Okay, now look up “ballistic cart” and explain that. …

Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1) by BlueMoon.

Okay, now look up “ballistic cart” and explain that. Imagine that the cart is the earth and the ball is anything on or flying above the earth’s surface. You cite several instances of the earth not moving when people are in the air, but these are all based on your existing assumptions about inertia. You never consider that this might be proving you wrong instead of heliocentric theory. Any high schooler could tell you why the earth doesn’t move while you are jumping. And if you are unable to explain the ballistic cart within the bounds of your theory, remove that section from your article.

BlueMoon Also Commented

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
AND FURTHERMORE:
Of course hurricanes aren’t a straight line! The only people who say the Coriolis effect implies that are the people who don’t understand the Coriolis effect.
The Coriolis effect is all about deflection. In a hurricane, air is drawn to the point of low pressure. However, in the northern hemisphere, the air travelling north is deflected east, and the air travelling south is deflected west. This causes a counterclockwise vortex. As you might know from a bathroom drain, an initial rotation is easily sustained. Tornadoes are too small to be determined by the Coriolis effect. However, there was a YouTube collaboration between Veritasium and Smarter Every Day that actually demonstrated the effect. And, of course, you can see plenty of instances of the Coriolis effect in real life. Would you care to provide an actual explanation?


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
It all ties back to air resistance with you, doesn’t it? The ballistic cart experiment applies to the atmosphere as well.
The core of your argument is that an object in motion does NOT stay in motion, contrary to Newton’s 3rd law (and don’t turn this into an ad hominem argument against Newton himself; that will get you nowhere.) The atmosphere moves with the earth’s surface because it always has. There’s no magical unexplained force, just initial momentum. That’s why most rocket launches travel east (to capitalize on the momentum) but polar satellites launch to the west (to counteract the momentum.)
Inertia is a property of matter, therefore it is proportional to mass, not density. This is why a feather and a rock drop at the same rate in a vacuum. That is also the reason why all objects are affected the same way by the earth’s rotation, including the atmosphere. The only “containment” that is needed is the Earth’s gravity, because things on the earth’s surface are not travelling at orbital velocity.
And I would like to point out that things are gravitationally attracted to massive objects, not dense objects. Your dog gif doesn’t work because the atmosphere outside was never carried with the vehicle. Your basketball gif doesn’t work because A.) the basketball is spinning within an external medium, but the earth isn’t, and B.) a basketball isn’t a planet. The earth keeps its atmosphere because it’s massive and has strong gravity.
Do you understand now?


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
Check this out:

and let me know what you think. I find his channel quite fascinating.


Recent Comments by BlueMoon

How do satellites work?
I have not tested rockets in a vacuum, because if I fired one in a vacuum chamber, it would quickly cease to be a vacuum. But I can tell you how they work in a vacuum. It makes sense if you think of the exhaust gas as individual particles. The particles bounce off of every surface in the combustion chamber and nozzle. However, since the nozzle is open at one end, the force is unbalanced. Rockets work whether or not there is outside pressure, but the ambient pressure does affect how the exhaust behaves.

Low earth asteroids have no business orbiting in the patterns that Iridium satellites do, and none of them have the identical reflective panels.

And as I’ve stated before, most satellites are in low earth orbit, completing their orbit in about 90 minutes. This requires them to go thousands of miles an hour. Not a problem when they’re over a spherical planet, but a pretty big problem if they have to skitter over a sheet of glass.

I could ask someone else about ion drives, but it’s exceedingly easy to find online. There’s no secret. And it has nothing to do with antigravity.

Molniya satellites have highly elliptical 12-hr orbits, and you can probably see them from Ireland. They are at a very high altitude, which matches up with the satellite tracker sites.

You can deny the credibility of satellite tracking websites and programs all you want, but if you go outside, you can see if the data matches up yourself. That can be your 2016 experiment #1.


What causes Earthquakes?
If tectonic plates are a theory, what are fault lines separating? Why does the land permanently move drastically when an earthquake happens, and move slowly at all other times? Do you have any evidence that lightning strikes cause earthquakes? And since lightning strikes above ground, why do earthquakes start below ground?


Space machines do not orbit the Earth
First off: stop calling them actornauts; that’s exactly what I’m saying you shouldn’t do.
As for women’s hair though, you’re right that when their hair is down, it should look like it does in the KC-135 clips. But that is not desirable for astronauts. On earth, gravity holds hair down and keeps it in check. But in space, the hair would float around and be very annoying to deal with. The best way to deal with it are tying it back, getting it permed, and cutting it short. Whatever keeps it out of the face.
As for the “bubbles,” those are actually water droplets from the space suit’s sublimators, no doubt in the process of boiling off or sublimating themselves. I couldn’t find anything on the “scuba tank” but if it was actually a scuba tank, it would have been yellow, not white. It’s probably something to help with suit pressurization, but I’m not sure. If you can find a more complete picture, we can discuss that. I’m also curious as to what the long curved thing is next to it. Possibly an antenna of some sort; I know I’ve seem pictures of something like it.
Also, I think you should drop your argument about the thermosphere being too hot until you study heat and thermal control. You’re a good researcher, so you should have no trouble with this.


Can this theory make predictions?
Sure, you can retroactively apply the data to your model. But can your theory make predictions that heliocentric theory can’t? If not, it’s really more of a hypothesis. And if it can’t explain all of the phenomena that heliocentric theory can, like eclipses, it’s really not a very good hypothesis.
Your model needs to be simulated to see if all of the different aspects fit together. Then it needs to be tested to see if the data matches up with your predictions. The rectilineator experiment doesn’t count, because it was carried out over 100 years ago and had numerous flaws and biases.
But before you do that, take a step back and consider: Is heliocentric theory REALLY false? Take a look at it with intent to find actual answers, not to find evidence to promote your own hypothesis. Bias is the enemy of science.


How do satellites work?
You can’t just say “they are not in orbit” without backing up your statement. The truth is most satellites are in low earth orbit. You can see them yourself. I asked you to explain other satellites, and you have not done that. How might you explain the flare pattern of Iridium satellites? They all have three identical reflective surfaces. They are also placed in purposeful orbits that overlap to leave no surface of the earth uncovered. I don’t expect you to take everything at face value, but as I said, the data checks out, and for the sake of your theory, I expect you to explain them.
And yes, I would know. As an engineering student, I’ve spent many hours researching spacecraft propulsion. It’s all firmly grounded in science. And no witchcraft is or has ever been involved.
Have you ever seen another country use ion propulsion as a weapon? I doubt it. But other countries do use it for their satellites. NASA’s info is public domain, so you can look for yourself.
Of course the existence of aether is up for debate. Your theory has it, mine does not. That’s enough reason to debate it.

As for me being someone else, I have no idea who you might be talking about, and I’m not sure you do either. The only name I have ever commented as is BlueMoon. I suggest you bring some evidence to back you up next time you make such claims.


Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.