1961

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 03:02:09 AM »

It says right here that the properties you listed are not necessarily used or relevant, is for general informational purposes only, and is just text from other sources.

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons_doc#intro

Major Body Physical Parameters:

  The bulk-property parameters or constants shown as "object data" when
  a planet or natural satellite is selected are not necessarily used in
  or even relevant to Horizons ephemeris calculations.

  They are displayed for general informational purposes only, to confirm
  the selected object, and are from a variety of sources but primarily
  collected from the scientific literature and summarized in the following:

    Yoder, C. "Astrometric and Geometric Properties of Earth and the Solar
    System", published in "Global Earth Physics: A Handbook of Physical
    Constants", AGU Reference Shelf 1, 1995, with some updates and
    corrections.

    Clawson, J.F., et al., "Spacecraft Thermal Environments", Chapter 2
    in "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, Volume I: Fundamental
    Technologies", ed. D. Gilmore, 2002.

    NSSDCA Planetary Fact Sheets (August 2018),
      https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html

1962

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 02:49:06 AM »

And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon.

Incorrect again:

"Positions and velocities of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and planets, along with the orientation of the Moon, are stored as Chebyshev polynomial coefficients fit in 32-day-long segments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

We can see that you have once again resorted to duplicity. That's a Wikipedia page about the numerical tool. That is not the NASA Eclipse Page. The NASA Eclipse page says that they are using this tool to retrieve the position of the Sun for the Solar Eclipse calculations. It does not say Earth or Moon.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

SOLAR ECLIPSE PREDICTIONS WITH JPL DE405

The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system

Does this page say that the system is being used to predict anything with the Earth or Moon? No.

It is obvious why they would need the position of the Sun, because the Saros Cycle alone only predicts the time of the recurrence of the eclipse, not where the Sun will be at that time.

Yes, and it goes on to say regarding the FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF SOLAR ECLIPSES you reference:

"The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002)."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MKSE.html

And the word Ephemerides give it away.  Ephemerides the position of a celestial body in the Sky. Obviously your assertion that the JPL DE System is predicting the eclipse is incorrect if they have to use multiple types of numerical systems to for the Ephemerides of different bodies, along with the Saros Cycle, to present the data on the website.

You have not shown that the systems are actually based on the underlying laws, and nor have you explained why they would need to use the Saros Cycle if you think that such a system exists.

The first sentence in your link says "The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system", well, here are the parameters used as part of the calculation in question:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results



Obviously the above parameters are heretical to Flat Earth. How can the Earth have an Equatorial Radius of 6378.137 KM, or a Heliocentric orbital speed of 29.79 km/s?

That's an different program called JPL Horizons. JPL DE and JPL Horizons are different.

And I just see you showing that it can list some geophysical properties for RE Theory from its database. But this is different than showing that it uses those properties to create a dynamic working model of the solar system using Newton's laws.

1963

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 02:14:35 AM »

Yes, actually I have. You're just skipping over the references. It's a combination of predictive tactics/sources, Saros included. From your NASA eclipse site:

"Modern digital computers using high precision solar and lunar ephemerides can directly predict the dates and circumstances of eclipses. Nevertheless, the Saros and Inex cycles remain useful tools in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEperiodicity.html

They mix the various heliocentric ephemerides with the Saros to gain a complete picture of an eclipse, all of which culminate in the when, and exact where, as mentioned through the NASA eclipse site..

Incorrect. That quote says that solar and lunar ephemerides systems can also predict when they align in the sky. It says nothing about the nature of those systems, however. Ptolmy's Almagest system was an ephemerides computational system from the year 2 A.D. which had nothing to do with gravity or the underlying laws of the system.

After that brief mention, it doesn't mention that ephemerides method again, and continues to talk about the Saros method, mentioning it hundreds of times.

The ephemerides tools you have brought up references numerical perturbations. You have failed to show that any of this is based on the underlying laws. Merely pointing at the names of systems and assuming things is a terrible way to show anything.

1964

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 01:35:35 AM »

And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon.

Incorrect again:

"Positions and velocities of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and planets, along with the orientation of the Moon, are stored as Chebyshev polynomial coefficients fit in 32-day-long segments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

We can see that you have once again resorted to duplicity. That's a Wikipedia page about the numerical tool. That is not the NASA Eclipse Page. The NASA Eclipse page says that they are using this tool to retrieve the position of the Sun for the Solar Eclipse calculations. It does not say Earth or Moon.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

SOLAR ECLIPSE PREDICTIONS WITH JPL DE405

The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system

Does this page say that the system is being used to predict anything with the Earth or Moon? No.

It is obvious why they would need the position of the Sun, because the Saros Cycle alone only predicts the time of the recurrence of the eclipse, not where the Sun will be at that time.

Yes, and it goes on to say regarding the FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF SOLAR ECLIPSES you reference:

"The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002)."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MKSE.html

And the word Ephemerides give it away.  Ephemerides the position of a celestial body in the Sky. Obviously your assertion that the JPL DE System is predicting the eclipse is incorrect if they have to use multiple types of numerical systems to for the Ephemerides of different bodies, along with the Saros Cycle, to present the data on the website.

You have not shown that the systems are actually based on the underlying laws, and nor have you explained why they would need to use the Saros Cycle if you think that such a system exists.

1965

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 01:00:31 AM »

And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon. They are likely using it for the javascript tool mentioned above, so that you know where to look during the Solar Eclipse. The page you linked mentioning that JPL DE program even specifies "Solar Eclipse" in that title. The Saros Cycle predicts when the eclipse will recur, not where the Sun will be to see it. If the Saros Cycle was not being used to predict the eclipse there would not be extensive pages describing how to predict the eclipse with it. Obviously there would be no need to use an ancient system based on patterns at all if they were using an alternative modern system.

On another page it clearly states:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well.

From another page, the Five Millennium Catalogue of Solar Eclipses:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html

The recurrence of solar eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle.

They are using the Saros cycle to predict the eclipse, and not this numerical system you are referencing. The website specifies that this numerical system is used to predict the position of the Sun. There is a reason Saros is mentioned thousands of times throughout the website and why there there are extensive Saros charts. The reason is because the Saros Cycle is being used to predict the eclipse.

1966

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 12:55:27 AM »

Once again, that page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html) does not say that the system used is being used for the eclipse prediction. It's being used for getting the position of the sun.

On the website there is a tool which output sun positions along with the eclipse times:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JSEX/JSEX-NA.html



It's clearly being used to generate the position of the sun at the time of the eclipse, so that you know where to look, and nothing to do with predicting the time of the eclipse. The eclipse is predicted with the Saros Cycle. This is why it is mentioned 14,400 times on the NASA eclipse website.

1967

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 12:30:49 AM »

EDIT for image from the webpage you quoted;

If you went to NASA's eclipse website then you would know that there are no n-Body equations on there. It says that the Saros cycle repeats itself and that is how they are able to calculate it. It shifts a bit with recurrences, and multiple sets of Saros series are in operation at any given time, but it is nonetheless calculated based on past patterns and events.

I did go to NASA's eclipse website and apparently you are incorrect on a couple of fronts. Specifically, to gain greater predictive measures of eclipses, they rely on the JPL DE405 ephemeris. JPL DE405 is described as:

"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the Astronomical Almanac has been based on JPL DE405."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

In regard to the n-body calculations, yes, the JPL DE405 ephemeris relies on them:

"Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws. The initial conditions were both constants such as planetary masses, from outside sources, and parameters such as initial positions and velocities, adjusted to produce output which was a "best fit" to a large set of observations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

And here: DE 102 - A numerically integrated ephemeris of the moon and planets spanning forty-four centuries
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1983A%26A...125..150N/0000150.000.html

Incorrect. The Saros Cycle predicts the time of the eclipse, not the position of the Sun. To predict the position of the Sun you would have to use some other system. Saros is mentioned 14,400 times on the NASA eclipse website. Obviously they are using the Saros Cycle to predict the eclipse.

Your quote only says that it is being used for retrieving the position of the the Sun, and not for the earth or moon. The system you referenced in your quote for predicting the position of the Sun further says that it is based on numerical solutions, not analytic solutions. Numericical solutions are not solutions based directly on the underlying laws - https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Not only is this system not analytical, it is based on epicycles. What you quoted indicated that it is based on perturbations. Perturbations are epicycles - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

So it's still using the ancient Saros Cycle pattern to predict the eclipse, and this non-analytical system is only used for predicting the position of the Sun. How does this hodge-podge mess help you in any way?

1968

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 26, 2021, 12:03:50 AM »

EDIT for image from the webpage you quoted;

If you went to NASA's eclipse website then you would know that there are no n-Body equations on there. It says that the Saros cycle repeats itself and that is how they are able to calculate it. It shifts a bit with recurrences, and multiple sets of Saros series are in operation at any given time, but it is nonetheless calculated based on past patterns and events.

1969

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 25, 2021, 05:32:09 AM »

I cited a number of different factors which vary with each, you refer to ONLY the period between each recurrence.

If it repeats then the attributes are the same.

1970

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Celestial Gravitation

« on: March 25, 2021, 03:41:03 AM »

The fact that gravimeters read a stronger downward pull (by a needle and a spring sensitive to 0.001 G's) at the top of a mountain (where there is most mass underneath) and low gravity at inverse locations on the Earth, should be compelling evidence that the Earth's mass is responsible for its own local gravity.

...

It's a very simple model, more mass/greater density = more gravity. It is easily testable, measurable, predictable, and is applied in real life to make a lot of people a lot of money for a very long time.

That's not true at all. The gravity anomalies are negative on the mountains, not positive.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy

http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/earthq/earthq.html

“ Negative anomalies exist beneath mountain ranges, and mirror the topography and crustal thickness as determined by seismic studies. Thus, the low density continents appear to be floating on higher density mantle. ”

Also, gravimeters aren't reliable to determine what is buried underground:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Gravimetry

Underground Target Detection

While gravimetry results have a relationship with geographical areas relating to positive anomalies at the seismic zones and negative anomalies on the continents and mountains, the use of gravimetry for reliable detection of underground targets is murkier. Gravimetry must be used alongside other techniques, as gravimetry alone provides poor understanding of the earth.

From a Los Alamos National Laboratory associated geophysics program -
https://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-UR-17-30673 (Archive)

  “ Both negative and positive density contrasts can be modeled for any gravity survey target. The lower panel shows a cross-section through the ground. The circles represent denser (right) and less dense (left) regions. The upper panel shows the gravity that might be measured at the surface. ”



  “ WARNING!
Gravity is a Potential Method, meaning that we try to interpret the sources that contribute to a total potential force (this is also true for magnetic surveying). As such, we can always find a variety of physical models that can produce the same observations. This means that no model based solely on gravity observations can be considered to be uniquely correct. Always, additional information is needed before confident interpretation of the gravitational data is possible.
~
Combining gravity models with other information – geologic, seismic, electromagnetic, will improve confidence in the results. Gravity is a potential method, meaning that its results are ambiguous in isolation. Other information is always needed to interpret gravity anomalies with confidence. ”

From An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration -
http://www.science.earthjay.com/instruction/HSU/2016_spring/GEOL_460/lectures/lecture_07/geophysical_expoloration_gravity.pdf (Archive)

  “ The interpretation of potential field anomalies (gravity, magnetic and electrical) is inherently ambiguous. The ambiguity arises because any given anomaly could because by an infinite number of possible sources. For example, concentric spheres of constant mass but differing density and radius would all produce the same anomaly, since their mass acts as though located at the centre of the sphere. This ambiguity represents the inverse problem of potential field interpretation, which states that, although the anomaly of a given body may be calculated uniquely, there are an infinite number of bodies that could give rise to any specified anomaly. ”

From a Doctoral Thesis, Gravimetry for Geothermal Exploration -
https://doc.rero.ch/record/255651/files/00002456.pdf (Archive)

Gravity anomaly interpretation

  “ Interpretation of gravity anomalies can be made in two ways, directly or by building a gravity model. Concerning the latter, the gravity anomaly generated by the model will be compared with the measured gravity. In all cases the nature of the gravity makes its interpretation ambiguous, as several different bodies can induce the same anomaly as presented in figure 2.16. Therefore gravity is often used in combination with other geophysical methods to avoid or decrease the ambiguity. ”

From a course, Physics in Proportion -
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/mpeterso/phys103/PhysicsInProportionI.pdf (Archive)

  “ A gravimeter is like a crude eye, looking into the Earth, but without any ability to focus, able to report only that there is something interesting nearby or there isn’t. ”

1971

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 24, 2021, 11:44:13 PM »

Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.

If the eclipses repeat themselves, why not?

because the various factors that I outlined do not repeat.

Actually, they do:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

1972

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Was Milankovitch "in on it"?

« on: March 24, 2021, 10:45:48 PM »

Any time you observe and interpret you are engaging in a pseudoscience.

In the Wiki, under the heading of Experimental Evidence, appears this;



The observer is pictured, on the left, doing .... what? Observing.

Isn't he?

Actually, this is more of an experiment than an observation. Flags of known height are artificial manipulations to the scene to test the path of light over distance. Each flag is an experiment; alignment controls.

@Tom, what fields of science are NOT pseudoscience, based on your own personal criteria?

There is a definition for pseudoscience. It's not my personal criteria. Pseudoscience doesn't follow the scientific method for its truths. The scientific method demands experimentation.

So, which is it? Is gravity uniform, in which case the web page you've cited is wrong, making you wrong, or is the wiki wrong, which makes you wrong? Which kind of wrong are we dealing with?

What you quoted says "The few effects suggesting variations are questionable, contradicted, and may be attributed to other causes."

In the case of the variations from the mountains, it is contradicted because the observations are opposite than expected, and thus questionable.

The Wiki also suggests what causes it at the bottom of the Isostasy article. The cause is related to your misconception of the nature of what the gravimeter device is detecting - https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy#An_Alternative_Explanation

1973

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 24, 2021, 09:42:11 PM »

Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.

If the eclipses repeat themselves, why not?

1974

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Was Milankovitch "in on it"?

« on: March 24, 2021, 06:05:51 PM »

Also, UA is something that is more directly testable

Well, you can certainly verify that things fall. But variations in gravity better match the model of gravity than they do UA.
In fact, there are industries which use this fact to find things underground:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/gravity-survey

And this is how you distinguish between models. Which one is useful, can make predictions and has practical applications.

Your assertion might have some merit if the data actually matched what is predicted by the theory of the universal attraction of matter. Those variations seen are opposite than the theory of the attraction of matter, however, and other theories are needed to explain it.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Isostasy

http://earthsci.org/education/teacher/basicgeol/earthq/earthq.html

“ Negative anomalies exist beneath mountain ranges, and mirror the topography and crustal thickness as determined by seismic studies. Thus, the low density continents appear to be floating on higher density mantle. ”

.Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience

In your earth is not a globe workshop page, you describe science based on observation and interpretation as natural science. And laud the applicability of that as a pursuit, given that is, at the core, what FE research consists of...

What natural scientists like Aristotle did in trying to understand the world with his theories was science, and laudable. But was also pseudoscience, since no experimentation was involved. That doesn't mean what Aristotitle did was totally worthless. Pseudosciences are sciences, just of lesser rank.

Its fine to do theorize about the world, as long as you are honest about it. And since scientists can't disclaim that they are providing pseudoscience, and since you can't come to terms that a lot of what you believe is pseudoscience, I consider that to be more on the dishonest side.

1975

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Was Milankovitch "in on it"?

« on: March 24, 2021, 05:25:10 PM »

Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

How did you (plural) come up with the ideas of UA and EA if it wasn't for observation and interpretation?

We're not going around pretending to have the answers to everything. That's why we have a page called Astronomy is a Pseudoscience. Any time you observe and interpret you are engaging in a pseudoscience. I would bet that this scientist does not put a disclaimer in his work that Astronomy is a pseudoscience and that it cannot come to truths as strong as other fields. They never do. He just claims to have all the answers.

Also, UA is something that is more directly testable, and is based on the terrestrial experimental evidence referenced on the UA pages in the Wiki.

1976

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Was Milankovitch "in on it"?

« on: March 24, 2021, 05:03:42 PM »

So he was an expert in astronomy, climatology, and geoscience?

Wow. What a crank. Those are the most pseudoscientific fields in all of science. Any science which relies on observation and interpretation is a pseudoscience - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

1977

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 24, 2021, 04:54:46 PM »

https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/22/politics/sidney-powell-dominion-lawsuit-election-fraud/index.html

Apparently even Sidney Powell herself thinks you're a moron for buying into her obvious lies, Tom!

Thoughts?

Powell's lawyer clarifies that you are gullible for falling for the media lies.

" HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

New York, New York March 23, 2021

Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

For further information contact (917) 793-1188 "

1978

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 23, 2021, 11:26:49 PM »

First of all let's remove Jason Brownlee from the discussion - he is clearly talking about something very different when he refers to 'numerical solutions'.

I don't see that you are as qualified to correct or contradict him. He clearly expresses that the analytical solutions are the problems in well-understood form like the other references.

You are always demanding evidence. Well, let's see some then. That's a massive statement, and you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support it.

Actually, I have. It is you who has not provided evidence for their statements. In that same link it shows that they are combining multiple two-body problems as a workaround for the problem of computing multiple bodies:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/440/1/719/1747624

 “ We developed a Keplerian-based Hamiltonian splitting for solving the gravitational N-body problem. This splitting allows us to approximate the solution of a general N-body problem by a composition of multiple, independently evolved two-body problems. While the Hamiltonian splitting is exact, we show that the composition of independent two-body problems results in a non-symplectic non-time-symmetric first-order map. A time-symmetric second-order map is then constructed by composing this basic first-order map with its self-adjoint. The resulting method is precise for each individual two-body solution and produces quick and accurate results for near-Keplerian N-body systems, like planetary systems or a cluster of stars that orbit a supermassive black hole. ”

https://hanspeterschaub.info/Papers/UnderGradStudents/ConicReport.pdf

  “ The patched-conic approximation has thus been developed as a more accurate solution to interplanetary transfer description. It involves partitioning the overall transfer into distinct conic solutions. For instance, as a spacecraft travels from Earth to Mars, its orbit is approximated as a hyperbolic departure, an elliptic transfer, and a hyperbolic arrival. The patched-conic approximation breaks the entire orbit down into several two-body problems. In other words, only one celestial body’s influence is considered to be acting upon the spacecraft at all times. ”

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/452/2/1934/1069988

  “ In this paper, we present a new symplectic integrator for collisional gravitational N-body dynamics. The integrator is inspired by the non-symplectic and non-reversible integrator in Gonçalves Ferrari et al. (2014), SAKURA, and makes use of Kepler solvers. Like SAKURA we decompose the N-body problem into two-body problems. In contrast to SAKURA, our two-body problems are not independent. The integrator is reversible and symplectic and conserves nine integrals of motion of the N-body problem to machine precision. ”

1979

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 23, 2021, 10:28:36 PM »

Numerical solutions tend to be workarounds which are not based on the underlying laws.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

From a question posted on researchgate.net:

  “ Q. What kind of problem solutions do you rate higher: analytical or numerical? More problems can be solved numerically, using computers. But some of the same problems can be solved analytically. What would your preference be? ”

Mohammad Firoz Khan, Ph.D. responds:

  “ A researcher would like to solve it analytically so that it is clear what are premises, assumptions and mathematical rules behind the problem. As such problem is clearly understood. Numerical solution using computers give solution, not the understanding of the problem. It is quite blind. However, in emergency one may resort to this option. ”

Jason Brownlee, Ph.D., tells us on machinelearningmastery.com:

  “ An analytical solution involves framing the problem in a well-understood form and calculating the exact solution. A numerical solution means making guesses at the solution and testing whether the problem is solved well enough to stop. ”

http://www.math.pitt.edu/~sussmanm/2071Spring09/lab02/index.html

  “ With rare exceptions, a numerical solution is always wrong; the important question is, how wrong is it? ”

1980

Flat Earth Theory / Re: ISS livestreams

« on: March 23, 2021, 05:09:31 PM »

Here is the description of the 'updated' 2002 version of the Blue Marble, which is a composite.

Well, yes. The Blue Marble image is also generally dismissed as an image of the earth, as it consists of highly manipulated strips and layers of data to create the world, and is not a photograph. When people post the Blue Marble image we point that out.

Is your point that we should throw away the DISCOVR and LROC images as well? The references you find showing that the pictures are not really pictures and really consists of manipulated data tends to work against you rather than for you. Your "nah-uh NASA made some disclaimers to special processing" is irrelevant to that. Those references you found are further evidence that the photos are not really photographs.

Look into Paul on the Plane's Faking Space series - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP6MVv6qg6qSqo6ryVx74gphaf4KudYEl

What about the fact that you can match ground observations to those from the satellite?

Doppler radar has existed for a long time.