The proof of earth's non-motion: the experiments

[daxwc]

I checked to make sure they are using the earth for gravity assist which they are. We can see planets spinning and we can gravity assist off their spinning. The earth is not spinning and we can still use gravity assist and have exactly the same physics to do it. Wouldn’t the assist formula be different? Doesn’t make sense to me; they’re two different frame of references one is static.


https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/basics/primer/
Silvertiger I believe is right about one thing it has nothing to do with the planet’s rotation but its orbital frame of reference.
The train analogy helped my simple brain get a grasp of the concept. Still looking if gravity assist can be used on the Sun. Haven’t found any examples so far.

[WaltzCee]

I'm still trying to get my head around an infinite universe spinning around the earth in one day ;7)

Does not compute %7)

How can the universe be infinite? As the story (no matter which story you want to believe)
goes the universe has a beginning and only so much time has lapsed since then.

My question is:

How could the universe have expanded to infinity in a finite amount of time?

Another thought occurred to me about frame of reference

EARTH-CENTERED INERTIAL (ECI) FRAME
The earth-centered inertial (ECI) frame is a global reference frame that has its origin at the
center of the Earth. This reference frame does not rotate with Earth and serves as an
inertial reference frame for satellites orbiting the Earth. Due to this, the ECI frame is used
primarily in space applications.

Why back the math out of a moving earth back to this frame of reference ( ECI ) to navigate
space ISO intelligent life? I think the search for intelligent life should start right here on
earth. It's beginning to look like a null set.

ETA: Looks like we bumped a little there, Dax.

[daxwc]

Is it possible Oumuamua the object from another solar system used gravity assist on the Sun and the velocity increase we witnessed came from that?

It is still unclear to me in the train analogy in the above how two velocities just don’t add. It is explained very well just hard to mentally to grasp. When I was a kid we used to throw empty beer bottles at signs. One thing that is impressive is doing a 140 km/hr hanging out the window and throwing a bottle and striking a sign. The velocity after getting whipped off the sign that would flex a little was something. I am sure it would have killed if the rebound would have hit one of us.

[Silvertiger]

Hey dax. I know it doesn't seem to make sense. I'll try to make it easier if I can. If the earth moves around the sun, you can bump your spaceship off of that acceleration. Conversely, if the sun is instead moving around a static earth, the inertial forces do the same exact job...or "work" as we call it in physics. So it becomes a "power" play, whereby power is the ability to do work, and the math is the same because of that, whether the stored energy lies on the earth-side of the equation or on the sun-side. Either way, the SAME amount of work will go into the slingshot maneuver...but only in THIS case, as anywhere else in the universe the equation wouldn't balance.

[daanopperman]

Hi S/T

You stated " whether the earth is static or not a slingshot maneuver can still be performed ........since it has gravity . " , that is not true , if it was we would have a already have a perpetual motion wheel .

Jim Mich was one who advocated gravity as a conservative force , which is of course correct . A spacecraft would speed up approaching a planet on a flyby , but it will loose all that gained velocity as it recede due to gravity if the planet was static .

The transfer of momentum does not come from gravity , it is from the momentum of the planet you sling by , gravity is just the " rope between the skier and the boat "

If the excess energy gained by the craft was due to the influence of the rotating cosmos , why need a slingshot , and if it was true , how do you slow the craft down if you want to , since the craft is in the center of a gravity well . ( for a earth slingshot )

We live in a spiral Galaxy , near the " leading " side of one of the spiral arms , about halfway down the arm , looking to the center of the galaxy , we see the " Milky Way ", ( the rest of the Solar Systems on the same arm we are located in ) , we cannot see the rest of the arms of the galaxy as it is too huge ( 200-000 light years across ) We are but one of billions of Solar Systems in our galaxy . If we look 180 deg the other way we ( with the naked eye ) see almost nothing , as we are looking into the vast expanse of the Cosmos , which is filled with billions of Galaxy's just like our own Millions of billions of light years away .

Our planetary system spins around our Galaxy's center

I will conclude with this .

Daan .

[daanopperman]

Milky Way , all the stars we see in the night sky , some stars is of coarse a sun from another solar systems in our Galaxy

[Silvertiger]

Hey daan. Look up "projectile motion." It will help explain why slingshot maneuvers can't work without gravity. Think of growing up playing with a tetherball. Now imagine another much smaller ball tethered to the primary on a much shorter string. This is the model for the slingshot maneuver performed around a planet orbiting a star.

But let's reverse that setup. Now imagine that there are perhaps ten tether poles bolted to a merry-go-round, all tethered to a center-held primary ball (we'll make it a bowling ball), inside of which is an extreme low friction ring bearing attached to each string that allows each pole to pass by without turning the ball. The weight of the ball will force a down-angle on the strings that will make them "funnel" down to the bowling ball. This will be your gravity simulation. Now attach a half-inch steel ball bearing to any one of those strings - this rope will simulate the CF caused by the sun's moving gravitational field (paint that pole yellow to represent the sun). Then attach a breakaway clasp, such that when the bearing's CP becomes greater than the clasp's ability to hold the bearing in "orbit" around the bowling ball. What do think the result will be?

[ovyyus]

The transfer of momentum does not come from gravity , it is from the momentum of the planet you sling by , gravity is just the " rope between the skier and the boat "

Agreed. A skier might say the boat powered their slingshot. They probably wouldn't say the rope powered anything. They would probably also say they can't perform a powered slingshot around a boat that isn't moving.

[Silvertiger]

The transfer of momentum does not come from gravity , it is from the momentum of the planet you sling by , gravity is just the " rope between the skier and the boat "

Agreed. A skier might say the boat powered their slingshot. They probably wouldn't say the rope powered anything. They would probably also say they can't perform a powered slingshot around a boat that isn't moving.

That's a contradiction of terms. You guys just agreed that gravity is the "rope between the skier and the boat." The transfer of momentum is, indeed, performed by gravity. Like the rope, consider gravity as a tactile object. A transfer of momentum can only occur when two objects come into contact with one another. This inherently includes fields, since everything IS a field, big or small. Matter is a bunch of tiny, tightly knit fields, and gravity is a big bulky weak field.

Once more...projectile motion. :)

[ovyyus]

Wouldn't an astronaut skier trying a slingshot maneuver around a stationary earth be like a water skier trying a slingshot maneuver around a stationary boat?

[daxwc]

Only in a whirlpool apparently.

[Silvertiger]

Dax...exactly :D

[ovyyus]

A water skier might want to be careful about which direction they perform their slingshot maneuver around a stationary boat somehow sitting in the middle of a whirlpool :D

[Silvertiger]

However you wish to reconcile the opposing views is up to you. One is a philosophical convention; the other is not. All I know is that all observations of the heavens place earth at the center and that every experiment ever conducted to prove any motion has failed. The universe is proved to be rotating, and that it is rotating around US. As far as outcomes, whether you choose to put a moving boat in a calm ocean, or a motionless boat on exposed sand in a whirlpool that goes straight to the bottom makes no difference to the math involved. Bumping a tennis ball off the side of a moving train to impart momentum is no different than standing on a conveyor belt that moves just as fast and throwing the ball in the opposite direction of the conveyor's motion and bumping it off a parked train. The outcome is the same. Consider the tetherball experiment I mentioned before. When you're on the outside looking in, you can see that the poles are moving but not the bowling ball. But if you place a camera on the bearing and make the strings invisible, then what does it look like is moving when considering the yellow pole as the FOR? :)

[Fletcher]

I grew up with the big bang theory for the beginning of the universe. The 'exploding' singularity. And that the reason the galaxies are all moving away from each other faster and faster was due to the to come later expansionist universe that string theory predicts with the inclusion of dark energy and dark matter etc. And so we were taught the analogy of an expanding balloon, where two dots on the surface move further apart as it expands.

However we were told there was no center of the universe per se, like you might expect for a chemical explosion. Proved by WMAP etc in that the universe appears flat at local level but could be spherical and closed in its entirety. The point being that when the cosmic microwave background maps are analysed they show a consistency in ANY direction from ANY POINT. Meaning there is no center, or all points are the center. Because it looks the same in ANY direction from ANYWHERE.

And you don't have to be a genius to quickly work out that a 14.8 billion year old universe does not fit into a 93 billion light year diameter for the known (observable) universe. Fortunately IIRC scientists came to the rescue and said initial rapid inflation was faster than light (one theory). The take-away is that the universe is 93 billion light years across from ANY position in the universe IINM. Because we can only see light traveling to us from 14.8 billion years ago and no further.

So there's a lot of the universe not observable because the light is still traveling to us. Maybe the majority of it.

So to have a model of the universe with a stationary (non-rotating) earth at its center whereby the entire universe (observable PLUS unobservable) rotates around earth in 24 HOURS leaves me with indigestion. It won't stay down !

Just my opinions !