[Curious Squirrel]

Tom, every time you use that three body problem as an argument it gets more and more tedious and it shows you're being disingenuous. Here's another simulation using actual gravity calculations and you can even interact with it to see what happens if you throw things off course. I've linked this about 3 or 4 times to you now in response to the three body problem since you insist on bringing it up.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

I'd also note that while it doesn't use Relativity because of the processing power required, Universe Sandbox 2 is a fully fledged solar system creator/simulator that runs based on Newtonian physics. I've found one video so far zooming on everything and showing the whole system in motion, and I think it's a default system you can load up with the software. But I'm going to see if I can't find anything a bit longer yet.

[Tom Bishop]

Here you go:

http://universesandbox.com/blog/2016/02/n-body-problem/

By default, the simulations in Universe Sandbox ² try to set an accuracy which prevents orbits from falling apart due to error. This means setting a maximum error tolerance for each step and also making sure the total error doesn’t reach an upper limit.

If you crank up the time step, the simulation then has to take fewer, larger steps. This means the potential for greater error. And the greater the error, the more likely it is that an orbit, which otherwise would be stable, falls apart. Moons crash into planets, Mercury gets thrown out of the solar system — things like that.

This isn’t what most people want in their simulations. But at the same time, most people also don’t want a limit on how fast they can run their simulation. This is a problem.

An imperfect solution

So how can we get around this problem? How can we accurately simulate thousands of objects while still allowing for large steps forward in time? For example, what if you wanted to simulate our solar system on a time scale of millions of years per second so that you could see the evolution of our Sun?

One solution proposed by Thomas, our physics programmer, is to allow for a special mode within simulations running at high time steps. This mode (which of course could be toggled) would collapse the existing n-body simulation into a series of 2-body problems: Moon & Earth, Earth & Sun, Europa & Jupiter, Jupiter & Sun, etc.

Solving a 2-body problem is much easier than solving an n-body problem. Not only is it faster computationally, but there is also a relatively arbitrary difference between figuring out where the two objects will be in one year and where they’ll be in a million years — it still requires just one calculation. So if you collapse an n-body simulation into a series of two-body problems, the simulation could take one big step forward, instead of taking the small steps needed for calculating it as an n-body problem.

The results won’t be entirely accurate, as this method would effectively ignore all gravitational influences outside of the main attractor. As mentioned before, calculating Earth’s orbit by looking at how it interacts with just the Sun is not accurate, as Earth is also affected by every other body. The Sun, however, is the most significant factor by far, because it is much more massive than any other object in our solar system. The other, much smaller forces tend to have little effect overall in non-chaotic systems. So while it’s not correct, it’s close enough when simulating something relatively stable like our solar system.

See bolded. They admit that the methods used are not correct.

I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, it is my opinion that the commonality does not have anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.

[iamcpc]

I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, I don't think that the commonality has anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.

Very interesting I remember when you linked the challenges behind the 3 body problem. Calculating gravity and orbits for a planet which orbits the sun and a moon which orbits that planet. This is not a 3 body problem. This is like a 3,000 body problem. All the planets, all the moons, all the big asteroids etc.  Each of these things affecting the orbits of all of the others. It seems that not even a supercomputer could accurately model something so complex.

[stack]

The 3-Body problem in RE doesn’t seem to be even relevant to this topic. As usual, it's a red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. The real issue is FE’s Any-Body problem.

As it stands, FET has no knowledge of where the planets are, their size, distance from earth, let alone their orbits. So FE can attempt to poke holes in helio models and predictions and continue to fail or perhaps be better served by figuring out the FE models and predictions because right now, there are none.

[manicminer]

At any time of day or night, any time of the year I can switch on my telescope mount and set it to aim at any of the planets. Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter are easily visible during broad daylight when the skies are nice and clear.

What I would like to hear Tom explain is this.  Where has the data that my mount uses for aiming at the planets come from? It is not connected to the Internet and it does not use GPS. It uses a handset with an onboard computer containing positional coordinates for just over 100,000 objects. Including of course all the planets.  This is my mount http://astropixels.com/bifrost/ap1200gto.html  Not this exact one I should add but I have the same model in my observatory.

[iamcpc]

The 3-Body problem in RE doesn’t seem to be even relevant to this topic. As usual, it's a red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. The real issue is FE’s Any-Body problem.

As it stands, FET has no knowledge of where the planets are, their size, distance from earth, let alone their orbits. So FE can attempt to poke holes in helio models and predictions and continue to fail or perhaps be better served by figuring out the FE models and predictions because right now, there are none.

I think, in a discussion about orbits of the planets, the near infinite complexity of the orbits and gravity in the round earth model is totally relevant.

I will agree with you that there are many flat earth models which don't even attempt to outline the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system.

[stack]

The 3-Body problem in RE doesn’t seem to be even relevant to this topic. As usual, it's a red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. The real issue is FE’s Any-Body problem.

As it stands, FET has no knowledge of where the planets are, their size, distance from earth, let alone their orbits. So FE can attempt to poke holes in helio models and predictions and continue to fail or perhaps be better served by figuring out the FE models and predictions because right now, there are none.

I think, in a discussion about orbits of the planets, the near infinite complexity of the orbits and gravity in the round earth model is totally relevant.

I will agree with you that there are many flat earth models which don't even attempt to outline the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system.

I'm just saying, especially if you read QED's response here and in other threads regarding the helio 3-body problem, it is irrelevant. The real issue here is what you pointed out - The FET Any-body problem: No FET knowledge of the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system. That's essentially the focus of the OP: FE, what does your solar system look like, where are your planets, and how do they move about?

So far nada for answers from FE. Reason being, apparently, because there are none.

[Tom Bishop]

Why should I care about planetary properties as a topic of research? How many people have been studying and making theories about the planets in the lifespan of FET vs 2000+ years of RET?

Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. 

[stack]

Why should I care about planetary properties as a topic of research? How many people have been studying and making theories about the planets in the lifespan of FET vs 2000+ years of RET?

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. 

As been shown time and time again, we got that. FET has had a few thousand years to figure out where the planets are and what they do, yet FET still doesn't know where the planets are and what they do. Fair enough.

[Tom Bishop]

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.

As been shown time and time again, we got that.

Post it.

[stack]

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.

Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth

And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.

As been shown time and time again, we got that.

Post it.

Reply #52 & #58 in this thread for starters, though there are many more in various threads. Perhaps FET should locate and figure out how any body works before it tackles 3 body problems.

[Tom Bishop]

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.

Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth

And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.

Some of those ancients who believed in a Flat Earth were able to predict the position of the planets with their pattern predicting methods -- methods that are independent of model and are still in use today

It is pretty disturbing that you guys are still using ancient pattern-based methods of locating the planets rather than an RET model, and walk around under the fantasy that you have a working model.

Three Body Problem solutions were not posted in this thread. I don't think I will bother to look at those posts. When you can find an example of a Three Body Problem that has bodies of different masses, that doesn't ignore physics, and has something that looks like a sun with a planet that has a moon, you should probably post a new thread about that. Science has been searching for a way to get Copernicus' heliocentric system working for a long time!

[markjo]

Tom, if the n-body problem is the bane of modeling the RE solar system, do you think that the FE solar system would be any easier to model?

[Curious Squirrel]

Here you go:

http://universesandbox.com/blog/2016/02/n-body-problem/

By default, the simulations in Universe Sandbox ² try to set an accuracy which prevents orbits from falling apart due to error. This means setting a maximum error tolerance for each step and also making sure the total error doesn’t reach an upper limit.

If you crank up the time step, the simulation then has to take fewer, larger steps. This means the potential for greater error. And the greater the error, the more likely it is that an orbit, which otherwise would be stable, falls apart. Moons crash into planets, Mercury gets thrown out of the solar system — things like that.

This isn’t what most people want in their simulations. But at the same time, most people also don’t want a limit on how fast they can run their simulation. This is a problem.

An imperfect solution

So how can we get around this problem? How can we accurately simulate thousands of objects while still allowing for large steps forward in time? For example, what if you wanted to simulate our solar system on a time scale of millions of years per second so that you could see the evolution of our Sun?

One solution proposed by Thomas, our physics programmer, is to allow for a special mode within simulations running at high time steps. This mode (which of course could be toggled) would collapse the existing n-body simulation into a series of 2-body problems: Moon & Earth, Earth & Sun, Europa & Jupiter, Jupiter & Sun, etc.

Solving a 2-body problem is much easier than solving an n-body problem. Not only is it faster computationally, but there is also a relatively arbitrary difference between figuring out where the two objects will be in one year and where they’ll be in a million years — it still requires just one calculation. So if you collapse an n-body simulation into a series of two-body problems, the simulation could take one big step forward, instead of taking the small steps needed for calculating it as an n-body problem.

The results won’t be entirely accurate, as this method would effectively ignore all gravitational influences outside of the main attractor. As mentioned before, calculating Earth’s orbit by looking at how it interacts with just the Sun is not accurate, as Earth is also affected by every other body. The Sun, however, is the most significant factor by far, because it is much more massive than any other object in our solar system. The other, much smaller forces tend to have little effect overall in non-chaotic systems. So while it’s not correct, it’s close enough when simulating something relatively stable like our solar system.

See bolded. They admit that the methods used are not correct.

I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, it is my opinion that the commonality does not have anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.

Tom, you're cherry picking your information and bending it to suit your own desires. If you're just going to keep doing that don't bother replying to a post please. You've deliberately misread the statement you quote in order to make it appear to support your point. This is one of many reasons I don't both posting much anymore and will once again step away from this discussion as you continue to show you don't discuss in good faith but in the same way as Rowbotham has been said to. A snake-oil salesman looking for any way to twist words to your own advantage.

[Tom Bishop]

You read that blog post and left thinking "this is a full simulation of gravity" and I am just cherry picking quotes and phrases to deceive people? 

[stack]

If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.

I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.

Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth

And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.

Some of those ancients who believed in a Flat Earth were able to predict the position of the planets with their pattern predicting methods -- methods that are independent of model and are still in use today

Great, independent you say. So where is Saturn in FET? Where is Mars? From an FET standpoint, where are they, how far away are they, what are there orbits? FET=crickets.

It is pretty disturbing that you guys are still using ancient pattern-based methods of locating the planets rather than an RET model, and walk around under the fantasy that you have a working model.

Math = Neptune.

Three Body Problem solutions were not posted in this thread. I don't think I will bother to look at those posts. When you can find an example of a Three Body Problem that has bodies of different masses, that doesn't ignore physics, and has something that looks like a sun with a planet that has a moon, you should probably post a new thread about that. Science has been searching for a way to get Copernicus' heliocentric system working for a long time!

Red herring galore. And yes, Copernicus' heliocentric system has been working for a long time. And quite well. Now when FET has an actual 'system', great. But to date, thousands of years later, the planets are unknown to your system as FET does not know where they are or how the move. At least helio does and demonstrates.

[QED]

Here you go:

http://universesandbox.com/blog/2016/02/n-body-problem/

By default, the simulations in Universe Sandbox ² try to set an accuracy which prevents orbits from falling apart due to error. This means setting a maximum error tolerance for each step and also making sure the total error doesn’t reach an upper limit.

If you crank up the time step, the simulation then has to take fewer, larger steps. This means the potential for greater error. And the greater the error, the more likely it is that an orbit, which otherwise would be stable, falls apart. Moons crash into planets, Mercury gets thrown out of the solar system — things like that.

This isn’t what most people want in their simulations. But at the same time, most people also don’t want a limit on how fast they can run their simulation. This is a problem.

An imperfect solution

So how can we get around this problem? How can we accurately simulate thousands of objects while still allowing for large steps forward in time? For example, what if you wanted to simulate our solar system on a time scale of millions of years per second so that you could see the evolution of our Sun?

One solution proposed by Thomas, our physics programmer, is to allow for a special mode within simulations running at high time steps. This mode (which of course could be toggled) would collapse the existing n-body simulation into a series of 2-body problems: Moon & Earth, Earth & Sun, Europa & Jupiter, Jupiter & Sun, etc.

Solving a 2-body problem is much easier than solving an n-body problem. Not only is it faster computationally, but there is also a relatively arbitrary difference between figuring out where the two objects will be in one year and where they’ll be in a million years — it still requires just one calculation. So if you collapse an n-body simulation into a series of two-body problems, the simulation could take one big step forward, instead of taking the small steps needed for calculating it as an n-body problem.

The results won’t be entirely accurate, as this method would effectively ignore all gravitational influences outside of the main attractor. As mentioned before, calculating Earth’s orbit by looking at how it interacts with just the Sun is not accurate, as Earth is also affected by every other body. The Sun, however, is the most significant factor by far, because it is much more massive than any other object in our solar system. The other, much smaller forces tend to have little effect overall in non-chaotic systems. So while it’s not correct, it’s close enough when simulating something relatively stable like our solar system.

See bolded. They admit that the methods used are not correct.

I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, it is my opinion that the commonality does not have anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.

I think what is wrong is that you just don’t understand differential equations. If you have a coupled differential equation, then you can represent it as two uncoupled differential equations. This usually makes them easier to solve. The penalty is that you have to solve twice as many!

You continue to insist that this decoupling method is somehow not genuine. That it cheats the system somehow, or implies that the original equations are somehow invalid.

It’s like if you wanted to solve the problem: 5+7=?, and I said: “hey just do this”: 5+7=5+5+2=10+2=12.

And then you say: “there is a flaw in your method if you have to take some shortcut.”

No Tom, that’s just how arithmetic works...

You just don’t understand how differential equations work.

That’s all!

The moment you acknowledge this, and take action to remedy it - by LEARNING, is the moment you begin to enter the scientific discourse.

Right now, you are not part of that scientific discussion. You are reacting like a cornered intransigent, and to avoid changing an entrenched position, it sounds like you are just making stuff up.

Which is exactly what you’re doing.

I implore you to abandon this argument. The internet is written in ink, and with every reply you sink another nail into the coffin of your potential future reputation. Nothing will come from this that benefits you.

[manicminer]

Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. 

Why do you need a model when you can see it happening in the real world?  Have you never seen the Moon?

[Tom Bishop]

QED, the matter is simple. Does the moon ignore the gravitational influence of the sun while it orbits the earth?

If not, then we can't treat the Sun-Earth-Moon system as two two body problems. Nor can we treat it as a single two body problem by considering the earth and moon as one and using the earth-moon center of mass as the second anchorpoint. That simplification also assumes that the moon cannot feel the gravitational pull from a body in the system.

These are all cheats that work around a non-working system. The moon has mass and it must simultaneously feel the gravitational pull of the sun and the earth. It can't be simplified.

We are at an impasse. I am expecting experimental evidence from the three body research, where such configurations should surely have manifested in the super computer simulations that have been done, and you keep telling us that cheats and two body approximations are enough.

Surely there should be an example of a three body solution with bodies of different masses, or one that looks like a heliocentric system. Yet all the ones we have seen in the galleries (which are numerical solutions, not anlytical solutions -- those don't exist) require at least two bodies of equal masses, and exist in odd loopy orbits. Other similations employ the two-body cheats. There must be a simulation of gravity somewhere which operates in favor of heliocentricism.

The scientific method demands that we demonstrate by experiment, and you appear to be ignoring all experimental evidence, are telling us that it is unneeded, and are repeatedly telling us that we can just cheat a little with two-body approximations, apparently cognisant that it won't work any other way.

That is, in my opinion, not enough. We should either seek experimental evidence from a full gravity simulation where these approximations should manifest naturally or admit that doesn't work. If it can't work then it can't work.

[manicminer]

Tom, what is the average distance of the Moon from the Sun and what is the average distance between the Moon and the Earth? We know the masses of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon so you can calculate what the gravitational force is between the Sun and the Moon and the Earth and the Moon.

I would suggest that the Earths gravitational force on the Moon is significantly more than that of the Sun but the gravitational force on the Moon by the Sun is very small but greater than zero.  Gravity has infinite range.