info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Tony down - He cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to moon's orbit
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Friar Broccoli
Mar 25, 2012, 9:15:05 AM3/25/12
to
Tony cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to our
moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
"Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
It's here folks:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
"Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
It's here folks:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
--
Friar Broccoli (Robert Keith Elias), Quebec Canada
I consider ALL arguments in support of my views
T Pagano
Mar 25, 2012, 10:05:46 AM3/25/12
to
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:15:05 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Tony cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to our
>moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
>
>"Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
>
>It's here folks:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
It is not my burden to prove, I only claim the neoTychoan model is
logically and physically possible.
It was Broccoli who claimed that I was anti-science because I was
skeptical of the Heliocentric model. When I challenged him to prove
that the Earth moved or that the neoTychoan model was not possible in
support of his claim he offered:
1. a false rule of motion:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BEGIN BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE OF MOTION]*************************
>>>>>>>Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
>>>>>>>the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
>>>>>>>also orbit the sun.
[END BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE]*********************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An invalid argument (which suffered from the Fallacy of Asserting
the Consequent):
a. IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
crashes into the sun.
b. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.
b. Therefore the heliocentric model is true.
3. And he started playing 20 questions in two of his articles out of
fear. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e07b33071fc111f/479877c47ef44146?tvc=1#479877c47ef44146
It is Broccoli's burden to bear since he made his blusterous and
indefensible claim that I was anti-science because the Heliocentric
model was beyond reproach. A fact which he has been impotent to show.
Regards.
T Pagano
I can slam dunk you all day and every day. And each time your buddies
see you unable to either defend Heliocentricism or crush the
neoTychoan Model.
Broccoli has been reduced to political windbaggery. Fine by me.
wrote:
>Tony cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to our
>moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
>
>"Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
>
>It's here folks:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
logically and physically possible.
It was Broccoli who claimed that I was anti-science because I was
skeptical of the Heliocentric model. When I challenged him to prove
that the Earth moved or that the neoTychoan model was not possible in
support of his claim he offered:
1. a false rule of motion:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[BEGIN BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE OF MOTION]*************************
>>>>>>>Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
>>>>>>>the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
>>>>>>>also orbit the sun.
[END BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE]*********************
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An invalid argument (which suffered from the Fallacy of Asserting
the Consequent):
a. IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
crashes into the sun.
b. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.
b. Therefore the heliocentric model is true.
3. And he started playing 20 questions in two of his articles out of
fear. See:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/e07b33071fc111f/479877c47ef44146?tvc=1#479877c47ef44146
It is Broccoli's burden to bear since he made his blusterous and
indefensible claim that I was anti-science because the Heliocentric
model was beyond reproach. A fact which he has been impotent to show.
Regards.
T Pagano
I can slam dunk you all day and every day. And each time your buddies
see you unable to either defend Heliocentricism or crush the
neoTychoan Model.
Broccoli has been reduced to political windbaggery. Fine by me.
Friar Broccoli
Mar 25, 2012, 10:26:01 AM3/25/12
to
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:05:46 -0400, T Pagano <not....@address.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:15:05 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Tony cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to our
>>moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
>>
>>"Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
>>
>>It's here folks:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
>
>
.
>It is not my burden to prove, I only claim the neoTychoan model is
>logically and physically possible.
In your neoTychoan model; earth does not move.
If "physically possible" implies the truth of Newton's laws then the
earth MUST move in response to the motion of at least one of the sun or
the moon.
Therefore: if Newton's laws are true then your Tychonian model describes
a system that is not physically possible.
Either way Tony is anti-science for rejecting fundamental scientific
principles.
I'm not interested in word games, so unless I see you present some kind
of _internally_coherent_ reply (or a retraction), I will not be
returning to this topic, except to occasionally provide a pointer back
to this thread.
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:15:05 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Tony cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to our
>>moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
>>
>>"Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>>rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
>>
>>It's here folks:
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
>
>
>It is not my burden to prove, I only claim the neoTychoan model is
>logically and physically possible.
If "physically possible" implies the truth of Newton's laws then the
earth MUST move in response to the motion of at least one of the sun or
the moon.
Therefore: if Newton's laws are true then your Tychonian model describes
a system that is not physically possible.
Either way Tony is anti-science for rejecting fundamental scientific
principles.
I'm not interested in word games, so unless I see you present some kind
of _internally_coherent_ reply (or a retraction), I will not be
returning to this topic, except to occasionally provide a pointer back
to this thread.
Friar Broccoli
Mar 25, 2012, 10:39:30 AM3/25/12
to
Afterthought, this quote from tony from here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/479877c47ef44146
>If you can offer an argument which proves that the Earth moves or that
>the NeoTychoan model is not possible given the Laws of Physics then
>offer it. I will respond.
On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:26:01 -0400, Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com>
Craig Franck
Mar 25, 2012, 11:03:36 AM3/25/12
to
On 3/25/2012 10:05 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:15:05 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to our
>> moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
>>
>> "Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>> rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
>>
>> It's here folks:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
>
>
> It is not my burden to prove, I only claim the neoTychoan model is
> logically and physically possible.
It may be physically possible in some alternate universe, just
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 09:15:05 -0400, Friar Broccoli<eli...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Tony cannot explain why the earth does not move in response to our
>> moon's orbit in contradiction to his rule that:
>>
>> "Newton's Laws indicate that in a "rotating system" ALL the bodies
>> rotate about the Center of Mass and NOT about the largest body"
>>
>> It's here folks:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/78d46a9373136494
>
>
> It is not my burden to prove, I only claim the neoTychoan model is
> logically and physically possible.
not this one.
> It was Broccoli who claimed that I was anti-science because I was
> skeptical of the Heliocentric model.
considered a complement; some form of social retardation is a
more accurate description.
> When I challenged him to prove
> that the Earth moved or that the neoTychoan model was not possible in
> support of his claim he offered:
>
> 1. a false rule of motion:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> [BEGIN BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE OF MOTION]*************************
>>>>>>>> Since eight (or seven) other planets orbit the "center of mass" (near
>>>>>>>> the sun) it follows necessarily that the earth (not only may) but must
>>>>>>>> also orbit the sun.
> [END BROCCOLI'S FALSE RULE]*********************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> 2. An invalid argument (which suffered from the Fallacy of Asserting
> the Consequent):
>
> a. IF the heliocentric model is true then the Earth must move or it
> crashes into the sun.
> b. The Earth didn't crash into the sun.
> b. Therefore the heliocentric model is true.
your celestial mechanics governed the solar system at any point.
Craig
0 new messages