122
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 568:
Line 568: − + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Geocentric theory (view source)
Revision as of 20:36, December 21, 2016
, 20:36, December 21, 2016replied to comment
# Also could you say why my energy argument is wrong, you haven't responded to that. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 08:07, 17 December 2016 (EST)
# Also could you say why my energy argument is wrong, you haven't responded to that. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 08:07, 17 December 2016 (EST)
Let me reply to these now.
Let me reply to these now.
1) "In short, we disagree because you think the speed of the moon is constant in the sun's frame of reference, and I believe it is constant in the earth's frame of reference."
1) "In short, we disagree because you think the speed of the moon is constant in the sun's frame of reference, and I believe it is constant in the earth's frame of reference."
Exactly. Please read my simple explanation with the cars traveling around a racetrack. This dynamic is nothing unique to the Earth and moon, but to any object which must orbit another object already in motion (in the same model as the moon orbits the Earth in which the orbiting object must orbit in the direction of travel of the orbited object)
Exactly. Please read my simple explanation with the cars traveling around a racetrack. This dynamic is nothing unique to the Earth and moon, but to any object which must orbit another object already in motion (in the same model as the moon orbits the Earth in which the orbiting object must orbit in the direction of travel of the orbited object)
2) Because at first and last quarter moon phases the observers on Earth have the same frame of reference as the sun would during the full moon phase. Those frames of reference reveal the constant SPEED of the moon (see simplified explanation again)
2) Because at first and last quarter moon phases the observers on Earth have the same frame of reference as the sun would during the full moon phase. Those frames of reference reveal the constant SPEED of the moon (see simplified explanation again)
3) The Kepler equations and theory are not relevant or necessary to explain or understand this inconsistency. I really think we're muddying the water here. We aren't looking for small speed changes due to gravitational pull, etc. This goes to your last question as well, about why Vac=Vab+Vbc must be applied when the moon is in the full moon phase. That is the position where directions of travel allow the equation to work. It is also the point which reveals the slowest speed the orbiting object may travel and still overtake the orbited object. If the relative velocity of the moon were taken to be 2,288 MPH (or anything even close to that) at any of the other 3 major moon phase positions, it would not have enough speed to overtake the Earth. Frame of reference - see simplified explanation.
3) The Kepler equations and theory are not relevant or necessary to explain or understand this inconsistency. I really think we're muddying the water here. We aren't looking for small speed changes due to gravitational pull, etc. This goes to your last question as well, about why Vac=Vab+Vbc must be applied when the moon is in the full moon phase. That is the position where directions of travel allow the equation to work. It is also the point which reveals the slowest speed the orbiting object may travel and still overtake the orbited object. If the relative velocity of the moon were taken to be 2,288 MPH (or anything even close to that) at any of the other 3 major moon phase positions, it would not have enough speed to overtake the Earth. Frame of reference - see simplified explanation.
4) Just like Heliocentrism which has been engineered so it cannot be tested or proven, the escape velocity theory is the same thing. There is no proof of it, there can never be any experiment or proof of it, so we are left with equations as evidence which got us into this mess in the first place. It also discounts the possibility the Earth is motionless and the sun and moon are in motion. Maybe it is true, but I'm talking about superior empirical evidence which can be seen with our eyes and measured with math. The energy theory is just that, a theory based on estimates, based on calculations, based on other theories, based on guesses. It is the same as saying the Geocentric model cannot be correct because a rabid Heliocentrist invented a special relativity theory to explain away the failure of an actual experiment to detect Earth's motion. Another similar argument is everything is so far away from Earth, the speeds, if it all had to rotate around the Earth, would be impossible to achieve. However this supposes the speed of light is limited, and calls for knowing how far away "everything" is. I don't accept either premise, and I certainly place more weight on experiments over equations. Anyone can create a model then work out equations to show speeds, velocities and distances. That doesn't make it true.
4) Just like Heliocentrism which has been engineered so it cannot be tested or proven, the escape velocity theory is the same thing. There is no proof of it, there can never be any experiment or proof of it, so we are left with equations as evidence which got us into this mess in the first place. It also discounts the possibility the Earth is motionless and the sun and moon are in motion. Maybe it is true, but I'm talking about superior empirical evidence which can be seen with our eyes and measured with math. The energy theory is just that, a theory based on estimates, based on calculations, based on other theories, based on guesses. It is the same as saying the Geocentric model cannot be correct because a rabid Heliocentrist invented a special relativity theory to explain away the failure of an actual experiment to detect Earth's motion. Another similar argument is everything is so far away from Earth, the speeds, if it all had to rotate around the Earth, would be impossible to achieve. However this supposes the speed of light is limited, and calls for knowing how far away "everything" is. I don't accept either premise, and I certainly place more weight on experiments over equations. Anyone can create a model then work out equations to show speeds, velocities and distances. That doesn't make it true.
Lastly, I'm not reposting this. If someone else here wants to at some point, that's fine. I don't believe no one else understand this glaring inconsistency.
Lastly, I'm not reposting this. If someone else here wants to at some point, that's fine. I don't believe no one else understand this glaring inconsistency. (Unsigned by JasonZ)
A few thing to start with:
'''Please don't use velocity and speed interchangeably''' It was fine earlier but as our comments get longer and arguments more complex it is necessary to distinguish between the two. If talking about velocity, let's agree to specify components.
For (2), observers on earth are '''always''' in the same frame of reference. It has nothing to do with the moon
I have re-read what your race track analogy and I believe the problems lie in the velocities you are putting in. I.E. your converting them correctly from one frame to another but it is those velocities that is wrong. I believe we agree this now. I shall bullet point my argument as to why it must be constant in the earth frame. I suggest as your response (if you do respond, you said you may not) you pick which bullet points you have a problem with and we go from there (as you have done):
# The earth follows a circular path around the earth, as seen in the earth's frame of reference.
# It moves with a (roughly) constant angular speed
# Hence it undergoes circular motion
# Hence a constant force acts radially towards the earth on the moon
# The force is always perpendicular to the moon's direction of travel, so it's speed must remain constant in the earth's frame of reference.
The reference I provided says that the speed of the moon as measured on earth is more or less constant. Why do you disagree with this?
With your analogy, there is a '''transverse''' acceleration when it goes from a relative speed of 2.05 MPH to 62.05 MPH. For an object undergoing circular motion, the acceleration is completely radial. This is why we are disagreeing about which frame of reference the speed of the moon is constant in. It is very subtle.
We can use rockets to measure the escape velocity of earth. It's about 11 km/s. This is the basis of physics, you come up with a theory (equations) to describe some phenomena (motion of the planets) and if it doesn't agree with experiment, then it is discarded. '''Can you actually tell me what is wrong with my equations rather than saying "maths can prove anything"''' At least that is how you come across, but you probably don't mean that.
If "I should ask you the same thing." from your previous comment is in regard to me asking you what your background in physics is, I am studying physics at university and in my second year. So what's your background in physics?
By the way, you can use four tilde characters to sign your comments. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 15:36, 21 December 2016 (EST)
==References==
==References==