Bokat gets credit for pushing Harshman's non Newtonian argument over the edge and into the abyss

[T Pagano]

Bokat gets credit for pushing Harshman's non Newtonian argument over
the edge and into the abyss.

Bravo.

[Boikat]

And yet, the paganocentric universe still remains a fantasy.

Also, every6 time I mention red shifts of polar galaxies having the
same red shift ratios as equatorial galaxies, you miss the point by
claiming that the uniform red shifts do not disprove the geocentric
model of the solar system or universe.

Either you are extremely dull witted or you are deliberatly missing
the point. The point being, in case it is simple dull wittedness, is
that *you* claim that the red shift is due to a rotating universe.
The point is that the red shift of a distant galaxy at a fixed
distance is not effected by radial velocity. It's not about
heliocentric or geocentric, it's about a spinning earth. Your "model"
suggests that equatorian galaxies should have larger red shifts than
polar galaxies. Yet they do not. The only realistic answer is that the
Earth is spinning, unless you are going to drop your misrepresentation
of Hubble's initial reaction to the red shift. (You claim he
initially concluded the earth was not rotating. That is hogwash.
What Hubble didn't like was that the Earth appeared to be in the
center of the Universe. But, that was before the Big Bang theory was
more fleshed out with hyperinflation.).

Now, you have to consider a few facts. Low latitude galaxies rise in
the east, and set in the west. High latitude galaxies appear to
follow circular paths centered around the north celestial pole. So,
something is spinning.

No, about polar geostationary satellites: Why are there no
geostationary polar satellites? Have you figured that out yet? Or,
perhaps you could explain why there are only equatorial geostationary
satellites in the Paganocentric Universe?

Boikat

[Mark Isaak]

On 4/27/12 6:51 AM, T Pagano wrote:

[more excuses to avoid his failure with the actual math]


--
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

[Mike Dworetsky]

Boikat wrote:
> On Apr 27, 8:51 am, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>> Bokat gets credit for pushing Harshman's non Newtonian argument over
>> the edge and into the abyss.
>>
>> Bravo.
>
> And yet, the paganocentric universe still remains a fantasy.
>
> Also, every6 time I mention red shifts of polar galaxies having the
> same red shift ratios as equatorial galaxies, you miss the point by
> claiming that the uniform red shifts do not disprove the geocentric
> model of the solar system or universe.
>
> Either you are extremely dull witted or you are deliberatly missing
> the point. The point being, in case it is simple dull wittedness, is
> that *you* claim that the red shift is due to a rotating universe.
> The point is that the red shift of a distant galaxy at a fixed
> distance is not effected by radial velocity. It's not about
> heliocentric or geocentric, it's about a spinning earth. Your "model"
> suggests that equatorian galaxies should have larger red shifts than
> polar galaxies. Yet they do not. The only realistic answer is that the
> Earth is spinning, unless you are going to drop your misrepresentation
> of Hubble's initial reaction to the red shift. (You claim he
> initially concluded the earth was not rotating. That is hogwash.
> What Hubble didn't like was that the Earth appeared to be in the
> center of the Universe. But, that was before the Big Bang theory was
> more fleshed out with hyperinflation.).

What Hubble didn't like was the conclusion that our *Galaxy* might be the
centre of the universe. Earth had bugger-all to do with this, because it
orbits around the Sun and the Sun in turn orbits the galactic centre.
Nowhere in Hubble's words can you find a claim that the redshifts show that
the galaxies rotate around the Earth.

Note that in 1936, when Hubble gave the lectures making up his slender
volume quote-mined by Pagano, there was some uncertainty about the GR
interpretation of the redshift, e.g., could it be "tired light", or some
property of galaxies themselves, but now there is general agreement that
redshift is a direct result of the expansion of the universe rather than
expansion of objects in a Euclidean space.

>
> Now, you have to consider a few facts. Low latitude galaxies rise in
> the east, and set in the west. High latitude galaxies appear to
> follow circular paths centered around the north celestial pole. So,
> something is spinning.
>
> No, about polar geostationary satellites: Why are there no
> geostationary polar satellites? Have you figured that out yet? Or,
> perhaps you could explain why there are only equatorial geostationary
> satellites in the Paganocentric Universe?

A polar geostationary satellite would be extraordinarily useful. Perhaps
Pagano could apply for a grant to refine his theory so one could be
launched.

>
> Boikat

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Bill]

Tony, you're undermining your own position more than usual these days.
You clearly have no clue about centrifugal force. Centrifugal force
applies only in non-inertial rotating frames. So remember that the
actual physics of a system is independent of the frame in which it is
described. Consider a simple system, an idealized version of a kid
swinging a stone attached to a string in a circle over his head,
parallel to the ground, Consider two possible frames of reference, one
inertial, one rotating, both with their origin at the kid's hand.
Ignore friction, air resistance, gravity, the weight of the string,
and the small motion of the kid's hand.

In the inertial frame the rock is moving in a circular orbit. Newton's
first law says that, unless acted upon by a net force, the rock will
move in a straight line at constant speed. But the rock is acted upon
by the tension in the string. The net force is radial and therefore
perpendicular to the instantaneous velocity of the rock. Under the
influence of that force, and according to Newton's second law the rock
undergoes an acceleration, in this case a change in the direction of
its velocity vector. Newton's third law tells us that the rock exerts
a force on the string equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to
the force which the string's tension exerts on the rock.

Now imagine a rotating frame of reference which rotates in phase with
the rock. Now, in that frame, the rock is at rest. In that frame,
therefore, if Newton's first and second laws are to be obeyed, there
must be no net force on the rock. There is still the tension from the
string pulling on the rock. So in order to preserve the first and
second laws, we invoke the fictitious centrifugal force. The
centrifugal force acts on the rock and is equal in magnitude and
opposite in direction to the string tension. Invoking the fictitious
centrifugal force allows us to hang on to Newton's first and second
laws even in this non-inertial frame. However, we still lose Newton's
third law. Here's why. The string pulls on the rock and Newton's third
law tells us that the rock pulls on the string with the same magnitude
and the opposite direction. So far, so good. The centrifugal force
pulls on the rock, but, in violation of Newton's third law, the rock
pulls on nothing in the opposite direction to the centrifugal force.
The centrifugal force does not obey the third law. So, in a rotating
frame you can save Newton's first and second laws by invoking
fictitious centrifugal force, but you still lose Newton's third law.

And note that the centrifugal force only applies to the orbiting body,
the one that was moving in a circle (when seen in the inertial frame).
Centrifugal forces won't save your stationary earth; you still need to
explain why the Sun doesn't pull the earth in an orbit around the COM
of the earth and the sun.

When you talk about Hume or Popper or even gradualistic novel
transformational structural change, you can obfuscate sufficiently
that a certain small percentage of the audience might be lulled into
thinking you have a point. But here you're publicly botching simple,
high school physics, and it's very, very obvious. Not that you're not
winning of course. You're always winning. You and Charlie Sheen have
that in common.