.
>>>
>>> The moon and the LOCAL center of mass of the Solar System are both
>>> revolving directly around the neoTychoan Model COM which is colocated
>>> with the Earth. There is no contradiction; there is no violation of
>>> any of Newton's Laws.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> As soon as you've explained why this obvious contradiction is not a
>>>> contradiction, I will apologize.
>>>
>>> Though Broccoli intended to besmirch me personally his error was a
>>> mistake in his understanding of Newton's Laws and rotating systems.
>>> This kind of error does not warrant an apology; it warrants an
>>> admission of his error. That is, your understanding of the neoTychoan
>>> model was faulty. This would not be an admission that the model is
>>> true.
>>>
>>> Once that admission is made it would be good form to retract his claim
>>> that that my skepticism of the heliocentric model made me anti
>>> science.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> T Pagano

>
> Everything above has been asked and answered. Ready for the admission
> and retraction?

What acted as surrogate center of mass before our solar system developed
and allowed Earth to assume the role by what should be a very awkward
explanation on your part.

Historical implications of Nebular Hypothesis refute your geocentrism.

--
*Hemidactylus*

[John Harshman]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

> Account for historical development of our solar system (nebular
> hypothesis) and how the Eart being CoM of solar system and universe
> rendered impossible by this simple history lesson.
>
> Big Bang...Nebular Hypothesis for Development of our solar
> system...Earth not center.

How could you possibly not know that Tony is a YEC?

[John Harshman]

Actually, I was just thinking of the crystal sphere in which the stars
are embedded. But a few epicycles ought to fix things in the solar
system too.

[*Hemidactylus*]

So we must defer to his version of the universe and ignore the actual
issues that geocentrism presents? We must play make believe to suit him?

I don't think so.

My refutation of him stands. I'm not one of your lapdog henchmen that
bows to your better judgement.


--
*Hemidactylus*

[John Harshman]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 04/14/2012 12:30 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>>> Account for historical development of our solar system (nebular
>>> hypothesis) and how the Eart being CoM of solar system and universe
>>> rendered impossible by this simple history lesson.
>>>
>>> Big Bang...Nebular Hypothesis for Development of our solar
>>> system...Earth not center.
>>
>> How could you possibly not know that Tony is a YEC?
>
> So we must defer to his version of the universe and ignore the actual
> issues that geocentrism presents? We must play make believe to suit him?

No, but we must ask him different questions. The origin of the solar
system isn't something he resolves with geocentrism but with recent
creation as is. Further, neither the big bang nor the nebular hypothesis
is at all evidence for anything; they're explanations for data, and it's
the data that you should be referring to. Cosmic microwave background,
cosmological red shift, radiometric dates of meteorites, etc.

> I don't think so.
>
> My refutation of him stands. I'm not one of your lapdog henchmen that
> bows to your better judgement.

Are you sure? I thought everyone on TO was my lapdog henchman. I am the
hall monitor, you know.

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/14/12 6:21 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:26:03 +0100, Ernest Major
>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>

>>>> [...]

>>> I thought of suggesting something on those lines, that is
>>>
>>> 1) for every body in the universe there is a shadow matter body of
>>> identical mass exactly opposite it relative to the earth.
>>> 2) there is no gravitational force between matter and shadow matter.
>>> 3) the earth is composed of both matter and shadow matter, so that
>>> the matter and shadow matter gravitational forces balance
>>> 4) there is an unknown physical mechanism that ties the earth and
>>> shadow earth together (the invisibility of all the shadow bodies
>>> eliminates the electromagnetic interactions, point 2 above eliminates
>>> gravitational interactions, and their short times scales eliminate
>>> strong and weak interactions.
>>
>> I can see no obvious problems with this model, apart from the invocation
>> of completely unevidenced phenomena, but persons of faith cannot object
>> on that account.
>
> I see a problem. Is even that system stable to small perturbations?

God keeps it stable, just like he does with atomic nuclei.

--
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

[Don Cates]

mass" - The "on" is meaningless, CoM is a location not an object. The
statement "In a rotating system there is no net force applied" at "the
center of mass" is only true under the condition that the mass of the
system is symmetrically distributed about the CoM.

_If_ the earth is located at the CoM then since there is no mass equal
to the sun symmetrically located, then there _is_ a net force applied to
the earth at the CoM.

>
> What happened is that long after the Big Bang our solar system began to
> develop, centered upon our protosun (Ref- nebular hypothesis).
>
> The Earth is not CoM for universe or our solar system.
>
> And what about those awkward objects travelling faster than light speed
> to make it round the Earth once a day? Is yours a burritoverse?
>
>


--

--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Friar Broccoli]

I think you are correct. For Ernest's model to work the Creator would
need to adjust the properties of shadow gravity so that it became weaker
as distance decreased from the optimum He established and stronger as
distance increased from that optimum.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

Would that be a snapping lapdog, or the common-or-garden variety?

[Ernest Major]

In message <85omo7pb10rtq44jt...@4ax.com>, Friar Broccoli
<eli...@gmail.com> writes

For Ernest's model to work shadow gravity has to work exactly like
gravity, except on shadow matter. However this is Paganian gravity, not
Newtonian gravity, so it's anyone's guess how it works.

If the shadow universe is an exact mirror of the real universe the small
perturbations don't occur.

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

--
alias Ernest Major

[John Harshman]

Do all the shadow planets have goatees?

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:39:08 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:52:07 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>If the earth and moon are orbiting a mutual COM, the earth MUST be
>>>moving.
>>
>>1. As I pointed out the RELATIVE motions in the heliocentric model
>>and the neoTychoan model are virtually eqivalent; however, the centers
>>of mass and the forces are not all the same.
>>
>>2. In the heliocentric model the Earth-moon system rotate about their
>>own local center of mass which is located somewhere below the surface
>>of the Earth but not at the Earth's center.
>>
>>3. In the neoTychoan model the COM of the universe is colocated at
>>the Earth's center. That COM (colocated at the Earth's center) is at
>>complete rest in that model. The moon revolves around "that" COM (of
>>the universe) and not merely around the Earth The distinction is that
>>the Earth is not merely some free floating body in the neoTychoanic
>>model but is also colocated at the Center of Mass of the entire
>>Universe. It is a distinction missed by Broccoli, Harshman, Rogers,
>>Isaak and virtually every other secular/atheist.

One must keep the point of this discussion in perspective. Broccoli
accused me of being anti-science because of my skepticism of Big
Bang/Heliocentricism. He implied that Big Bang/HelioCentricism was
beyond reproach and the neoTychoan Model was silly nonsense. However,
Broccoli has been wholly impotent to find a single reason against the
possibility/plausibility/truthlikeness of the neoTychoan Model. And
hasn't solved any of the intractible problems of Big
Bang/Heliocentricism not the least of which is the inability to find
any of the cold dark matter/energy fairy dust.

>
>What you have failed to address in any of your five posts are two
>related facts:

But in fact I did, in several different posts, and most recently in
Part 4 of my response in this very thread. Broccoli failed to respond
to Part 1 , 2, 3, or 4 of my posts all made on Apr 12th. Please See
my Part 4 response at:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/295cf7b88b736eb1/fa9cf3aff21e113e?tvc=1&q=Part+4%3A+Broccoli#fa9cf3aff21e113e

>
>1) The sun and moon are real objects with mass and those masses
>therefore affect the location of the COM.

[BEGIN PAGANO QUOTE FROM Subject Line: "Part 4:"]

In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant. First
consider that the Milky Way alone has 100 billion stars. Then bring
in Broccoli's graphic of the super clusters (billions of galaxies).
Bill Rogers pointed this fact out (that is, that the sun and moon are
insignificant) and Bill demonstrated that he understood this by
actually performing a simple "center of mass" calculation for two
bodies in one dimension.

[END QUOTE]

>2) The relative positions of the sun and moon are constantly changing
>relative to each other, and thus the location of the COM must also be
>changing unless somehow balanced.

1. Even considering the close proximity of our Sun and Moon their
masses are insignificant in comparison to the other masses in the
universe as far as the COM calculation is concerned. They could
effectively be ignored.

2. It was Bill Rogers who first pointed out a few days ago that given
the uncountably large number of masses of the universe that it was our
Sun and Moon that could be ignored in the calculation.

3. Broccoli on the other hand has incorrectly, over the course of all
of his posts on this topic, ignored the uncountably large number of
masses in the Universe and focused on the imbalance between the Sun
and Moon. Our sun is only a medium sized star and the Moon has only
1/80 the mass of Earth. Taken as an isolated subsystem their
imbalance is significant, but in relation to the uncountably large
number of masses in the universe these two masses are insignificant.

4. I agree; however, that if the distribution of masses in the
ENTIRE universe were on the whole "unbalanced" the location of the COM
of the neoTychoan Model at various points in time would change.
Unfortunately Broccoli hasn't presented any evidence that it is----ON
THE WHOLE----unbalanced.

>
>What balances the _changing_relative_positions_ of the sun and moon so
>that the COM remains fixed at the center of the earth?

5. On the other hand there exists evidence that the masses of the
universe are distributed with the Earth at the center:

a. Hubble's initially interpreted the red shift seen in his
telescope as clearly indicating that all the stars were rotating about
a centrially located Earth.
b. Broccoli's wonderful supercluster graphic shows super
clusters of galaxies with Earth at the center (contained within the
Virgo SuperCluster.
c. William G Tifft, astronomer a the Steward Obervatory,
University of Arizona examined the red shift of various galaxies and
found that they were all distributed at specified spherical distances
from Earth, namely in multiples of 72 km/sec and a smaller grouping of
36 km/sec.
d. Bruce N. G. Guthrie and William Napier, astronomers of the
Royal University of Edinburgh compared the red shifts of 206 galaxies
found the same red shift distributed at spherical distances from the
Earth with a periodicity of 36.2 km/sec.
e. D. Koo and R. Krone, scientists, University of Chicago did
the same kind of red shift analysis with results identical to to
Guthrie and Napier.
f. Joathan I Katz, astrophysicist, Washington University,
found that when all the known gamma-ray bursts are calculated and
catalogued, they show the Earth to be at the center of it all.
g. Joseph Silk, University of California (Berkley) admits
that studies of the CMBR indicate its near complete uniformity in all
directions. And that if the Universe has a center the Earth must be
very close to it.
h. Yatendra P Varshni, astrophysicist, University of Ottawa,
did extensive work on the spectra of quasars. He found that they were
formed in 57 separate groupings of concentric spheres around the
earth. Soon after Varshni's work astronomers found over 20,000
quasars which were ALL positioned similarly with the Earth at the
center.
i. Similar kinds of observations have been made for BL
Lacertae, X-Ray Redshifts, Spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
Clusters.

>>Everything above has been asked and answered. Ready for the admission
>>and retraction?
>
>You have not addressed the changing relative positions of the sun and
>moon which must change the position of the COM unless balanced by a
>changing external force or mass.
>
>Until you can explain that your anti-science label remains firmly
>affixed.

Asked and answered numerous times. Broccoli has not proven that the
mass of one medium sized star (Our Sun) and the mass of our Moon (1/80
the mass of our Earth) cannot be balanced by a uniform distribution of
supergalaxies which according to his own graphic shows the Earth at
the center. Broccoli hasn't even shown the neoTychoan Model to be
implausible let alone that it is ruled out by the Laws of Motion and
Gravitation.

And when Broccoli was not misunderstanding how COM is calculated he
incorrectly argued that the Sun and Moon would cause the Earth to move
due to the gravitational inverse square law. In that case he
misunderstood that in a rotating system the gravitational vector
towards the COM is balanced by the centrifugal force vector. That is,
there is no net force on the COM.


Regards,
T Pagano

[Boikat]

On Apr 18, 5:14 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:39:08 -0400, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>

>
> 5.  On the other hand there exists evidence that the masses of the
> universe are distributed with the Earth at the center:
>
>         a.  Hubble's initially interpreted the red shift seen in his
> telescope as clearly indicating that all the stars were rotating about
> a centrially located Earth.

The red shift is not used primarily for stars, rather for galaxies and
quasars. If the red shift was due to the rest of the universe
rotating around the Earth (which it's not), then why do galaxies
located near the north and south celestial poles display the same red
shift range as those located along the celestial equator? (Hint: The
red shift is useless for measuring radial motion.)

Also, could you provide a citation where Hubble originally thought the
red shift meant the universe was rotating around the Earth, and not
that the Earth was the center of the (observable) Universe?

BTW, why did you never address the problem posed for your "stationary,
non-rotating" Earth in regards to the lack of polar geostationary
satellites? After all, a polar geostatioary satellite would be very
usefull. Why are there none? (And don't give me any of that, "already
answered" crap.)

Boikat

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:12:59 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>T Pagano wrote:

>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:44:16 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:47:25 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:58:43 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>> wrote:

snip for brevity

>> 3. In both the heliocentric and the neoTychoaninc model those
>> revolving moons of Saturn are NOT causing any net force to act upon
>> the center of mass of that "Saturn-moons" local subsystem. The motion
>> of Saturn's moons neither accelerates nor decelerates the Saturn-moons
>> local center of mass. According to Newton's Laws if the center of
>> mass of that subsystem is moving it will continue to move as it always
>> had.
>

>Well of course no force acts on the center of mass. Forces act on
>matter, and the center of mass is an imaginary point. You continue to
>confuse the center of mass itself with an object that happens to be
>located at that center. Big difference. There are indeed net forces
>acting on objects at the center of mass. The math here isn't very
>complicated, and even you could do it if you tried.


Nonetheless if you colocate a body at the COM of a rotating system (as
is the Earth in the neoTychoan Model) no net gravitational force will
be applied to that body as a result of the rotating masses.. It will
not be accelerated by the rotating masses. If it was at rest it will
remain at rest..

And if you recall your non-savior, Carlip, was completely impotent to
produce any conclusive evidence that the Earth does move. His best
evidence was the anistropy of the CMBR which is equally consistent
with the neoTychoan model.

>
>> 3. In the heliocentric the revolving sub systems in the Solar System
>> do not produce any net force on the Solar System's local center of
>> mass (which is NOT located at the center of the Sun). That is, if
>> the Solar System's local center of mass is at rest it will remain at
>> rest and if it is moving it will continue moving without being
>> accelerated or decelerated.
>

>Again, you confuse imaginary points with actual bodies located at those
>points.

Nonsense. In most of my posts I make clear that the Earth is
"colocated" at the COM. Harshman's hair splitting doesn't lay a
glove on the neoTychoan Model.

>
>> 4. And finally in the neoTychoan Model the Earth and the moon are not
>> part of the Solar System rotational system. That is they do NOT

>> revolve around the Solar System's local center of mass. In the
>> neoTychoan model the Earth is at rest and is at the COM of the entire
>> universe.
>
>And again, it doesn't follow that the earth will remain at the COM. It
>won't unless the forces balance, and there is no way that they could
>according to Newton. You could try resorting to Einstein, but of course
>you reject general relativity, so that won't help (and I doubt it would
>anyway).

1. Harshman is very confused.
a. I should point out for Harshman and Broccoli that the
Heliocentric Model is only comprised of the bodies within our Solar
System. However, the neoTychoanic model is made up of ALL the bodies
in the universe in one large, rotating system. As a result Harshman
cannot accurately evaluate or calculate the NeoTychoan COM by
restricting the calculation to only those bodies in our Solar System.
b. Gravitational FORCES are irrelevant in determining the
coordinates of the COM of a system of bodies. The coordinates of the
COM are solely dependent upon the position of each of the bodies in
that system weighted by their masses.
c. In a rotating system of bodies the net gravitational
forces on the COM is zero. That is, any body located at the COM will
not be accelerated.
d. In a rotating system of bodies the gravitation vector
towards the COM is balanced by the centrifugal force vector. There is
generally no expansion or contraction unless some external force acts
on the system.
e. because the gravitational forces in the neoTychoan
rotating system are balanced, the universe is stable; it does not
contract or expand. The neoTychoanic Model does not require an
expanding universe to explain the red shift and it doesn't require non
existent cold dark matter to explain the expansion.

2. Like Broccoli, Harshman is under the delusion that he can
effectively ignore all the other masses in the universe when
calculating the coordinates of the COM of the neoTychoan Model except
for the Sun and Moon. Not only is this ridiculous nonsense the exact
opposite is true; in comparison to the uncountably large number of
bodies in the universe we could effectively ignore the Sun and moon in
the neoTychoan COM calcualtion. Bill Rogers was the first to point
this out.

>
>> In rotating systems there is no net force induced on the
>> COM and if at rest will remain at rest.
>

>Again, the COM is an imaginary point and can't have any force induced on
>it by definition. Objects at the COM do indeed have net forces on them,
>as has been demonstrated to you many times.

Nonetheless if you colocate a body at the COM of a rotating system (as
is the Earth in the neoTychoan Model) no net gravitational force will
be applied to that body as a result of the rotating masses.. It will
not be accelerated by the rotating masses. If it is at rest it will
remain at rest.

Walter Thirring, Einstein, and Mach all pointed out that the same
INERTIAL FORCES (Corriolis, etc) would be experienced by the Earth
colocated at the COM of a spherical shell of rotating stars. Thirring
did the calculation using Einstein field equations. These inertial
forces will not accelerate the Earth in the neoTychoan Model.

>
>> The moon and the solar
>> systems local center of mass revolve around the universe's COM
>> (colocated with the Earth). And that COM is at rest (together with
>> the Earth).
>

>The bit about "together with the earth" is a fatal flaw in your
>theories. You need some special, additional force that nails the earth
>in place. Where does it come from?

Not true. There is NO net gravitational force on a body colocated at
the COM of a rotating system of bodies; the accleration is zero. If
the COM of rotating system is at rest then any body colocated at the
COM will remain at rest.

>
>>>>> Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>>>>> *different* centers of mass at different times;
>>>> How do you figure that?
>>> They (earth/moon and earth/sun) are each orbiting subsystems like the
>>> ones you forced me to admit existed. Are you now asserting that the
>>> earth and moon do not form an orbiting subsystem and are therefore not
>>> orbiting a COM?
>>

>> I simply showed that your false rule of motion did not even allow the
>> sub systems of your own heliocentric model to work. It had little to
>> do with the neoTychoanic Model. Let's review where you went wrong:
>>
>> 1. Broccoli's False Rule of Motion: "Since eight (or seven) other
>> planets orbit the "center of mass" (near he sun) it follows
>> necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must also orbit the
>> sun."
>

>He never, ever said that. It's your own strawman. Shame on you.

Harshman never checks any of his facts and always ends up taking it on
the chin.

Please see:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/2d10949bdee1fc05/933980bd33362444?lnk=gst&q=Day+2%3A+Friar+Broccoli#933980bd33362444

This is my "Day 2" reply to Broccoli's position. You'll have to
unhide the quoted materila to see Broccoli's False Rule of Motion.

[BEGIN BROCCOLI QUOTE]
>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.
[END BROCCOLI QUOTE]

>
>[snip remainder of the strawman argument]

Harshman's wishful thinking.


Regards,
T Pagano

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:39:08 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:52:07 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>wrote:
>
>

Part 4 of my response in a very recent thread. Broccoli failed to

respond to Part 1 , 2, 3, or 4 of my posts all made on Apr 12th.
Please See my Part 4 response at:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/295cf7b88b736eb1/fa9cf3aff21e113e?tvc=1&q=Part+4%3A+Broccoli#fa9cf3aff21e113e


>
>1) The sun and moon are real objects with mass and those masses
>therefore affect the location of the COM.

[BEGIN PAGANO QUOTE FROM Subject Line: "Part 4:"]
In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant. First
consider that the Milky Way alone has 100 billion stars. Then bring
in Broccoli's graphic of the super clusters (billions of galaxies).
Bill Rogers pointed this fact out (that is, that the sun and moon are
insignificant) and Bill demonstrated that he understood this by
actually performing a simple "center of mass" calculation for two
bodies in one dimension.
[END QUOTE]


>2) The relative positions of the sun and moon are constantly changing
>relative to each other, and thus the location of the COM must also be
>changing unless somehow balanced.

1. This would only be relevant if the Sun and the Moon were the only
bodies in the neoTychoan system. Unfortunately for Broccoli every
body in the universe is part of the neoTychoan Model. Even

considering the close proximity of our Sun and Moon their masses are

insignificant in comparison to all the other masses in the universe as

far as the COM calculation is concerned. They could effectively be
ignored.

2. It was Bill Rogers who first pointed out a few days ago that given
the uncountably large number of masses of the universe that it was our

Sun and Moon that could be ignored in the COM calculation.

3. Broccoli on the other hand has incorrectly, over the course of all
of his posts on this topic, ignored the uncountably large number of
masses in the Universe and focused on the imbalance between the Sun
and Moon. Our sun is only a medium sized star and the Moon has only

1/80 the mass of Earth. Taken as an isolated system this
imbalance is significant, but in relation to the uncountably large
number of masses in neoTychoan universe these two masses are

insignificant.

4. I agree; however, that if the distribution of masses in the
ENTIRE universe were on the whole "unbalanced" the location of the COM
of the neoTychoan Model at various points in time would change.
Unfortunately Broccoli hasn't presented any evidence that it is----ON
THE WHOLE----unbalanced.

>
>What balances the _changing_relative_positions_ of the sun and moon so

>that the COM remains fixed at the center of the earth?

5. On the other hand there exists evidence that the masses of the
universe are distributed with the Earth at the center:

a. Hubble's initially interpreted the red shift seen in his
telescope as clearly indicating that all the stars were rotating about

a centrally located Earth.

the center. Broccoli hasn't even shown the neoTychoan Model is

[T Pagano]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:12:59 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>T Pagano wrote:

>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:04:04 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:44:16 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 10:47:25 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

[Friar Broccoli]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

>In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
>universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.

This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science. The
effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
huge distances. See the discussions here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Now that all your arms and legs have been chopped off, I think it is
time for you to declare victory.

[Bill]

On Apr 19, 6:26 am, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>

> wrote:
>
> >In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
> >universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>
> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science.  The
> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
> huge distances.  See the discussions here:

Tony is almost always wrong, but he is right about this. In computing
the center of mass, the mass of any element of the system is
multiplied by its distance from the proposed center of mass. A penny
a million light years out could easily balance the sun at 93 million
miles out. The sun and moon have little impact on the COM calculation,
if the COM is colocated with the earth.

For purposes of calculating COM, mass is multiplied by distance; for
calculating gravitational forces, mass is divided by distance squared.

Tony's problem is that the he fails to recognize that the
gravitational forces acting on a body at the COM are NOT necessarily
zero, and are certainly not zero in the specific case of the earth,
the sun, and the rest of the universe.

Well, Tony has another problem, in that if the universe is infinite
and has a uniform mass distribution than every point in the universe
will be the COM of the universe.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

[chris thompson]

On Apr 18, 7:26 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>

> wrote:
>
> >In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
> >universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>
> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science.  The
> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
> huge distances.  See the discussions here:
>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_lawhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

>
> Now that all your arms and legs have been chopped off, I think it is
> time for you to declare victory.

I think it would be a fine thing if Tony, Ray, Dr. Dr. Kleinman, and
Mr. Dunsapy would all bleed at each other.

Chris

[Ernest Major]

In message <apagano-msluo7lceis27...@4ax.com>, T
Pagano <not....@address.net> writes

That is not true for Newton's theory of gravity, in which it is
trivially possible to describe a rotating system of bodies (such has
already been offered to you) in which there is a net gravitational force
on a body colocated with the
centre of mass. Please describe Pagano's theory of gravity, in which it
is true.

[Consider a system of two bodies of mass 4M and M making circular orbits
about their COM. The COM is 4 times closer to the more massive body than
to the less massive body. As in Newton's theory of gravity the force is
proportional to the mass, and inversely proportional to the square of
the distance, the force exerted by the larger body on an object at the
COM is 64 times that exerted by the smaller body, and there is a net
force on an object colocated with the centre of mass.]

--
Alias Ernest Major

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Apr 18, 8:11 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:12:59 -0700, John Harshman
>

> >The bit about "together with the earth" is a fatal flaw in your
> >theories. You need some special, additional force that nails the earth
> >in place. Where does it come from?
>
> Not true.  There is NO net gravitational force on a body colocated at
> the COM of a rotating system of bodies; the accleration is zero.  If
> the COM of rotating system  is at rest then any body colocated at the
> COM will remain at rest.

Not if Newton's equations are correct.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is a simple relationship that
quantifies the gravitational force between bodies.

F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2

Note that there is no term in the equation for motion. So the Sun's
"pull" on the Earth (and vice versa) is only dependent on the masses
of both bodies and the distance ("r") between them. The Sun exerts a
force on the Earth, which cannot somehow be "balanced" by any proposed
motion of the Sun.

If the Sun exerts a force on the Earth, the Earth must move, by f=ma,
unless there is another force that exactly balances it. But candidates
for the source of that gravitational force are constrained by the
first equation above. At even 10 times the Sun's distance, you'd need
100 suns to balance it out. But there aren't any stars 10 AU away. The
nearest one is over 4 light years away, a distance at which the entire
mass of the Milky Way would not be sufficient.

The further away you look for the mass, the more the distance
dominates. Moreover, you claim that all of the bodies in the universe
are symmetrically arranged around the Earth, so any hope of finding
enough mass opposite the Sun would be dashed by the equal mass in the
same direction as the Sun.

So here is where you will repeat the claim that all that matters is
that the Earth is colocated at the universe's center of mass. I refer
you again to the first equation:

F = G(m1)(m2)/r^2

Either the Sun exerts an unbalanced force on the Earth (the Moon does
too), or Newton's equations are wrong.

[John Harshman]

That isn't true. You're making it up. A little calculation with
Newtonian gravitation shows that's wrong.

> And if you recall your non-savior, Carlip, was completely impotent to
> produce any conclusive evidence that the Earth does move. His best
> evidence was the anistropy of the CMBR which is equally consistent
> with the neoTychoan model.

What I recall is that you ignored Carlip's posts. I see you have
conveniently forgotten that.

>>> 3. In the heliocentric the revolving sub systems in the Solar System
>>> do not produce any net force on the Solar System's local center of
>>> mass (which is NOT located at the center of the Sun). That is, if
>>> the Solar System's local center of mass is at rest it will remain at
>>> rest and if it is moving it will continue moving without being
>>> accelerated or decelerated.
>> Again, you confuse imaginary points with actual bodies located at those
>> points.
>
> Nonsense. In most of my posts I make clear that the Earth is
> "colocated" at the COM. Harshman's hair splitting doesn't lay a
> glove on the neoTychoan Model.

In a few of your posts you may say this. In most of them you don't. In
the post we're discussing here you don't. And you make the mistake of
assuming that an object "colocated" at the COM experiences no net force.
Go ahead and do the math. You will see that you're wrong.

>>> 4. And finally in the neoTychoan Model the Earth and the moon are not
>>> part of the Solar System rotational system. That is they do NOT
>>> revolve around the Solar System's local center of mass. In the
>>> neoTychoan model the Earth is at rest and is at the COM of the entire
>>> universe.
>> And again, it doesn't follow that the earth will remain at the COM. It
>> won't unless the forces balance, and there is no way that they could
>> according to Newton. You could try resorting to Einstein, but of course
>> you reject general relativity, so that won't help (and I doubt it would
>> anyway).
>
> 1. Harshman is very confused.
> a. I should point out for Harshman and Broccoli that the
> Heliocentric Model is only comprised of the bodies within our Solar
> System. However, the neoTychoanic model is made up of ALL the bodies
> in the universe in one large, rotating system. As a result Harshman
> cannot accurately evaluate or calculate the NeoTychoan COM by
> restricting the calculation to only those bodies in our Solar System.

Yes we can, to a first approximation, since all the rest of the universe
exerts less gravitational force on earth than the sun does.

> b. Gravitational FORCES are irrelevant in determining the
> coordinates of the COM of a system of bodies. The coordinates of the
> COM are solely dependent upon the position of each of the bodies in
> that system weighted by their masses.

True, but irrelevant to the question, since gravitational forces are
exactly what we need to deal with if the earth is going to remain
stationary.

> c. In a rotating system of bodies the net gravitational
> forces on the COM is zero. That is, any body located at the COM will
> not be accelerated.

Again, not true, as is easily shown.

> d. In a rotating system of bodies the gravitation vector
> towards the COM is balanced by the centrifugal force vector. There is
> generally no expansion or contraction unless some external force acts
> on the system.

This is word salad and has nothing to do with whether there is any net
force on earth. "Centrifugal force" acting on other bodies has nothing
to do with forces acting on earth.

> e. because the gravitational forces in the neoTychoan
> rotating system are balanced, the universe is stable; it does not
> contract or expand. The neoTychoanic Model does not require an
> expanding universe to explain the red shift and it doesn't require non
> existent cold dark matter to explain the expansion.

Irrelevant to the question. But out of curiosity, how does your system
explain the cosmological red shift? And you are confusing dark matter
(which has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe) with dark
engergy (which does). I would ask how you explain either of these
phenomena, but if you can't tell them apart there seems no reason.

> 2. Like Broccoli, Harshman is under the delusion that he can
> effectively ignore all the other masses in the universe when
> calculating the coordinates of the COM of the neoTychoan Model except
> for the Sun and Moon.

Nope. We aren't talking about the COM here. We're talking about gravity.

> Not only is this ridiculous nonsense the exact
> opposite is true; in comparison to the uncountably large number of
> bodies in the universe we could effectively ignore the Sun and moon in
> the neoTychoan COM calcualtion. Bill Rogers was the first to point
> this out.

In fact, you can't calculate the COM of the universe. You don't have the
necessary information. You're just assuming that earth is at the COM.
Fortunately, the question is irrelevant to earth's motion. What we need
to consider are the gravitational forces.

>>> In rotating systems there is no net force induced on the
>>> COM and if at rest will remain at rest.
>> Again, the COM is an imaginary point and can't have any force induced on
>> it by definition. Objects at the COM do indeed have net forces on them,
>> as has been demonstrated to you many times.
>
> Nonetheless if you colocate a body at the COM of a rotating system (as
> is the Earth in the neoTychoan Model) no net gravitational force will
> be applied to that body as a result of the rotating masses.. It will
> not be accelerated by the rotating masses. If it is at rest it will
> remain at rest.

That's what you claim. But you can't show it true, and it's easy to show
it's false.

> Walter Thirring, Einstein, and Mach all pointed out that the same
> INERTIAL FORCES (Corriolis, etc) would be experienced by the Earth
> colocated at the COM of a spherical shell of rotating stars. Thirring
> did the calculation using Einstein field equations. These inertial
> forces will not accelerate the Earth in the neoTychoan Model.

I thought we were talking about Newtonian physics? You reject general
relativity, so how can you use it to come to any conclusion? Anyway,
this is supposed to explain earth's rotation, not its revolution.

>>> The moon and the solar
>>> systems local center of mass revolve around the universe's COM
>>> (colocated with the Earth). And that COM is at rest (together with
>>> the Earth).
>> The bit about "together with the earth" is a fatal flaw in your
>> theories. You need some special, additional force that nails the earth
>> in place. Where does it come from?
>
> Not true. There is NO net gravitational force on a body colocated at
> the COM of a rotating system of bodies; the accleration is zero. If
> the COM of rotating system is at rest then any body colocated at the
> COM will remain at rest.

You say that. But it's easy to show it isn't true. Stop saying it.

>>>>>> Since the earth/moon and the earth/sun systems are each orbiting
>>>>>> *different* centers of mass at different times;
>>>>> How do you figure that?
>>>> They (earth/moon and earth/sun) are each orbiting subsystems like the
>>>> ones you forced me to admit existed. Are you now asserting that the
>>>> earth and moon do not form an orbiting subsystem and are therefore not
>>>> orbiting a COM?
>>> I simply showed that your false rule of motion did not even allow the
>>> sub systems of your own heliocentric model to work. It had little to
>>> do with the neoTychoanic Model. Let's review where you went wrong:
>>>
>>> 1. Broccoli's False Rule of Motion: "Since eight (or seven) other
>>> planets orbit the "center of mass" (near he sun) it follows
>>> necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must also orbit the
>>> sun."
>> He never, ever said that. It's your own strawman. Shame on you.
>
> Harshman never checks any of his facts and always ends up taking it on
> the chin.

OK, he did say that. I apologize. And I agree that statement isn't true.

Now you deal with Newton.

[John Harshman]

Friar Broccoli wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
> wrote:
>
>> In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
>> universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>
> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science. The
> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
> huge distances. See the discussions here:

You are confusing the center of mass with the spot of equal
gravitational attraction. Tony's arguing about them as if they're the
same thing. Don't you do that. He's right with regard to the center of
mass of the universe. That relates linearly to distance, and so the sun
has less effect than it does in an inverse square relationship like gravity.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
>
> Now that all your arms and legs have been chopped off, I think it is
> time for you to declare victory.

He's clearly missing body parts, but not for the reason you say here.

[Mike Dworetsky]

None of these are "evidences" for Paganoism. I replied to the same list
back on 21 March in the thread Re: Guarino fails to prove....

>
> a. Hubble's initially interpreted the red shift seen in his
> telescope as clearly indicating that all the stars were rotating about
> a centrally located Earth.

No, that is false and remains false. He was describing the way in which red
shifts seem to imply the centrality of the Milky Way galaxy (not Earth), but
he understood that in an expanding universe, every point seems to be the
centre of expansion.

> b. Broccoli's wonderful supercluster graphic shows super
> clusters of galaxies with Earth at the center (contained within the
> Virgo SuperCluster.
> c. William G Tifft, astronomer a the Steward Obervatory,
> University of Arizona examined the red shift of various galaxies and
> found that they were all distributed at specified spherical distances
> from Earth, namely in multiples of 72 km/sec and a smaller grouping of
> 36 km/sec.
> d. Bruce N. G. Guthrie and William Napier, astronomers of the
> Royal University of Edinburgh compared the red shifts of 206 galaxies
> found the same red shift distributed at spherical distances from the
> Earth with a periodicity of 36.2 km/sec.
> e. D. Koo and R. Krone, scientists, University of Chicago did
> the same kind of red shift analysis with results identical to to
> Guthrie and Napier.

References? I could not find all the papers. None of these authors would
give a geocentric shell
interpretation a second thought. There was some suspicion that it meant
that the red-shift was not entirely cosmological. But further work
established that the "quantization" of red shifts was an artifact of the
data and statistical analysis.

> f. Joathan I Katz, astrophysicist, Washington University,
> found that when all the known gamma-ray bursts are calculated and
> catalogued, they show the Earth to be at the center of it all.

Reference? No. Early workers had shown some uncertainty over whether they
were in our own galaxy. He and other workers showed that gamma-ray bursts
were distributed uniformly over the entire sky, indicating that they
originated at cosmological distances. Red-shift measurements of optical
counterparts proved this. Don't talk such pish.

> g. Joseph Silk, University of California (Berkley) admits
> that studies of the CMBR indicate its near complete uniformity in all
> directions. And that if the Universe has a center the Earth must be
> very close to it.

Reference? And if it doesn't have a centre, he also explained why it looks
as if it is centred on our local galaxy.

> h. Yatendra P Varshni, astrophysicist, University of Ottawa,
> did extensive work on the spectra of quasars. He found that they were
> formed in 57 separate groupings of concentric spheres around the
> earth. Soon after Varshni's work astronomers found over 20,000
> quasars which were ALL positioned similarly with the Earth at the
> center.

Um, the answer is no, that's not what he or they said. Got a reference?
I'm confident this is just another example of something very distant that is
also isotropic.

> i. Similar kinds of observations have been made for BL
> Lacertae, X-Ray Redshifts, Spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
> Clusters.
>

References?

It is a known fact that the globular cluster distribution is centred on the
Galactic Centre, not on the Earth. I don't have a cite for BL Lac and X-Ray
redshifts that says anything like what you claim, it's probably a rehash of
the papers by Tifft and others on "quantized" red shifts. Do you have a
specific paper where the authors claim this?

The thing about spectroscopic binaries is probably a reference to a
phenomenon known as the Barr effect, after its discoverer. The original
effect was found in 1908, and remarkably some of the included stars were
cepheid variables misidentified as binaries. Firstly, while the effect
exists, it isn't "strong" in that it is now (after much careful analysis)
simply a statistical excess of orbits with the direction of periastron
between 0 and 180 degrees, so it is only a statistical effect, as plenty of
orbits have other orientations; secondly, the effect is not observed for
visual binaries, only for spectroscopic binaries (detected by radial
velocity variations); thirdly, there is an explanation for the effect in
physical terms, involving gas streaming from one component to the other,
(though this may not be the full explanation for all cases, it probably
reduces the Barr effect to statistical insignificance); fourthly, the effect
is much weaker for systems with well-determined orbits than for poorly
determined orbits. An interesting is summary at:

http://prints.iiap.res.in/bitstream/2248/1423/1/paper-17.pdf

So no-hoper Tony has screwed this up as well, owing to his slavish
repetition of unsupported geocentrist and creationist claims.

>
>
>>> Everything above has been asked and answered. Ready for the
>>> admission and retraction?
>>
>> You have not addressed the changing relative positions of the sun and
>> moon which must change the position of the COM unless balanced by a
>> changing external force or mass.
>>
>> Until you can explain that your anti-science label remains firmly
>> affixed.
>
> Asked and answered numerous times. Broccoli has not proven that the
> mass of one medium sized star (Our Sun) and the mass of our Moon (1/80
> the mass of our Earth) cannot be balanced by a uniform distribution of
> supergalaxies which according to his own graphic shows the Earth at
> the center. Broccoli hasn't even shown the neoTychoan Model is
> implausible let alone that it is ruled out by the Laws of Motion and
> Gravitation.
>
> And when Broccoli was not misunderstanding how COM is calculated he
> incorrectly argued that the Sun and Moon would cause the Earth to move
> due to the gravitational inverse square law. In that case he
> misunderstood that in a rotating system the gravitational vector
> towards the COM is balanced by the centrifugal force vector. That is,
> there is no net force on the COM.

A physicist you are not.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/18/12 4:42 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> [...]

> Nonetheless if you colocate a body at the COM of a rotating system (as
> is the Earth in the neoTychoan Model) no net gravitational force will
> be applied to that body as a result of the rotating masses.. It will
> not be accelerated by the rotating masses. If it was at rest it will
> remain at rest..

Wrong. Do the math. If the Earth is colocated with the center of mass
(COM) one moment, it will not be there the next.

[snip rest, which either repeats the same mistake or is irrelevant until
the mistake is corrected.]

[Craig Franck]

Pagano is being so dense about this it's turned into a puzzle about
what he could possibly mean. He appears innocent of mathematics and
has a tendency toward Aristotelian intuition when it comes to
physics.

Imagine a universe consisting of a hollow, perfectly symmetrical
sphere of 1 solar mass with the earth located at the exact center.
The earth appears to have "escaped gravity," but it in fact is like
a pencil balanced on its tip: the slightest perturbation will
cause it to drift (or "fall") toward the sphere.

Now imagine the hollow sphere is rotating rapidly. Tony seems to
think this somehow makes the system more stable.

Craig

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/18/12 5:11 PM, T Pagano wrote (among other things):

> c. In a rotating system of bodies the net gravitational
> forces on the COM is zero. That is, any body located at the COM will
> not be accelerated.

Let us see. I will consider a universe with just four objects in it,
which I will call Sun, Earth, Moon, and Planet X. The first three of
these have masses and distances roughly (I rounded to one significant
figure) equal to our own Sun, Earth, and Moon; and Planet X is
positioned so as to make the center of mass fall exactly at the center
of the Earth. Initially, the Earth and Moon are equidistant from the
Sun, and X is far out from Earth on the other side of the sun, roughly
like this (but this is not to scale):

M
S E
X

Units are chosen for convenience.

Masses:
E = 1
S = 300000
M = 0.01
X = 10 (chosen arbitrarily in the planet-size range)

Distances:
S-E = S-M = 1
E-M = 0.003
E-X = 30000
S-X = 30001
X-M = 30000
(The last three are not exact, since they do not account for the very
slight angle between S, E, and Planet X, but they are close enough.)

Forces:
E-M = 1 * .01 / .003^2 = 1111
E-S = 1 * 300000 / 1^2 = 300000
E-X = 1 * 10 / 30000^2 = 1.1e-8
S-X = 300000 * 10 / 30001^2 = .00333
M-X = .01 * 10 / 30000^2 = 1.1e-10
S-M = 300000 * .01 / 1^2 = 3000

It should be obvious, even without pictures showing the directions and
magnitudes of the forces, that, even though Earth is at the center of
mass, the net gravitational force on it is far from zero. Also obvious
is that Planet X has very little gravitational effect on the other
bodies of the system, and that its movements will be affected by the Sun
far more than by anything else (i.e., it is orbiting the Sun, if
anything). The Earth will not remain at the COM of the system. Indeed,
if you look at the system two weeks later, when the Moon has completed
half an orbit of the Earth, the system looks more like this:

E
S M
X

and already the COM has moved away from the Earth. Pagano (as everybody
but him already knows) is simply wrong.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:15:43 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
>>> universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>>
>> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science. The
>> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
>> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
>> huge distances. See the discussions here:
>
>You are confusing the center of mass with the spot of equal
>gravitational attraction. Tony's arguing about them as if they're the
>same thing. Don't you do that. He's right with regard to the center of
>mass of the universe. That relates linearly to distance, and so the sun
>has less effect than it does in an inverse square relationship like gravity.

Ok, I'll act the fish again. Where is the center of mass of the
Universe?

>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
>>
>> Now that all your arms and legs have been chopped off, I think it is
>> time for you to declare victory.
>
>He's clearly missing body parts, but not for the reason you say here.

...and not those body parts.

[John Harshman]

jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:15:43 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
>>>> universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>>> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science. The
>>> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
>>> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
>>> huge distances. See the discussions here:
>> You are confusing the center of mass with the spot of equal
>> gravitational attraction. Tony's arguing about them as if they're the
>> same thing. Don't you do that. He's right with regard to the center of
>> mass of the universe. That relates linearly to distance, and so the sun
>> has less effect than it does in an inverse square relationship like gravity.
>
> Ok, I'll act the fish again. Where is the center of mass of the
> Universe?

There is no such thing. The universe is finite but unbounded.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:37:26 -0700, John Harshman

<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:15:43 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
>>>>> universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>>>> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science. The
>>>> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
>>>> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
>>>> huge distances. See the discussions here:
>>> You are confusing the center of mass with the spot of equal
>>> gravitational attraction. Tony's arguing about them as if they're the
>>> same thing. Don't you do that. He's right with regard to the center of
>>> mass of the universe. That relates linearly to distance, and so the sun
>>> has less effect than it does in an inverse square relationship like gravity.
>>
>> Ok, I'll act the fish again. Where is the center of mass of the
>> Universe?
>
>There is no such thing. The universe is finite but unbounded.

That's what I thought. So how can Tony be right about that?

[John Harshman]

jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:37:26 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:15:43 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
>>>>>> universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>>>>> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science. The
>>>>> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
>>>>> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
>>>>> huge distances. See the discussions here:
>>>> You are confusing the center of mass with the spot of equal
>>>> gravitational attraction. Tony's arguing about them as if they're the
>>>> same thing. Don't you do that. He's right with regard to the center of
>>>> mass of the universe. That relates linearly to distance, and so the sun
>>>> has less effect than it does in an inverse square relationship like gravity.
>>> Ok, I'll act the fish again. Where is the center of mass of the
>>> Universe?
>> There is no such thing. The universe is finite but unbounded.
>
> That's what I thought. So how can Tony be right about that?

Because Tony isn't right about there being a center of mass of the
universe. He's right about how you would calculate the center of mass of
a collection of bodies. The sun has little effect on the center of mass
of the universe (if there were one), even if that center were to be
quite close to earth. Without the inverse-square relationship, the other
masses, distant as they are, dominate.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:15:43 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>Friar Broccoli wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:14:52 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In terms of locating the coordinates for the COM for the ENTIRE
>>> universe the mass of the moon and sun are almost insignificant.
>>
>> This is simply false and more evidence that Tony is anti science. The
>> effect of mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance.
>> In small words that means that large masses have almost no effect at
>> huge distances. See the discussions here:

.

>You are confusing the center of mass with the spot of equal
>gravitational attraction.

I am aware of the difference. My "strategy" has been for some time to
work from Tony's statements as if they were true to show that they are
internally contradictory. However, I have decided to just give up
talking to him.

Also I don't believe anything I said above (taken in isolation from
Tony's comments) is false since "the effect of mass" is gravity.

>Tony's arguing about them as if they're the
>same thing. Don't you do that. He's right with regard to the center of
>mass of the universe. That relates linearly to distance, and so the sun
>has less effect than it does in an inverse square relationship like gravity.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation
>>
>> Now that all your arms and legs have been chopped off, I think it is
>> time for you to declare victory.
>
>He's clearly missing body parts, but not for the reason you say here.

[jillery]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:30:46 -0700, John Harshman

Sorry, sometimes I can't tell when you're joking.

Thank you for your reply.

[timoth...@gmail.com]

And presumably the perturbation could be as small as the energy release of a single alpha particle decay, or even a quantum event that released energy into the surrounding mass of the Earth. Tony would have some difficulty in explaining that such a system is obeying "laws".

>
> Now imagine the hollow sphere is rotating rapidly. Tony seems to
> think this somehow makes the system more stable.
>

That's because of the well-known spinning top law. As opposed to the Big Top Law, which specifies that the clown always has a curly wig, big flappy shoes and funky makeup.

> Craig

[Friar Broccoli]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:30:46 -0700, John Harshman

.

>Because Tony isn't right about there being a center of mass of the
>universe. He's right about how you would calculate the center of mass of
>a collection of bodies. The sun has little effect on the center of mass
>of the universe (if there were one), even if that center were to be
>quite close to earth. Without the inverse-square relationship, the other
>masses, distant as they are, dominate.

I want to note that I was using CoM for the universe as Tony uses it
(because it does not describe any possibly real place in the universe)
that is a place where a body would experience no net force. For that
the sun and moon would have an enormous effect on the CoM because they
are nearby.

[John Harshman]

It isn't that Tony is using the wrong definition of CoM. It's that he's
conflating two definitions. But one of his definitions is the real
definition, and that's the one you should hold him to. Then you show
that the center of mass is not a point of zero force. That doesn't work
either -- nothing works on Tony -- but at least it's true.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:21:09 -0700, John Harshman

I rarely (perhaps never) debate that way. I have found that insisting
on working from the "correct" facts usually just leads to distracting
secondary arguments, and ultimately to a loss of focus on the central
issue.

It is, in my view, more practical to accept a certain number of
assertions I know to be false, and then show that even after accepting
the erroneous propositions the result is an absurdity or preferably an
internal contradiction.

>Then you show
>that the center of mass is not a point of zero force. That doesn't work
>either -- nothing works on Tony -- but at least it's true.

[John Harshman]

But you aren't assuming the erroneous proposition. You're accepting a
part of his erroneous conflation (center of mass = center of attraction)
while rejecting the part he gets right (effect of masses on CoM is
inversely proportional to distance). And he can show your argument wrong
by bringing up the latter point, without ever touching on his real
errors. This is a self-defeating argument.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:23:44 -0700, John Harshman

I've never seen him state that as his position. Are you sure that's his
position? As far as I could tell, his position (to the extent he has
one) is that the sun, for example, is somehow captured in the rotation
of the universe, not that there is an attractor at the earth.

That's part of the reason I was focusing on the moon, because he
couldn't then use the same cause for the different orbit.

>while rejecting the part he gets right (effect of masses on CoM is
>inversely proportional to distance).

If he accepted that then he'd have to accept that the sun and moon have
a greater effect on the CoM than distant galaxies, a position he has
expressly rejected.

[T Pagano]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:44:39 +0100, "Mike Dworetsky"
<plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:

>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:39:08 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:52:07 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>

snip for brevity

>> 5. On the other hand there exists evidence that the masses of the
>> universe are distributed with the Earth at the center:
>
>None of these are "evidences" for Paganoism. I replied to the same list
>back on 21 March in the thread Re: Guarino fails to prove....

I'll take a look at that reply.

>
>>
>> a. Hubble's initially interpreted the red shift seen in his
>> telescope as clearly indicating that all the stars were rotating about
>> a centrally located Earth.
>
>No, that is false and remains false.

Claiming that a particular interpretation is false and showing that it
is false are not the same thing. Dworetsky doesn't prove anything.
Furthermore Dworetsky has consistently misunderstood that raw
observations may be consistently interpreted by a large number of
logically possible theories (perhaps and infinite number). Any finite
number of observations always underdetermines the true interpretation.
I'll assume for the sake of argument that Dworetsky is interested in
the Truth.

Hubble made a point that both interpretations were perfectly valid;
that is, that the red shift could mean that the stars were rotating
with the Earth at the center in three dimensional Euclidean space or
that those stars were receding in curved space with no center.

> He was describing the way in which red
>shifts seem to imply the centrality of the Milky Way galaxy (not Earth), but
>he understood that in an expanding universe, every point seems to be the
>centre of expansion.

Dworetsky is wholly unaware of the history of science with regard to
theories of cosmogony with regard to Hubble:

Hubble was very much troubled by the distribution of matter and the
red shift he observed in his Palomar telescope back in the 1930s.
Hubble knew that the red shift he observed clearly indicated Earth's
centrality. But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed
the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate
alternative:

". . .Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in
the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a
central Earth. . .This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is
unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save
the phenomenon. Therefore we disregard this possibility. . .the
unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.
.. . .such a favored position is intolerable. . . .Therefore, in order
to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position.
.. . .must be compensated by spacial curvature. There seems to be no
other escape." (See Hubble's, "The Observational Approach to
Cosmology," Clarendon Press, 1937, pp 50,51,580)

In other words Hubble knew that the red shift he observed could
physically and logically mean that the stars were rotating about a
central Earth in Euclidean space, but dismissed it due to his
atheistic world view. This was avoided by using Einstein's conjecture
of spacial curvature in a non Euclidian space. I should remind
Dworetsky that this model has numerous difficulties not the least of
which is the requirement for the Universe to be made up of 95 percent
cold dark matter/energy which must have a gravitationally repulsive
force and which CANNOT BE FOUND.

>
>> b. Broccoli's wonderful supercluster graphic shows super
>> clusters of galaxies with Earth at the center (contained within the
>> Virgo SuperCluster.
>> c. William G Tifft, astronomer a the Steward Obervatory,
>> University of Arizona examined the red shift of various galaxies and
>> found that they were all distributed at specified spherical distances
>> from Earth, namely in multiples of 72 km/sec and a smaller grouping of
>> 36 km/sec.
>> d. Bruce N. G. Guthrie and William Napier, astronomers of the
>> Royal University of Edinburgh compared the red shifts of 206 galaxies
>> found the same red shift distributed at spherical distances from the
>> Earth with a periodicity of 36.2 km/sec.
>> e. D. Koo and R. Krone, scientists, University of Chicago did
>> the same kind of red shift analysis with results identical to to
>> Guthrie and Napier.
>
>References? I could not find all the papers. None of these authors would
>give a geocentric shell
>interpretation a second thought.

This is irrelevent to how the raw observations can be interpreted. The
fact of the matter is that these pieces of evidence ARE consistent
with the neoTychoan model. And so far no one has been able to produce
a single contradictory piece of evidence.

>There was some suspicion that it meant
>that the red-shift was not entirely cosmological. But further work
>established that the "quantization" of red shifts was an artifact of the
>data and statistical analysis.

Essentially the same claim has been made about Dayton Miller's 200,000
detailed interferometer measurements which disputed both the movement
of the Earth (and our Solar System) and Einstein's GR, but those
claims hold little weight. And they certainly don't "prove" much of
anything.

Such statistical analyses would be more accurate if we actually knew
the truth of the universe's geometry. In other words these kinds of
conclusions obtained via methods of the statistical analysis of
experimental data are only valid if we have true, known reference
points with which to judge. We don't.

In the absence of true, known reference data points it is not uncommon
for the prevailing (and largely unproven) pet theory to be used as a
reference point in such statistical analyses. If the pet theory is
wrong then so is the conclusion.

>
>
>> f. Joathan I Katz, astrophysicist, Washington University,
>> found that when all the known gamma-ray bursts are calculated and
>> catalogued, they show the Earth to be at the center of it all.
>
>Reference? No.

Reference: Jonathan Katz, "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of
Gamma-Ray Bursts, The Most Violent Explosions in the Unverse," Oxford
University Press, 2002, pp 90-91.

> Early workers had shown some uncertainty over whether they
>were in our own galaxy. He and other workers showed that gamma-ray bursts
>were distributed uniformly over the entire sky, indicating that they
>originated at cosmological distances. Red-shift measurements of optical
>counterparts proved this. Don't talk such pish.

Red shift is unlikely to prove anything of the sort. It can only show
relative motion. Such observations occur whether the source, receiver
or both are moving. In the case of Big Bang it can be interpreted in
entirely different way because of its non Euclidian expanding space.
In other words Dworetsky hasn't proven that the neoTychoan Model is
false or inconsistent with any of this evidence.

The biggest problem for Dworetsky and believers in Big Bang is that
there is no unequivocal proof that the universe is expanding. And
according to holders of Big Bang, this expanision doesn't work without
the existence of some exotic and UNOBSERVABLE cold dark matter which
has repulsive gravitational properities.

>
>> g. Joseph Silk, University of California (Berkley) admits
>> that studies of the CMBR indicate its near complete uniformity in all
>> directions. And that if the Universe has a center the Earth must be
>> very close to it.
>
>Reference?

Reference: Joseph Silk, "The Big Bang: The Creation and Evolution of
the Universe," W. H. Freeman and Company, 1980, p. 53

> And if it doesn't have a centre, he also explained why it looks
>as if it is centred on our local galaxy.

I'm not trying, even in the least bit, to make these scientists look
like GeoCentricists. The point is that even they honestly admit that
these observations can be consistently interpreted from a
geocentricist framework.

Dworetsky and all my opponents have incorrectly claimed that the
evidence conflicts with the GeoCentric model. Dworetsky has never
been able to even approach accomplishing this.

>
>> h. Yatendra P Varshni, astrophysicist, University of Ottawa,
>> did extensive work on the spectra of quasars. He found that they were
>> formed in 57 separate groupings of concentric spheres around the
>> earth. Soon after Varshni's work astronomers found over 20,000
>> quasars which were ALL positioned similarly with the Earth at the
>> center.
>
>Um, the answer is no, that's not what he or they said. Got a reference?

Reference: Varshni, "The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the
Earth the Center of the Universe?" Astrophysics and Space Science,
43: (1), (1976),

Varshni wrote, ". . .the quasars in the 57 groups. . .are arranged on
57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center. . .The cosmological
interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet
another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of
the universe."

Varshni continued, "The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe.
The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with
respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from
another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle
will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to
the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe.
Consequently, both the SR and GR must be abandoned for cosmological
purposes."

Varshni finally wrote, "From the multipicative law of probability, the
probability of these 57 sets of coincidences occuring in this system
of 384 QSOs is approx 3 x 10^-85. We hope this number will be
convincing evidence that the coincidences are real and cannot be
attributed to chance."


These quotes are not meant to suggest that Varshni is a geocentricist.
He is not and he has argued for another hypothesis. However, his
analysis strongly indicates that GeoCentric Model is highly consistent
with the raw observations.

>I'm confident this is just another example of something very distant that is
>also isotropic.
>
>> i. Similar kinds of observations have been made for BL
>> Lacertae, X-Ray Redshifts, Spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
>> Clusters.
>>
>
>References?

Not necessary; I've given several already and made my point. On the
other hand Dworetsky hasn't offered a single observation which
disputes the truthlikeness of the neoTychoan Model.

>
>It is a known fact that the globular cluster distribution is centred on the
>Galactic Centre, not on the Earth. I don't have a cite for BL Lac and X-Ray
>redshifts that says anything like what you claim, it's probably a rehash of
>the papers by Tifft and others on "quantized" red shifts. Do you have a
>specific paper where the authors claim this?
>
>The thing about spectroscopic binaries is probably a reference to a
>phenomenon known as the Barr effect, after its discoverer. The original
>effect was found in 1908, and remarkably some of the included stars were
>cepheid variables misidentified as binaries. Firstly, while the effect
>exists, it isn't "strong" in that it is now (after much careful analysis)
>simply a statistical excess of orbits with the direction of periastron
>between 0 and 180 degrees, so it is only a statistical effect, as plenty of
>orbits have other orientations; secondly, the effect is not observed for
>visual binaries, only for spectroscopic binaries (detected by radial
>velocity variations); thirdly, there is an explanation for the effect in
>physical terms, involving gas streaming from one component to the other,
>(though this may not be the full explanation for all cases, it probably
>reduces the Barr effect to statistical insignificance); fourthly, the effect
>is much weaker for systems with well-determined orbits than for poorly
>determined orbits. An interesting is summary at:
>
>http://prints.iiap.res.in/bitstream/2248/1423/1/paper-17.pdf
>
>So no-hoper Tony has screwed this up as well, owing to his slavish
>repetition of unsupported geocentrist and creationist claims.

These are all very interesting interpretations, but as in all
cosomological interpretations they depend entirely on the framework
within which they are interpreted. And Big Bang has its share of
problems not the least of which is the necessity of cold dark matter
which no one can find and with properties (gravitational repulsion)
which no one can explain.


snip for brevity


Regards,
T Pagano

[John Harshman]

Yes. He's said that the net force on the center of mass is zero, which
must mean that all gravitational attraction is equal (and canceling) at
that point.

> As far as I could tell, his position (to the extent he has
> one) is that the sun, for example, is somehow captured in the rotation
> of the universe, not that there is an attractor at the earth.

Tony has lots of mutually inconsistent positions, but the one
immediately relevant here is the one about the center of mass.

> That's part of the reason I was focusing on the moon, because he
> couldn't then use the same cause for the different orbit.
>
>> while rejecting the part he gets right (effect of masses on CoM is
>> inversely proportional to distance).
>
> If he accepted that then he'd have to accept that the sun and moon have
> a greater effect on the CoM than distant galaxies, a position he has
> expressly rejected.

But that isn't necessarily true. A galaxy with a hundred billion stars
at a distance from earth of a hundred billion AUs from earth (or about
60,000 light years) would have the same influence as the sun. As it
happens there is a galaxy at that distance, more or less -- the one
we're in. Or try 10,000 galaxies at 600 million light years. It's just
barely within the bounds of conceivability. On the other hand, if we're
thinking about gravity, it's completely absurd.

[Friar Broccoli]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:01:24 -0700, John Harshman

.

>Yes. He's said that the net force on the center of mass is zero, which
>must mean that all gravitational attraction is equal (and canceling) at
>that point.

Rereading, I see I misunderstood your original point. I thought you
were saying his position was that the center of mass was itself an
attractor.

Like you(?) I have been assuming that he was assuming that the CoM was a
center around which balancing forces cancelled becoming an effective
center of attraction. (I really don't know what he actually believes -
since he's never to my knowledge explicitly said) I have been conceding
this and I agree that it is false.

The reason I conceded this was because, I was attempting what I thought
was a simpler argument, in which this distinction is not relevant.
Namely that he can (with Tony physics) use the CoM to balance the sun,
but he can not use it to balance the moon at the same time, because the
moon is in a different, constantly changing, relative position with
respect to the rest of the universe.

Since I failed, despite repeated efforts, to get him to even acknowledge
the point I was making, I've just given up.

>> As far as I could tell, his position (to the extent he has
>> one) is that the sun, for example, is somehow captured in the rotation
>> of the universe, not that there is an attractor at the earth.
>
>Tony has lots of mutually inconsistent positions, but the one
>immediately relevant here is the one about the center of mass.

Relevant for an argument you may be trying to make. Not for the one I
was trying to make.

>
>> That's part of the reason I was focusing on the moon, because he
>> couldn't then use the same cause for the different orbit.
>>
>>> while rejecting the part he gets right (effect of masses on CoM is
>>> inversely proportional to distance).
>>
>> If he accepted that then he'd have to accept that the sun and moon have
>> a greater effect on the CoM than distant galaxies, a position he has
>> expressly rejected.
>
>But that isn't necessarily true. A galaxy with a hundred billion stars
>at a distance from earth of a hundred billion AUs from earth (or about
>60,000 light years) would have the same influence as the sun. As it
>happens there is a galaxy at that distance, more or less -- the one
>we're in. Or try 10,000 galaxies at 600 million light years. It's just
>barely within the bounds of conceivability. On the other hand, if we're
>thinking about gravity, it's completely absurd.

I agree with your last sentence here.

[Mike Dworetsky]

You actually know very little about this subject, so little that you do not
know that back in the 1930s Hubble was using the Mt Wilson 100-inch
telescope; the Palomar telescope was not completed until 1948.

> Hubble knew that the red shift he observed clearly indicated Earth's
> centrality. But since Hubble was an avowed Copernican, he dismissed
> the geocentric evidence and countered with the following obstinate
> alternative:
>
> ". . .Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in
> the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a
> central Earth. . .This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is
> unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save
> the phenomenon. Therefore we disregard this possibility. . .the
> unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs.
> .. . .such a favored position is intolerable. . . .Therefore, in order
> to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position.
> .. . .must be compensated by spacial curvature. There seems to be no
> other escape." (See Hubble's, "The Observational Approach to
> Cosmology," Clarendon Press, 1937, pp 50,51,580)

Incidentally, it's a rather thin book, and there is no page 580. Maybe you
meant 58?

There are a lot of ellipses in this "quote". In fact you seem to be
compressing material from three different pages to look like a single quote.
This looks a lot more like a "rhetorical" question, similar to Darwin's
question about how the eye could possibly evolved into such a highly
developed organ.

The entire book is available on line via
ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble

What Hubble was talking about was that in 1936 (when the text was written as
a series of lectures) it was uncertain what the significance of redshifts
was:

From the Preface:
"The features, however, include the phenomena of red-shifts whose
significance is still uncertain. Alternative interpretations are possible,
and, while they introduce only minor differences in the picture of the
observable region, they lead to totally different conceptions of the
universe itself. One conception, at the moment, seems less plausible than
the other, but this dubious world, the expanding universe of relativistic
cosmology, is derived from the more likely of the two interpretations of
red-shifts. Thus the discussion ends in a dilemma, and the resolution must
await improved observations or improved theory or both."

The difference between Paganistic cosmology and actual cosmology is that,
after reading this book, real astronomers did not suddenly enter stasis, but
continued to develop the subject, so that we now have observations that
Hubble could not even have dreamt of.

>
> In other words Hubble knew that the red shift he observed could
> physically and logically mean that the stars were rotating about a

Not rotating. He never mentions that the universe is rotating around a
static Earth.

> central Earth in Euclidean space, but dismissed it due to his
> atheistic world view. This was avoided by using Einstein's conjecture

Ah, so now Hubble is an atheist. Only Holy Tony has religious righteousness
on his side.

> of spacial curvature in a non Euclidian space. I should remind
> Dworetsky that this model has numerous difficulties not the least of
> which is the requirement for the Universe to be made up of 95 percent
> cold dark matter/energy which must have a gravitationally repulsive
> force and which CANNOT BE FOUND.

The universe turns out to be remarkably flat; this is one of the remarkable
discoveries of cosmology since Hubble's time. Just because astronomers
haven't yet found the exact physical objects yet hardly means that
"therefore geocentrism is possible" is a reasonable alternative. It has
been ruled out by observations that go back hundreds of years. Parallax,
Annual Doppler shift, aberration.

>
>
>>
>>> b. Broccoli's wonderful supercluster graphic shows super
>>> clusters of galaxies with Earth at the center (contained within the
>>> Virgo SuperCluster.
>>> c. William G Tifft, astronomer a the Steward Obervatory,
>>> University of Arizona examined the red shift of various galaxies and
>>> found that they were all distributed at specified spherical
>>> distances from Earth, namely in multiples of 72 km/sec and a
>>> smaller grouping of 36 km/sec.
>>> d. Bruce N. G. Guthrie and William Napier, astronomers of the
>>> Royal University of Edinburgh compared the red shifts of 206
>>> galaxies found the same red shift distributed at spherical
>>> distances from the Earth with a periodicity of 36.2 km/sec.
>>> e. D. Koo and R. Krone, scientists, University of Chicago did
>>> the same kind of red shift analysis with results identical to to
>>> Guthrie and Napier.
>>
>> References? I could not find all the papers. None of these authors
>> would give a geocentric shell
>> interpretation a second thought.
>
> This is irrelevent to how the raw observations can be interpreted. The
> fact of the matter is that these pieces of evidence ARE consistent
> with the neoTychoan model. And so far no one has been able to produce
> a single contradictory piece of evidence.

To Tony, all data (even if shown by subsequent experiments to be wrong) are
consistent with his neotychoan model.

>
>
>> There was some suspicion that it meant
>> that the red-shift was not entirely cosmological. But further work
>> established that the "quantization" of red shifts was an artifact of
>> the data and statistical analysis.
>
> Essentially the same claim has been made about Dayton Miller's 200,000
> detailed interferometer measurements which disputed both the movement
> of the Earth (and our Solar System) and Einstein's GR, but those
> claims hold little weight. And they certainly don't "prove" much of
> anything.

The faulty nature of Miller's results is well known. You can complain all
you like, but you can't dispute that Miller had some serious errors, subtle
enough that he did not spot them.

Parallax, annual doppler shift, aberration.

No. It doesn't.

In another reply to Tony's new thread I showed that Varshni was working with
small number statistics and his conclusions were faulty, based for example
by simply multiplying his probabilities for each grouping with each other to
get his absurd conclusion.

Did Varshni's paper receive acclaim? The ADS yields 10 references to this
paper; of which 5 are by Varshni himself. None date from after 1989.

One of the other papers, by acknowledged experts in the field of quasar
observations (and statistics), R J Weymann, T Boroson, J D Scargle (ApSpSci
53, 265-278, 1978) has as its abstract the following:

"A statistical analysis of possible clumping (not periodicity) of emission
line redshifts of QSO's shows the available data to be compatible with
random fluctuations of a smooth, non-clumped distribution. This result is
demonstrated with Monte Carlo simulations as well as with the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. It is in complete disagreement with the analysis by
Varshni, which is shown to be incorrect."

Another paper by P R Owen (ApSpSci 49, L7, 1977) says (in the abstract): "It
is shown that the observed clumping of quasar redshifts can be caused purely
by chance and does not require non-cosmological redshifts or a geocentric
universe as argued by Varshni."

You can see why Varshni's paper cannot be taken to support geocentrism.
Can't you see this, Tony? Maybe you should quietly remove it from your list
next time you regurgitate your post.

I'll stand by that statement of the situation.

>
> These are all very interesting interpretations, but as in all
> cosomological interpretations they depend entirely on the framework
> within which they are interpreted. And Big Bang has its share of
> problems not the least of which is the necessity of cold dark matter
> which no one can find and with properties (gravitational repulsion)
> which no one can explain.
>
>
> snip for brevity
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano