Broccoli's 2 Questions Are Answered. They don't hurt the neoTychoan Model and they sink Broccoli

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>T Pagano wrote:
>> Can any secularist answer two questions which Broccoli's posed as
>> potentially damaging to the neoTychoan Model. And once answered
>> explain how the answer renders the neoTychoan model false, prohibited
>> or otherwise unlikely. Broccoli has been IMPOTENT to accomplish
>> either. And Isaak asserts that I lack the understanding to do so.
>> That leaves one of Broccoli's compatriots to do this. Otherwise
>> Broccoli looks terribly foolish.
>>
>> Any takers?
>
>You're such an ass. They're questions for you. But I'll give a try.

I'm supposed to lack the understanding according to all your buddies.
Yet if the answers were so obvious and devasting why would Broccoli
play 20 questions instead of just hammering me?

Obviously he lacked any real confidence in his knowledge of the
subject. And I practically begged him three separate times to take a
break and crack open the requisite works. Whle your buddy Lethe was
egging him on.


>
>> BROCCOLI'S QUESTION 1:
>> The Sun orbits the Center of Mass (COM) of the universe in the
>> neoTychoan Model. The Earth is located at that COM. To change the
>> direction of the Sun in such an orbit requires a force (a
>> black hole 300,000 times the mass of the sun at the earth's location
>> would be close to sufficient). In the neoTychoan Model where does the
>> force come from that causes the sun to change direction (orbit) around
>> a tiny stationary earth?
>
>It comes from magic, obviously.

This is what Harshman hopes, yet his answer to question#1 below looks
pretty good and it doesn't require any magic. It certainly doesn't
require any fairy dark matter dust shoveled in. And it doesn't
require any stretches to credulity. And it doesn't lay a glove on the
neoTychoan Model.

> To accommodate the neoTychonian model
>you would either have to postulate a balancing mass, impossible to do
>because we would observe it, and we don't, or you would have to
>postulate an unknown force acting in addition to gravity. You have
>claimed the former, but won't subject it to test, perhaps because you
>know it would fail.

Excellent!!! Harshman is the first to recognize that we don't have
to balance the Gravitational Force between the Earth and Sun in the
neoTychoan rotating system when determining the Center of Mass (COM)
of that system. Harshman paid attention in Physics 101.

In a rotating system the COM depends ONLY on the relative positions of
all the masses weighted by their masses. It has nothing to do with
the gravitational forces between any of the masses.

I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
alone has 100 billion stars. And Broccoli offered this wonderful
graphic of the Universe's super clusters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif

Notice in the graphic that the Virgo Super Cluster is in the center
where the Earth happens to be. The graphic depicts clusters of
galaxies surrounding the Earth with each galaxy containing approx 100
billion stars. And Harshman thinks it stretches credulity that all
that can't balance out one medium sized star in the Milky Way?
Pleeezzze.

This doesn't lay a glove on the neoTychoan model and Broccoli goes
down hard.



>
>> BROCCOLI'S QUESTION 2:
>> OK. Earth's moon orbits the earth at a different rate than the sun
>> does (in the neoTychoan Model). What force prevents the earth from
>> moving back and forth around the "Center of Mass" between the earth
>> and it's moon?
>
>Sounds like you need either another balancing mass (again, not in
>evidence) or another unknown force. Which do you pick?
>
>Now you can always save the appearances by coming up with more unknown
>forces. But your theory as it accumulates these unknowns becomes less
>and less attractive, especially in comparison with the standard theory,
>in which only the effects of gravity are needed. Now in the absence of
>Newton's law of universal gravitation, we might have less reason to
>prefer one theory over another, as none of the motions or lack thereof
>would be explained. But when one theory explains so many phenomena, we
>should prefer that theory to the one postulating many ad hoc forces.
>Even more so if you're a person who refuses to accept the existence of
>dark matter despite actual evidence.

Harshman gets this wrong. In the discussion of Question #1 Harshman
leads us to the conclusion that there is neither a stretch of
credulily nor a problem from Newton's Laws that the Earth cannot
logically and physically be the Center of Mass of the Universe.
Broccoli's wonder graphic of the super clusters helps us visualize the
possibility.

Once the possibility of the Earth being at the COM of the entire
universe----which includes both the moon and the Sun-----we need only
consider Newton's Laws: In a rotating system the acceleration of the
COM is zero. All of the forces of the rotating masses act to keep the
COM immobile and fixed. So this doesn't hurt the neoTychoan model
either.

And I didn't have to introduce a single bit of that fairy dark matter
dust that the Big Bang/Heliocentric Model requires but can't be found.

Broccoli goes down hard again.


Regards,
T Pagano

[Bill]

On Mar 26, 8:21 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
>

Indeed, Pleeeze, Tony. The rest of the stars in the Milky Way cannot
possibly balance out the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth.
Not even close. There are perhaps 400 x 10^9 stars in the Milky Way.
The Milky way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. So, for ease
of calculation, assume that

(1) the average mass of each of those stars is equal to 10 times the
mass of the sun (biasing things in your favor)
(2) all of the mass of all of those stars is piled up at a point
exactly opposite the sun and 50,000 light years away.

Note that 50,000 light years is about 3 x 10^9 times farther from
earth than is the sun.

Therefore the gravitational force exerted by all those 400 billion
stars would be

400 x 10^9 x 10 / 9 x 10^18 or about 4 x 10^-7, about 4 ten-millionths
of the gravitational force exerted on the earth by the sun.

Not even remotely strong enough to balance out the gravitational force
of the sun.

And pay attention to all the ways in which I biased the calculation in
your favor. I assumed all the stars in the Milky way are 10 times as
massive as the sun. I used a linear average of the distance based on
the diameter of the Milky Way, rather than weighting it according to
the inverse square law. Most importantly, I assumed that all of the
mass of all the stars was collected at a point opposite the Sun - in
reality, many of the stars will be on the same side of earth as the
sun. The gravitational pull of the rest of the universe cannot account
for the alleged orbit of the Sun around a fixed Earth.

And, Tony, you need to balance out the gravitational effect of the
sun, if you want the earth to stand still. You can invoke the Center
of Mass until the cows come home, but unless you think Newton's law of
gravitation is incorrect, you'd better find some actual mass to cancel
out the gravitational force of the sun on the earth. The stars in the
Milky Way don't come close. The galaxies further out are too far away
and too symmetrically distrubuted to help you.

[Bill]

> and too symmetrically distributed to help you.

Let me add one thing. Perhaps you think the total mass of the universe
would be enough. Nope. Not even close.

The estimate of the mass of the universe, including the dark matter on
which you like to heap scorn, is about 6 x 10^52 kg or about 3 x 10^22
solar masses.

The diameter of the universe is on the order of 40-50 billion light
years.

So, lets take ALL of that mass, and pile it up at a point a mere 10
billion light years from the earth and sun, much closer than most of
it is on average.

10 billion light years is about 6 x 10^14 times the distance between
the earth and the sun. So the gravitational force of all the mass in
the universe piled up 10 billion light years away would be -

3 x 10^22/ 3.6 x 30^29 or still less than one ten millionth of the

gravitational force exerted on the earth by the sun.

And remember, this assumes that the entire mass of the universe is
conveniently piled up right where it would be most effective in
balancing the gravitational force from the sun.

Swoooooosh.

[*Hemidactylus*]

How can Tony take such a pounding and keep coming back as if nothing
happened? It reminds me of that condition where people go through life
without feeling pain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

This is a dangerous condition to have as someone can cause much damage
to themselves yet lack the feedback necessary to cease the damaging
behavior.. Is Tony just taking punches and body blows and totally
unaware of the possible damage done to himself by continually returning
to the fray and locking horns with some of the intellectual heavyweights
here (excluding myself from that group)?

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

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> Can any secularist answer two questions which Broccoli's posed as
>>> potentially damaging to the neoTychoan Model. And once answered
>>> explain how the answer renders the neoTychoan model false, prohibited
>>> or otherwise unlikely. Broccoli has been IMPOTENT to accomplish
>>> either. And Isaak asserts that I lack the understanding to do so.
>>> That leaves one of Broccoli's compatriots to do this. Otherwise
>>> Broccoli looks terribly foolish.
>>>
>>> Any takers?
>> You're such an ass. They're questions for you. But I'll give a try.
>
> I'm supposed to lack the understanding according to all your buddies.
> Yet if the answers were so obvious and devasting why would Broccoli
> play 20 questions instead of just hammering me?
>
> Obviously he lacked any real confidence in his knowledge of the
> subject. And I practically begged him three separate times to take a
> break and crack open the requisite works. Whle your buddy Lethe was
> egging him on.

Again, you're such an ass.

>>> BROCCOLI'S QUESTION 1:
>>> The Sun orbits the Center of Mass (COM) of the universe in the
>>> neoTychoan Model. The Earth is located at that COM. To change the
>>> direction of the Sun in such an orbit requires a force (a
>>> black hole 300,000 times the mass of the sun at the earth's location
>>> would be close to sufficient). In the neoTychoan Model where does the
>>> force come from that causes the sun to change direction (orbit) around
>>> a tiny stationary earth?
>> It comes from magic, obviously.
>
> This is what Harshman hopes, yet his answer to question#1 below looks
> pretty good and it doesn't require any magic. It certainly doesn't
> require any fairy dark matter dust shoveled in. And it doesn't
> require any stretches to credulity. And it doesn't lay a glove on the
> neoTychoan Model.

Which shows that you didn't undersand the answers.

>> To accommodate the neoTychonian model
>> you would either have to postulate a balancing mass, impossible to do
>> because we would observe it, and we don't, or you would have to
>> postulate an unknown force acting in addition to gravity. You have
>> claimed the former, but won't subject it to test, perhaps because you
>> know it would fail.
>
> Excellent!!! Harshman is the first to recognize that we don't have
> to balance the Gravitational Force between the Earth and Sun in the
> neoTychoan rotating system when determining the Center of Mass (COM)
> of that system. Harshman paid attention in Physics 101.
>
> In a rotating system the COM depends ONLY on the relative positions of
> all the masses weighted by their masses. It has nothing to do with
> the gravitational forces between any of the masses.

Which, as has been pointed out, has nothing to do with the forces on an
object at that center of mass. And the forces are what's important here.

> I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
> star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
> billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
> alone has 100 billion stars.

And yet it's true. This has been shown to you several times, and you
have always ignored it, just as you will ignore it this time. Inverse
squares, remember? If, for example, you intended the 100 billion stars
of the Milky Way to balance the sun, and assuming that means 100 billion
times the mass of the sun, in order to balance the sun they would have
to be at the square root of 100 billion times the distance from earth
that the sun is. Call that the sun 100 million miles, just to make it
easy. So we're looking for 10^8 x 10^(11/2) miles, or about 3 x 10^13
miles, or about 5 light years. So is the entire mass of the galaxy
concentrated just a little farther from us than Alpha Centauri? I don't
think so. The farther away the balancing mass, the worse it gets. So
yes, the entire rest of the universe, even if concentrated at one point
at the distance you're talking about, wouldn't balance the influence of
the sun on earth.

> And Broccoli offered this wonderful
> graphic of the Universe's super clusters:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif
>
> Notice in the graphic that the Virgo Super Cluster is in the center
> where the Earth happens to be. The graphic depicts clusters of
> galaxies surrounding the Earth with each galaxy containing approx 100
> billion stars. And Harshman thinks it stretches credulity that all
> that can't balance out one medium sized star in the Milky Way?
> Pleeezzze.

Yes. Do the math like I did. How many galaxies? What total mass? How far
away? You will be unable to balance the sun's effect. And even without
the math, you should note that these galaxies are distributed pretty
symetrically. Any imbalance is minor at most, making the situation even
worse for you.

> This doesn't lay a glove on the neoTychoan model and Broccoli goes
> down hard.

Only your complete lack of understanding makes it possible for you to
imagine victory here.

>>> BROCCOLI'S QUESTION 2:
>>> OK. Earth's moon orbits the earth at a different rate than the sun
>>> does (in the neoTychoan Model). What force prevents the earth from
>>> moving back and forth around the "Center of Mass" between the earth
>>> and it's moon?
>> Sounds like you need either another balancing mass (again, not in
>> evidence) or another unknown force. Which do you pick?
>>
>> Now you can always save the appearances by coming up with more unknown
>> forces. But your theory as it accumulates these unknowns becomes less
>> and less attractive, especially in comparison with the standard theory,
>> in which only the effects of gravity are needed. Now in the absence of
>> Newton's law of universal gravitation, we might have less reason to
>> prefer one theory over another, as none of the motions or lack thereof
>> would be explained. But when one theory explains so many phenomena, we
>> should prefer that theory to the one postulating many ad hoc forces.
>> Even more so if you're a person who refuses to accept the existence of
>> dark matter despite actual evidence.
>
> Harshman gets this wrong. In the discussion of Question #1 Harshman
> leads us to the conclusion that there is neither a stretch of
> credulily nor a problem from Newton's Laws that the Earth cannot
> logically and physically be the Center of Mass of the Universe.

How you got that from what I said is a mystery, and in fact requires an
unknown force of epic proportions. I'm hypothesizing that the unknown
force is a Dunning-Kruger effect of a magnitude heretofore unknown. What
do you think?

> Broccoli's wonder graphic of the super clusters helps us visualize the
> possibility.

It does no such thing.

> Once the possibility of the Earth being at the COM of the entire
> universe----which includes both the moon and the Sun-----we need only
> consider Newton's Laws: In a rotating system the acceleration of the
> COM is zero.

In any system it is, by definition.

> All of the forces of the rotating masses act to keep the
> COM immobile and fixed.

No, they don't. It's just declared to be fixed, by definition.

> So this doesn't hurt the neoTychoan model
> either.

It destroys the model, because an object at the center of mass is under
no obligation to remain there unless the forces all balance. Which they
don't.

> And I didn't have to introduce a single bit of that fairy dark matter
> dust that the Big Bang/Heliocentric Model requires but can't be found.
>
> Broccoli goes down hard again.

In your fevered imagination only. You show immense powers of
self-delusion, but please don't try to make me a part of it all.

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/25/12 6:21 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> [...]

> In a rotating system the COM depends ONLY on the relative positions of
> all the masses weighted by their masses. It has nothing to do with
> the gravitational forces between any of the masses.

That is true for an instant in time. But center of mass is determined
from the inverse of distance, while gravitational force is determined by
the inverse of *square* of distance. So as long as objects are moving
according to their mutual gravitational attraction, the center of mass
is wandering around all over the place relative to any and every mass
you choose to name.

--
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 Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:21:44 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:

(Sorry for the late reply, I just saw this)

I see a lot of hand waving, but no resolution of your internal
contradiction:

You have repeatedly stated:
"Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body."

The earth/sun and earth/moon are such systems. Consequently in each
case the two bodies must "rotate" (actually orbit) about their common
Center of Mass.

Since earth is a body it must, by your own rule, be orbiting two
different constantly varying centers of mass at the same time. (In fact
as a participant in many systems it is orbiting many more than that.)

You can make an absurdly implausible argument that the rest of the
universe cancels one of the orbits, but you've not explained how it
cancels both.

So what are you claiming:
- that galaxies billions of light years away are constantly shifting to
balance the changing sun/moon positions?
- that there are nearby unseen balancing masses?
- that the earth is orbiting and fixed at the same time?
- magic?

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

[T Pagano]

On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:13:30 -0700, John Harshman

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

>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>

snip

>>
>> I'm supposed to lack the understanding according to all your buddies.
>> Yet if the answers were so obvious and devasting why would Broccoli
>> play 20 questions instead of just hammering me?
>>
>> Obviously he lacked any real confidence in his knowledge of the
>> subject. And I practically begged him three separate times to take a
>> break and crack open the requisite works. Whle your buddy Lethe was
>> egging him on.
>
>Again, you're such an ass.

This means Harshman is unhappy with the answer an not the answer is
untrue.

Nonsense you idiot.

1. In the neoTychoan model the entire universe is rotating. All of
the bodies are generally rotating with the same angular velocity. The
centrifugal force on every revolving body is counterbalancing its own
gravitational force toward the Center of Mass. you idiot.

2. Saturn doesn't revolve around the Sun but around the COM of the
Solar system which does not coincide with the center of the sun. Its
gravitational force vector is directed towards the COM and not the
center of the sun. And this gravitational force is counter balanced
by Saturn's own Centrifigal force. You idiot.

3. While there is an inverse square gravitational force between every
body in the universe the largest graviational force vector for any
body in a rotating universe is the vector directed towards the COM. If
it wasn't those bodies would not be directly revolving around that
system. You idiot. And each of those gravitational force vectors
toward the COM is counter balanced by its centrifugal force.

3. In a rotating system the Newtonian gravitational forces are not
directed towards the largest body but towards the center of mass.
Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the cente of the Earth.
You idiot.

>
>> I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
>> star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
>> billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
>> alone has 100 billion stars.
>
>And yet it's true. This has been shown to you several times, and you
>have always ignored it, just as you will ignore it this time. Inverse
>squares, remember? If, for example, you intended the 100 billion stars
>of the Milky Way to balance the sun, and assuming that means 100 billion
>times the mass of the sun, in order to balance the sun they would have
>to be at the square root of 100 billion times the distance from earth
>that the sun is. Call that the sun 100 million miles, just to make it
>easy. So we're looking for 10^8 x 10^(11/2) miles, or about 3 x 10^13
>miles, or about 5 light years. So is the entire mass of the galaxy
>concentrated just a little farther from us than Alpha Centauri? I don't
>think so. The farther away the balancing mass, the worse it gets. So
>yes, the entire rest of the universe, even if concentrated at one point
>at the distance you're talking about, wouldn't balance the influence of
>the sun on earth.

1. The COM is determined solely by the average position of all the
masses weighted by each of their masses. The gravitational forces
have NOTHING to do with determing the center of mass in a rotating
system.

2. The Sun's gravitational force has nothing to do with COM of a
rotating system. The COM in the neoTychoan Rotating Universe is
calculated by determining the average position of all the other masses
weighted by each of their masses. So long as there are
counterbalancing masses (and not gravitational forces) somewhere in
the universe neither the sun nor the moon poses the slightest problem.
3. In a rotating system the centrifigul force of each revolving
bodies (in this case the Sun and our moon) is counter balanced by
their graviational force vector towards the center of mass.

4. And while there are gravitational forces between every body in the
universe in a ROTATING SYSTEM every body in a rotating system has its
greatest gravitational force vector directed towards the center of
mass. Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the Earth. If
this was not the case the body wouldn't be directly revolving in that
system.

5. Finally I never said that our sun's mass was counter balanced by
the masses in the Milky Way. I simply put things in perspective when
one examined Broccoli's graphic of the superclusters. It isn't even a
close call to see a possible counter balance for the mass (and not its
gravitation force) of our medium sized sun.


The rest deleted as useless ignorance.


Regards,
T Pagano

Harshman and Broccoli are both in the shitter.

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:13:30 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>
> snip
>
>>> I'm supposed to lack the understanding according to all your buddies.
>>> Yet if the answers were so obvious and devasting why would Broccoli
>>> play 20 questions instead of just hammering me?
>>>
>>> Obviously he lacked any real confidence in his knowledge of the
>>> subject. And I practically begged him three separate times to take a
>>> break and crack open the requisite works. Whle your buddy Lethe was
>>> egging him on.
>> Again, you're such an ass.
>
> This means Harshman is unhappy with the answer an not the answer is
> untrue.

No, it means you're such an ass.

No, they aren't rotating. You apparently don't know what "rotating"
means. The universe as a whole may be rotating, but the bodies
themselves would be revolving. And you have no physical explanation for
that revolution.

By the way, if the whole universe is rotating, why isn't the earth
rotating along with it? Shouldn't there be a force acting on all parts
of the earth that aren't at the center (presumably the center of the earth)?

> 2. Saturn doesn't revolve around the Sun but around the COM of the
> Solar system which does not coincide with the center of the sun. Its
> gravitational force vector is directed towards the COM and not the
> center of the sun. And this gravitational force is counter balanced
> by Saturn's own Centrifigal force. You idiot.

You say that just as if you knew what "gravitational force vector"
meant. Vectors are of course not directed at points but in directions.
The center of the system and the sun are on the same line from Saturn,
so your objection is meaningless. Also, in your system Saturn doesn't
revolve around the sun (except in an epicycle) but daily revolves around
earth.

> 3. While there is an inverse square gravitational force between every
> body in the universe the largest graviational force vector for any
> body in a rotating universe is the vector directed towards the COM. If
> it wasn't those bodies would not be directly revolving around that
> system. You idiot. And each of those gravitational force vectors
> toward the COM is counter balanced by its centrifugal force.

What causes such a gravitational force?

> 3. In a rotating system the Newtonian gravitational forces are not
> directed towards the largest body but towards the center of mass.
> Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the cente of the Earth.
> You idiot.

The question is why the center of mass could possibly be the center of
the earth, when the effect of the sun's mass should be greater than all
other effects combined.

>>> I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
>>> star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
>>> billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
>>> alone has 100 billion stars.
>> And yet it's true. This has been shown to you several times, and you
>> have always ignored it, just as you will ignore it this time. Inverse
>> squares, remember? If, for example, you intended the 100 billion stars
>> of the Milky Way to balance the sun, and assuming that means 100 billion
>> times the mass of the sun, in order to balance the sun they would have
>> to be at the square root of 100 billion times the distance from earth
>> that the sun is. Call that the sun 100 million miles, just to make it
>> easy. So we're looking for 10^8 x 10^(11/2) miles, or about 3 x 10^13
>> miles, or about 5 light years. So is the entire mass of the galaxy
>> concentrated just a little farther from us than Alpha Centauri? I don't
>> think so. The farther away the balancing mass, the worse it gets. So
>> yes, the entire rest of the universe, even if concentrated at one point
>> at the distance you're talking about, wouldn't balance the influence of
>> the sun on earth.
>
> 1. The COM is determined solely by the average position of all the
> masses weighted by each of their masses. The gravitational forces
> have NOTHING to do with determing the center of mass in a rotating
> system.

Ah, so all your appeal to gravitational forces is just a smoke screen.
Gravitational forces may have nothing to do with determining the center
of mass, but they have everything to do with determining the motions of
bodies. How do you resolve that contradiction?

> 2. The Sun's gravitational force has nothing to do with COM of a
> rotating system. The COM in the neoTychoan Rotating Universe is
> calculated by determining the average position of all the other masses
> weighted by each of their masses.

I await your calculation. Where is it?

> So long as there are
> counterbalancing masses (and not gravitational forces) somewhere in
> the universe neither the sun nor the moon poses the slightest problem.

Where are these counterbalancing masses?

> 3. In a rotating system the centrifigul force of each revolving
> bodies (in this case the Sun and our moon) is counter balanced by
> their graviational force vector towards the center of mass.

I don't think you have any idea what you're saying. You're just
parroting (probably wrongly) what you saw on some creationist web site.
You are clearly incapable of arguing your case.

> 4. And while there are gravitational forces between every body in the
> universe in a ROTATING SYSTEM every body in a rotating system has its
> greatest gravitational force vector directed towards the center of
> mass. Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the Earth. If
> this was not the case the body wouldn't be directly revolving in that
> system.

You're just repeating a buzzphrase. Why are there so may points, when
the points are all the same?

> 5. Finally I never said that our sun's mass was counter balanced by
> the masses in the Milky Way. I simply put things in perspective when
> one examined Broccoli's graphic of the superclusters. It isn't even a
> close call to see a possible counter balance for the mass (and not its
> gravitation force) of our medium sized sun.

Agreed. It's not a close call at all. There is no possible combination
of masses that would counterbalance the sun. I see you ignore the
numbers, probably because the math is too hard for you.

> The rest deleted as useless ignorance.

You haven't done anything at all here. Answer the questions.

[TomS]

"On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:10:52 -0700, in article
<WI6dnT6HBru...@giganews.com>, John Harshman stated..."
>
>T Pagano wrote:
[...snip...]

>> 1. In the neoTychoan model the entire universe is rotating. All of
>> the bodies are generally rotating with the same angular velocity. The
>> centrifugal force on every revolving body is counterbalancing its own
>> gravitational force toward the Center of Mass. you idiot.
>
>No, they aren't rotating. You apparently don't know what "rotating"
>means. The universe as a whole may be rotating, but the bodies
>themselves would be revolving. And you have no physical explanation for
>that revolution.

[...snip...]

Although I would be surprised if Pagano were aware of this, the
geocentric model of the universe demands that all bodies other than
Earth are rotating as well as revolving.

It is an effect similar to the monthly rotation of the Moon on its
own axis as it revolves around the Earth, so that the same face is
presented to the Earth. Consider now a star cluster such as the
Pleiades which is (in the geocentric model) revolving daily around
the Earth; but we observe the same relative positions of the members,
which means that the cluster as a whole must be undergoing a daily
rotation.


--
---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)

[727]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:32:23 -0400, T Pagano wrote:

> snip

Excellent start.

>>> Excellent!!! Harshman is the first to recognize that we don't have
>>> to balance the Gravitational Force between the Earth and Sun in the
>>> neoTychoan rotating system when determining the Center of Mass (COM)
>>> of that system. Harshman paid attention in Physics 101.

>>> In a rotating system the COM depends ONLY on the relative positions of
>>> all the masses weighted by their masses. It has nothing to do with
>>> the gravitational forces between any of the masses.

OK I'm an amateur at this let's see if I get what you mean...
The COM trumps local gravity, right? And an object at the COM is totally
immune to the any gravity acting on it? Hmmm that doesn't SEEM right to
me...

So why do Venus and Mercury go round the Sun then? ...all the planetary
moons just look like they're going round the planets when they're really
going round the centre of mass?

>>Which, as has been pointed out, has nothing to do with the forces on an
>>object at that center of mass. And the forces are what's important here.

> Nonsense you idiot.

> 1. In the neoTychoan model the entire universe is rotating. All of
> the bodies are generally rotating with the same angular velocity. The
> centrifugal force on every revolving body is counterbalancing its own
> gravitational force toward the Center of Mass. you idiot.

Uhh... surely though the further away things like stars and planets and
shit are away from the COM the faster they have to travel to orbit the
Earth every day and the more gravity is needed to stop them from escaping
orbit round the COM. Soooo.... gravitational effects are greater as
distance increases? I think I must have had a duff science teacher 'cos
that's not what he said.

> 2. Saturn doesn't revolve around the Sun but around the COM of the
> Solar system which does not coincide with the center of the sun. Its
> gravitational force vector is directed towards the COM and not the
> center of the sun. And this gravitational force is counter balanced by
> Saturn's own Centrifigal force. You idiot.

Like Venus and Mercury and Titan and Rhea...?

> 3. While there is an inverse square gravitational force between every
> body in the universe the largest graviational force vector for any body
> in a rotating universe is the vector directed towards the COM. If it
> wasn't those bodies would not be directly revolving around that system.
> You idiot. And each of those gravitational force vectors toward the COM
> is counter balanced by its centrifugal force.

So my science teacher was right, gravity gets weaker at a distance? But it
also gets stronger to keep those massive, insanely fast, objects from
reaching escape velocity? You're confusing me...

> 3. In a rotating system the Newtonian gravitational forces are not
> directed towards the largest body but towards the center of mass. Which
> in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the cente of the Earth. You
> idiot.

So Venus and Mercury going round the Sun is an optical illusion?

> Harshman and Broccoli are both in the shitter.

Don't use all the paper lads, I'm having curry tonight....

---

Nathan Hood.
============
I don't use emoticons, feel free to insert your own.

[Craig Franck]

On 3/25/2012 9:21 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman

>> To accommodate the neoTychonian model
>> you would either have to postulate a balancing mass, impossible to do
>> because we would observe it, and we don't, or you would have to
>> postulate an unknown force acting in addition to gravity. You have
>> claimed the former, but won't subject it to test, perhaps because you
>> know it would fail.
>
> Excellent!!! Harshman is the first to recognize that we don't have
> to balance the Gravitational Force between the Earth and Sun in the
> neoTychoan rotating system when determining the Center of Mass (COM)
> of that system. Harshman paid attention in Physics 101.
>
> In a rotating system the COM depends ONLY on the relative positions of
> all the masses weighted by their masses. It has nothing to do with
> the gravitational forces between any of the masses.

You're a genius, Tony. If the entire universe were embedded in a
solid matrix of infinite strength, the whole thing might actually
hold together!!!

> I find it hard to believe

Coming from you, this means next to nothing.

> that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
> star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
> billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
> alone has 100 billion stars.

100,000,000,000+ > 1. The math looks solid.

> And Broccoli offered this wonderful
> graphic of the Universe's super clusters:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Superclusters_atlasoftheuniverse.gif
>
> Notice in the graphic that the Virgo Super Cluster is in the center
> where the Earth happens to be. The graphic depicts clusters of
> galaxies surrounding the Earth with each galaxy containing approx 100
> billion stars. And Harshman thinks it stretches credulity that all
> that can't balance out one medium sized star in the Milky Way?

Balanced as in a fly wheel? That might work.

But the universe is huge, has an average density of a nearly
perfect vacuum, and gravity falls off fast.

Your capacity for misunderstanding appears limitless.

Craig

[T Pagano]

On Mar 26, 12:10 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> T Pagano wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:13:30 -0700, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> T Pagano wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman

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

snip

> > Nonsense you idiot.
>
> > 1.  In the neoTychoan model the entire universe  is rotating.   All of
> > the bodies are generally rotating with the same angular velocity. The
> > centrifugal force on every revolving body is counterbalancing its own
> > gravitational force toward the Center of Mass.   you idiot.

>
> No, they aren't rotating. You apparently don't know what "rotating"
> means. The universe as a whole may be rotating, but the bodies
> themselves would be revolving.

Agreed but this has been very clear from the start so this doesn't lay
a glove on the NeoTychoan Model. I'll try to be more careful with my
"revolve" and my "rotate." In the case of the NeoTychoan model the
universe rotates about an axis and the masses revolve around its COM.
Happy now. My previous mistake doesn't effect anything previously
offiered. And Harshman knows it.

>And you have no physical explanation for
> that revolution.

Neither do atheists have any explanation for how the eight other
planets came to be revolving around its COM. Newton himself
attributed that to God. This doesn't lay a glove on either model.
Harshman still grasping at straws.

>
> By the way, if the whole universe is rotating, why isn't the earth
> rotating along with it? Shouldn't there be a force acting on all parts
> of the earth that aren't at the center (presumably the center of the earth)?

You best talk to Carlip quick cause you ain't helping Broccoli. In a
rotating System the acceleration of the COM is zero. All the forces
tend to keep the COM immobile. In the Solar System the COM ain't the
Sun.

>
> > 2.  Saturn doesn't revolve around the Sun but around the COM of the
> > Solar system which does not coincide with the center of the sun.   Its
> > gravitational force vector is directed towards the COM and not the
> > center of the sun.  And this gravitational force is counter balanced
> > by Saturn's own Centrifigal force.  You idiot.
>
> You say that just as if you knew what "gravitational force vector"
> meant. Vectors are of course not directed at points but in directions.

The COM mass is not a mere point in space but has a specific physical
relationship with the bodies revolving around it. . There is no
requirement by Newton's Laws (motion or gravitation) that a mass be
collocated or even near the COM. The COM could merely be a point
space which depends solely on the mass distribution of the system.
The center of mass of the sun is not collocated with the COM of the
Solar System. The gravitational force vector for each of the other
eight planets does NOT point at the Sun's center, but at the COM of
the system of revolving bodies (which includes the Sun). Binary star
systems generally revolve around each other (around their COM) and not
some massive mass in the middle.

According to the neoTychoan Model the Sun, the moon and every body in
the universe is generally revolving with the same angular velocity
around the COM (which, in this case, does coincides with the Earth's
center). The gravitational force vectors of each of the bodies
revolving in the system is directed at the COM. This can be
considered a point in space. Harshman is going to have to way better
than this.

> The center of the system and the sun are on the same line from Saturn,
> so your objection is meaningless.

Because the Sun makes up about 99+ percent of the mass of the solar
system, it and the COM of the Solar System are close so this is merely
coincidental. The gravitational force vector of Saturn is not
pointing towards the Sun's center but is directed at the COM.

>Also, in your system Saturn doesn't
> revolve around the sun (except in an epicycle) but daily revolves around
> earth.

There can certainly be sub rotating systems in the neoTychoan model
just as their are in the heliocentric. Both systems obey Newton's
laws. This doesn't lay a glove on the NeoTychoan model. Except the
neoTychoan system doesn't require the Cold Dark Matter fairy dust.

>
> > 3.  While there is an inverse square gravitational force between every
> > body in the universe the largest graviational force vector for any
> > body in a rotating universe is the vector directed towards the COM. If
> > it wasn't those bodies would not be directly revolving around that
> > system.  You idiot.  And each of those gravitational force vectors
> > toward the COM is counter balanced by its centrifugal force.
>
> What causes such a gravitational force?

Good question. I haven't a clue and neither does anyone else.
Newton's Laws are descriptive and not explanatory. This doesn't touch
the neoTychoan model.

>
> > 3.  In a rotating system the Newtonian gravitational forces are not
> > directed towards the largest body but towards the center of mass.
> > Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the cente of the Earth.
> > You idiot.
>
> The question is why the center of mass could possibly be the center of
> the earth, when the effect of the sun's mass should be greater than all
> other effects combined.

Harshman doesn't learn. The COM is not determined by the
gravitational forces. It is determines solely by the distribution of
masses in the system. In the neoTychoan model the Sun is revolving
around that COM. While it does have a gravitational interaction via
Newton's inverse square rule with every other mass, its greatest force
vector is directed at the COM. And this force is balanced by its
centrifugal force. Do you get the concept of balanced?

>
>
> >>> I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
> >>> star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
> >>> billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe.  The Milky Way Galaxy
> >>> alone has 100 billion stars.
> >> And yet it's true. This has been shown to you several times, and you
> >> have always ignored it, just as you will ignore it this time. Inverse
> >> squares, remember? If, for example, you intended the 100 billion stars
> >> of the Milky Way to balance the sun, and assuming that means 100 billion
> >> times the mass of the sun, in order to balance the sun they would have
> >> to be at the square root of 100 billion times the distance from earth
> >> that the sun is. Call that the sun 100 million miles, just to make it
> >> easy. So we're looking for 10^8 x 10^(11/2) miles, or about 3 x 10^13
> >> miles, or about 5 light years. So is the entire mass of the galaxy
> >> concentrated just a little farther from us than Alpha Centauri? I don't
> >> think so. The farther away  the balancing mass, the worse it gets. So
> >> yes, the entire rest of the universe, even if concentrated at one point
> >> at the distance you're talking about, wouldn't balance the influence of
> >> the sun on earth.

Nonsense, I never intended to balance the sun's mass necessarily with
that of the 100 billion stars of the Milky Way. The number was
offered merely to show that there is more than enough mass distributed
throughout the universe to balance out one medium sized planet and
allowing the COM of the rotating universe to be where it is modeled to
be.

>
> > 1.  The COM is determined solely by the average position of all the
> > masses weighted by each of their masses.  The gravitational forces
> > have NOTHING to do with determing the center of mass in a rotating
> > system.
>
> Ah, so all your appeal to gravitational forces is just a smoke screen.
> Gravitational forces may have nothing to do with determining the center
> of mass, but they have everything to do with determining the motions of
> bodies. How do you resolve that contradiction?

The bodies are in a rotating system. That means according to Newton's
Laws they revolve around the COM and their gravitational force vector
point to it. If it didn't the bodies wouldn't be rotating around
it. The same is true in the heliocentric system. The COM is the point
at which all the mass can be considered to be "concentrated."

The rest snipped as evidence of ignorance and none of Harshman reply
causes the slightest problem to the neoTychoan model

Regards,
T Pagano

[Friar Broccoli]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:25:46 -0700 (PDT), T Pagano <apag...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mar 26, 12:10 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>> By the way, if the whole universe is rotating, why isn't the earth
>> rotating along with it? Shouldn't there be a force acting on all parts
>> of the earth that aren't at the center (presumably the center of the earth)?
>
>
>You best talk to Carlip quick cause you ain't helping Broccoli. In a
>rotating System the acceleration of the COM is zero. All the forces
>tend to keep the COM immobile. In the Solar System the COM ain't the
>Sun.

Sorry Tony, but you're confusing (zero) acceleration with lack of
motion. They are not related.

In a simple example: If I am a balloon in a wind storm the force of the
wind can only be reduced if I MOVE with the wind. So there motion is
required to minimize the forces.

Similarly in a gravitational field I can achieve weightlessness by
falling (moving) in the direction of the source of gravity.

It follows that in your rotating universe there would be a non-zero
force on the earth as Center of Mass if the earth was not rotating.

[John Harshman]

T Pagano wrote:
> On Mar 26, 12:10 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 21:13:30 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> T Pagano wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 16:41:46 -0700, John Harshman
>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> Nonsense you idiot.
>>> 1. In the neoTychoan model the entire universe is rotating. All of
>>> the bodies are generally rotating with the same angular velocity. The
>>> centrifugal force on every revolving body is counterbalancing its own
>>> gravitational force toward the Center of Mass. you idiot.
>
>> No, they aren't rotating. You apparently don't know what "rotating"
>> means. The universe as a whole may be rotating, but the bodies
>> themselves would be revolving.
>
> Agreed but this has been very clear from the start so this doesn't lay
> a glove on the NeoTychoan Model. I'll try to be more careful with my
> "revolve" and my "rotate." In the case of the NeoTychoan model the
> universe rotates about an axis and the masses revolve around its COM.
> Happy now. My previous mistake doesn't effect anything previously
> offiered. And Harshman knows it.

Though it does reflect on your competence if you use the wrong word.
That of course wasn't my argument, just a note in passing.

>> And you have no physical explanation for
>> that revolution.
>
> Neither do atheists have any explanation for how the eight other
> planets came to be revolving around its COM. Newton himself
> attributed that to God. This doesn't lay a glove on either model.
> Harshman still grasping at straws.

Here you fail to distinguish between current operation and past origin.
We aren't talking about the latter at all, only about how the current
universe works. For that, the standard theory has a fine explanation in
Newton's laws. You don't have such an explanation. You need to adduce
numerous unknown and sourceless forces in addition to gravity. It's time
you admitted that.

>> By the way, if the whole universe is rotating, why isn't the earth
>> rotating along with it? Shouldn't there be a force acting on all parts
>> of the earth that aren't at the center (presumably the center of the earth)?
>
> You best talk to Carlip quick cause you ain't helping Broccoli. In a
> rotating System the acceleration of the COM is zero. All the forces
> tend to keep the COM immobile. In the Solar System the COM ain't the
> Sun.

But the COM is a point, right? I'm talking about those parts of the
earth not at the COM, but some hundreds or thousands of miles away from
it. Try again.

>>> 2. Saturn doesn't revolve around the Sun but around the COM of the
>>> Solar system which does not coincide with the center of the sun. Its
>>> gravitational force vector is directed towards the COM and not the
>>> center of the sun. And this gravitational force is counter balanced
>>> by Saturn's own Centrifigal force. You idiot.
>> You say that just as if you knew what "gravitational force vector"
>> meant. Vectors are of course not directed at points but in directions.
>
> The COM mass is not a mere point in space but has a specific physical
> relationship with the bodies revolving around it.

Does it?

> . There is no
> requirement by Newton's Laws (motion or gravitation) that a mass be
> collocated or even near the COM.

Nor has anyone suggested the contrary.

> The COM could merely be a point
> space which depends solely on the mass distribution of the system.
> The center of mass of the sun is not collocated with the COM of the
> Solar System.

Nor has anyone suggested it is.

> The gravitational force vector for each of the other
> eight planets does NOT point at the Sun's center, but at the COM of
> the system of revolving bodies (which includes the Sun).

Nor has anyone suggested otherwise.

> Binary star
> systems generally revolve around each other (around their COM) and not
> some massive mass in the middle.

Again, not in contention.

> According to the neoTychoan Model the Sun, the moon and every body in
> the universe is generally revolving with the same angular velocity
> around the COM (which, in this case, does coincides with the Earth's
> center).

Evidence suggests otherwise. That would require balancing masses
somewhere, and many, including me, have shown you that's impossible.

> The gravitational force vectors of each of the bodies
> revolving in the system is directed at the COM. This can be
> considered a point in space. Harshman is going to have to way better
> than this.

The vectors are in the direction of that point, and they're also in the
direction of any colinear points. And it happens that the center of the
sun is indeed colinear with the COM of the sun/Saturn system. This is
true for any two-body system.

>> The center of the system and the sun are on the same line from Saturn,
>> so your objection is meaningless.
>
> Because the Sun makes up about 99+ percent of the mass of the solar
> system, it and the COM of the Solar System are close so this is merely
> coincidental. The gravitational force vector of Saturn is not
> pointing towards the Sun's center but is directed at the COM.

Which is colinear with the Sun's center.

>> Also, in your system Saturn doesn't
>> revolve around the sun (except in an epicycle) but daily revolves around
>> earth.
>
> There can certainly be sub rotating systems in the neoTychoan model
> just as their are in the heliocentric. Both systems obey Newton's
> laws. This doesn't lay a glove on the NeoTychoan model. Except the
> neoTychoan system doesn't require the Cold Dark Matter fairy dust.

Sorry, but your system most definitely does not obey Newton's laws,
unless you introduce a number of fictitious forces. That's what we're
talking about here.

>>> 3. While there is an inverse square gravitational force between every
>>> body in the universe the largest graviational force vector for any
>>> body in a rotating universe is the vector directed towards the COM. If
>>> it wasn't those bodies would not be directly revolving around that
>>> system. You idiot. And each of those gravitational force vectors
>>> toward the COM is counter balanced by its centrifugal force.
>> What causes such a gravitational force?
>
> Good question. I haven't a clue and neither does anyone else.
> Newton's Laws are descriptive and not explanatory. This doesn't touch
> the neoTychoan model.

Wrong. What causes gravitational force is mass. Unless you can find a
mass to correspond to your needed gravitational force (the one that
balance the sun's attraction and keeps the earth stationary), you're not
in agreement with Newton. You can't just say the earth is the center of
mass. You have to show that it is, or at least could be. It's been shown
many times that this is impossible, since the entire rest of the
universe, by Newton's laws, can't have anywhere near the influence on
earth that the sun does.

>>> 3. In a rotating system the Newtonian gravitational forces are not
>>> directed towards the largest body but towards the center of mass.
>>> Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the cente of the Earth.
>>> You idiot.
>> The question is why the center of mass could possibly be the center of
>> the earth, when the effect of the sun's mass should be greater than all
>> other effects combined.
>
> Harshman doesn't learn. The COM is not determined by the
> gravitational forces. It is determines solely by the distribution of
> masses in the system. In the neoTychoan model the Sun is revolving
> around that COM. While it does have a gravitational interaction via
> Newton's inverse square rule with every other mass, its greatest force
> vector is directed at the COM. And this force is balanced by its
> centrifugal force. Do you get the concept of balanced?

No. It's contrary to fact. Try a thought experiment. Put a rock
motionless at the COM of the earth-moon system. Assuming there are no
other influences, does the rock stay in place?

[Answer: no, it falls toward earth, the more massive body]

The center of mass is not necessarily the point at which there are no
net forces. Even if earth were at the COM of the universe, that wouldn't
keep it stationary. It would move toward the sun.

>>>>> I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
>>>>> star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
>>>>> billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
>>>>> alone has 100 billion stars.
>>>> And yet it's true. This has been shown to you several times, and you
>>>> have always ignored it, just as you will ignore it this time. Inverse
>>>> squares, remember? If, for example, you intended the 100 billion stars
>>>> of the Milky Way to balance the sun, and assuming that means 100 billion
>>>> times the mass of the sun, in order to balance the sun they would have
>>>> to be at the square root of 100 billion times the distance from earth
>>>> that the sun is. Call that the sun 100 million miles, just to make it
>>>> easy. So we're looking for 10^8 x 10^(11/2) miles, or about 3 x 10^13
>>>> miles, or about 5 light years. So is the entire mass of the galaxy
>>>> concentrated just a little farther from us than Alpha Centauri? I don't
>>>> think so. The farther away the balancing mass, the worse it gets. So
>>>> yes, the entire rest of the universe, even if concentrated at one point
>>>> at the distance you're talking about, wouldn't balance the influence of
>>>> the sun on earth.
>
> Nonsense, I never intended to balance the sun's mass necessarily with
> that of the 100 billion stars of the Milky Way. The number was
> offered merely to show that there is more than enough mass distributed
> throughout the universe to balance out one medium sized planet and
> allowing the COM of the rotating universe to be where it is modeled to
> be.

And my example was intended to show that this is impossible. But feel
free to demonstrate otherwise by doing the math yourself. Give an
estimate for all the mass in the universe, and a reasonable distance at
which we might suppose it concentrated. Is that mass enough to balance
the sun's gravity? Bet you would find that it isn't. But of course you
aren't mathematically competent enough even to try the exercise.

>>> 1. The COM is determined solely by the average position of all the
>>> masses weighted by each of their masses. The gravitational forces
>>> have NOTHING to do with determing the center of mass in a rotating
>>> system.
>> Ah, so all your appeal to gravitational forces is just a smoke screen.
>> Gravitational forces may have nothing to do with determining the center
>> of mass, but they have everything to do with determining the motions of
>> bodies. How do you resolve that contradiction?
>
> The bodies are in a rotating system. That means according to Newton's
> Laws they revolve around the COM and their gravitational force vector
> point to it. If it didn't the bodies wouldn't be rotating around
> it. The same is true in the heliocentric system. The COM is the point
> at which all the mass can be considered to be "concentrated."

You first must show that the center of the earth is at the COM of the
universe. But you are still confronted with the problem of maintaining
it there, which requires those balancing masses that you are unable to
summon up, and you also need to explain why the earth itself is not
rotating about its center. So far, no attempt to do any of this.

> The rest snipped as evidence of ignorance and none of Harshman reply
> causes the slightest problem to the neoTychoan model

How can things you snipped be evidence of anything? Shouldn't you have
left them in if that were your intention? Now, it turns out that the
rest consisted mostly of questions from me to you, so a likely
explanation is that you snipped them so you wouldn't have to answer
them. Don't know why, since you didn't answer any of the questions you
didn't snip either.

[Craig Franck]

On 3/25/2012 11:05 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> On 03/25/2012 10:41 PM, Bill wrote:

[...]

>> And remember, this assumes that the entire mass of the universe is
>> conveniently piled up right where it would be most effective in
>> balancing the gravitational force from the sun.
>>
>> Swoooooosh.
>>
> How can Tony take such a pounding and keep coming back as if nothing
> happened? It reminds me of that condition where people go through life
> without feeling pain:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain
>
> This is a dangerous condition to have as someone can cause much damage
> to themselves yet lack the feedback necessary to cease the damaging
> behavior.. Is Tony just taking punches and body blows and totally
> unaware of the possible damage done to himself by continually returning
> to the fray and locking horns with some of the intellectual heavyweights
> here (excluding myself from that group)?

Tony is some kind of performance artist. He may have over done it
this time in that a pro always attempts to maintain at least the
illusion of intellectual honesty.

Craig

[Mark Isaak]

On 3/26/12 1:25 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> [...]

Credit where it's due: In the post I'm replying to, Tony admitted a
mistake ("revolve" vs. "rotate") AND did not alter the subject line. I
don't think I have seen him do either before.

[A.Carlson]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:32:23 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>

Look who's calling someone else an idiot! The idiot who is vainly
attempting to defend a model that was rejected by scientist far and
wide centuries ago.

>1. In the neoTychoan model the entire universe is rotating.

At speeds greater than the speed of light. This is just one of many
reasons why this model is considered completely bogus. It has also
been pointed out to you that, based on redshift and blueshift
evidence, different celestial objects are observed to be going in a
variety of different directions.

>All of the bodies are generally rotating with the same angular velocity.

According to your model, perhaps but not according to actual
observations.

>The
>centrifugal force on every revolving body is counterbalancing its own
>gravitational force toward the Center of Mass. you idiot.

By this do you mean that there is a *separate* counterbalancing force,
represented as the center of mass, equal to the centrifugal force? If
so, your wording is a bit off. And again, this doesn't match
observations. Much of the universe is expanding away from us while
some is racing towards us.

And if there is such a counterbalance powerful enough to rein in even
distant galaxies how is it that, even within our own galaxy, even
among our nearest neighbors, there are stars moving away from us just
as there are others moving towards us?

Please tell us oh brilliant one.

>2. Saturn doesn't revolve around the Sun but around the COM of the
>Solar system which does not coincide with the center of the sun.

Who says it does revolve around the "center" of the sun? Do you even
know the difference between a center of mass and a barycenter? You
certainly do not appear to understand the true properties of a "center
of mass". Hint: Objects do not necessarily rotate around one.

>Its
>gravitational force vector is directed towards the COM and not the
>center of the sun. And this gravitational force is counter balanced
>by Saturn's own Centrifigal force. You idiot.

Is this the same center of mass that is coincidentally located where
the earth resides? Wouldn't that mean that Saturn should be orbiting
the earth? Is that your claim? You appear to be a bit dodgy on your
claims when you come across (IOW avoid) conflicting claims.

>3. While there is an inverse square gravitational force between every
>body in the universe the largest graviational force vector for any
>body in a rotating universe is the vector directed towards the COM.

Yes, the force of gravity is observed to dissipate based on the
distance squared. This is one major issue that throws a monkey wrench
into your calculations.

Is this *vector* of yours some sort of additional force separate from
the force of gravity? It sounds like some sort of gobblety-gook to
me. It also appears to be a form of special pleading but of course
you wouldn't need to rely on that now, would you?

Or do you actually think that a center of mass actually either
contains mass or acts as though it did relative to nearby objects? Are
you really that misinformed?

>If
>it wasn't those bodies would not be directly revolving around that
>system. You idiot. And each of those gravitational force vectors
>toward the COM is counter balanced by its centrifugal force.

Are you just making this shit up as you go along or did you actually
read this somewhere?

If there is nothing located at the center of mass then there is
nothing to directly provide a gravitational force. If there is an
object located there then it is only the mass of said object to
provide whatever gravitational force there is.

>3. In a rotating system the Newtonian gravitational forces are not
>directed towards the largest body but towards the center of mass.
>Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the cente of the Earth.
>You idiot.

Gravitational forces are not directed in any such way. They are
simply present relative to combined masses divided by distance squared
(with a constant thrown in somewhere) Where you don't have an actual
mass, you don't have a source for gravity.

>>> I find it hard to believe that Harshman doesn't think one medium sized
>>> star (our Sun) can't be balanced considering the billions upon
>>> billions of other masses in the ENTIRE Universe. The Milky Way Galaxy
>>> alone has 100 billion stars.
>>
>>And yet it's true. This has been shown to you several times, and you
>>have always ignored it, just as you will ignore it this time. Inverse
>>squares, remember? If, for example, you intended the 100 billion stars
>>of the Milky Way to balance the sun, and assuming that means 100 billion
>>times the mass of the sun, in order to balance the sun they would have
>>to be at the square root of 100 billion times the distance from earth
>>that the sun is. Call that the sun 100 million miles, just to make it
>>easy. So we're looking for 10^8 x 10^(11/2) miles, or about 3 x 10^13
>>miles, or about 5 light years. So is the entire mass of the galaxy
>>concentrated just a little farther from us than Alpha Centauri? I don't
>>think so. The farther away the balancing mass, the worse it gets. So
>>yes, the entire rest of the universe, even if concentrated at one point
>>at the distance you're talking about, wouldn't balance the influence of
>>the sun on earth.
>
>1. The COM is determined solely by the average position of all the
>masses weighted by each of their masses.

Good so far but it is in its application where you go completely off
the rails.

>The gravitational forces
>have NOTHING to do with determing the center of mass in a rotating
>system.

But they have everything to do with what rotates and where. The
center of mass itself has nothing directly to do with it.

>2. The Sun's gravitational force has nothing to do with COM of a
>rotating system.

In our own solar system the sun's *mass* represents approx 99.9% of
the system's mass. As such both the center of mass and barycenter are
always at or very near the sun:

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

And the gravitational forces are what specifically determine the
rotation.

>The COM in the neoTychoan Rotating Universe is
>calculated by determining the average position of all the other masses
>weighted by each of their masses.

Given the fact that the force of gravity quickly dissipates by
distance squared, most of the mass contained within the universe has
little effect on rotation within our own solar system. Now if our own
sun was nowhere near as massive as it is then perhaps things would be
different to some degree.

Here comes the special pleading that must by necessity ignore
centuries of celestial observations:

>So long as there are
>counterbalancing masses (and not gravitational forces) somewhere in
>the universe neither the sun nor the moon poses the slightest problem.

But of course given relative gravitational forces (that damn distance
squared issue) the exact opposite is what is actually true.

>3. In a rotating system the centrifigul force of each revolving
>bodies (in this case the Sun and our moon) is counter balanced by
>their graviational force vector towards the center of mass.

Unless there is an actual mass at the center of mass, as is with our
own solar system, your particular form of center of mass has little to
no effect.

>4. And while there are gravitational forces between every body in the
>universe in a ROTATING SYSTEM every body in a rotating system has its
>greatest gravitational force vector directed towards the center of
>mass.

Which, in our case, is the sun with approx 99% of the system's mass.
Distant galaxies do not exert enough force to counterbalance such a
massive and nearby source of gravity.

>Which in the neoTychoan Model coincides with the Earth.

Again, special pleading which also ignores countless problems that you
repeatedly dodge.

A small object that just happens to reside at a center of mass but is
not the source of said mass does not take on the properties of such
mass.

>If
>this was not the case the body wouldn't be directly revolving in that
>system.

You're begging the question. We are in no need of your special
pleading because we have the sun that fits the bill to a T.

>5. Finally I never said that our sun's mass was counter balanced by
>the masses in the Milky Way. I simply put things in perspective when
>one examined Broccoli's graphic of the superclusters. It isn't even a
>close call to see a possible counter balance for the mass (and not its
>gravitation force) of our medium sized sun.

It's a question of ridiculously great distances. Even relatively
small planets can rein in satellites in the presence of a sun of far
greater mass as long as the distance is not too great.

>The rest deleted as useless ignorance.

Going by this rule your posts should have been deleted long ago.