On gravity and the solar system.
« on: August 06, 2021, 06:32:28 AM »
Hello,

Sorry for the long text, it's necessary, I hope I don't break any forum rule.
If I would post my question straight it wouldn't be possible for you to answer it properly.
Anyway after the third paragraph of the "The Facts" section,
you may skip directly to the conclusion if you wish.
Also, I'll give some reference to who I am,
just in the attempt to explain that I have a background about the matter I'll discuss,
although I prefer to remain anonymous, as I'm still working,
and I have seen how people think the worse if you discuss certain topics nowadays,
anyway I do so, also because you are invited to test what I declare,
if you feel the need to test myself too.

- Introduction

English is my third language and I'm not using it daily since a while,
therefore I apologies in advance for any mistake.

I'm new, I'm not a flat earther in the sense that I do not sustain/share all the current ideas/theories,
although my recent research made me question the nature of gravity.
I'm not here to discuss the shape of the earth directly, although indirectly,
my work may point to argue against the necessity of a round earth, amongst the other things.

I'm a retired computer scientist (still active as entrepreneur),
I've practiced for almost twenty years, mostly as engineer in the field of AI and simulations,
with a couple of peer-reviewed publications, I've worked for a few Fortune500 companies,
I've focused mostly on technologies like neural networks, AI architectures (gpu side),
simulations, videogames, VR and a few other sectors.

I want also to clarify that I'm not religious, although I'm not either atheist,
I have respect for spirituality and for the knowledge in general,
I'm not here to discuss these ideas anyway, but I feel that is better to clarify it,
because in my opinion, there is much of a political/religious affair behind these topics,
which can turn rational people into not-so-rational version of themselves,
especially between religious extremists and atheists.

- The Facts

During my many experiments with world simulations, I stumbled upon an interesting case:
The statistical insignificance behind the formation of the solar system for how we know it
and the inconsistency with the Newtonian description of gravity.

Initially, I wanted to see if it was possible to reproduce the solar system formation,
under random circumstances in a real-time simulation, specifically,
obtaining some stable orbit first in a two-bodies system and then in a three-bodies system.

Short answer:
No, it's not possible up to my experiments and there is no proof of any other successful experiment.
If you can accept this answer you can skip to the bottom where you find my question and my hypothesis.
Otherwise, just keep reading.

I've started looking around for existing source code and/or approaches,
to avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel and to inform myself (in terms of APIs).

A real-time simulation, must compute the current state of the "world" for each rendered frame,
just like it happens in a videogame.

I didn't find a single working example that wasn't cheating in some way (in which way is explained below).

I found also a college professor that even released some completely non-functional source code along with a video lesson,
I guess no one of the student/viewers has even checked the validity of the program.

Then I've examined scientific material, some physics simulation, from university professors or students.

Of the four reliable (with source code) that I found online,
all of them were forcing the orbit through the equations,
that obviously produce an elliptic orbit, but only because is forced,
in the same way that you play an animation of a 3D avatar in a videogame,
each point is calculated to be at the same exact spot expected for that elliptic,
like moving on a rail, the only difference in this analogy,
is that the orbit equations compute that spot in real-time (at each iteration),
rather than pre-computing the whole thing (like for common animation techniques).

Therefore, I've decided to give it a try myself,
starting from the simulations I found initially.

Those were cheating in the sense that they had forced the parameters
to be "ideal" in order to make the orbit occur, for a two-bodies problem.

On top of that, as it's known by any physicist or mathematician interested to the topic,
the three-bodies, is even harder as a case, there is now a method to solve it computationally,
but again, it falls in the case of an equation pre-inscribing the paths.

If that's not enough, the simulations I found cheated even more,
in order to add the sun at the center, literally overwriting gravity,
with a naive constrained rotation of the earth around the sun's center of mass,
rather than computing it.

Anyway, I've removed everything that I've considered "irregular"
for a proper physics simulation in real-time.
Then I've uncovered more theoretical problems, especially regarding the mathematical precision,
almost all graphic engines nowadays only support "float" precision,
numbers cannot be too small and/or very precise,
but I've plugged-in a third-party library to gain "double" precision (more than enough),
and I wrote the physics implementation I needed from scratch anyway.

Another problem with most of these simulations you find online is the interpolation method they use.
There are several ways to represent movement through interpolation mathematically,
theoretically one is good as much as the others, practically though, while programming a computer,
especially for how things work in a rendering pipeline, that's not exactly true.

I had fixed this oversight, with a better Euler interpolation first,
accounting for order of operations correctly and using Runge-Kutta methods of 4th order as well,
which is a much better approximation.
Later on, I found that Runge-Kutta was not even necessary in my specific case,
but it was good to learn more in depth some of this,
and is important to specify what was tried out and accounted for.

With this two variations of the same simulation, also cheating myself a bit,
positioning the celestial bodies, earth, moon and sun, in a "semi-ideal" starting location,
therefore not considering that according to some theory,
the moon may have been part of the earth originally, or other bodies impacts, etc;
which would had made it more complicated and wasn't necessary for what I wanted to observe,
which anyway I didn't.

I wasn't able to obtain any stable orbit for more than a few revolutions,
inevitably the masses collapsed or repelled each other because the speed overcoming the gravity,
or viceversa, plus the impacts, the random initial acceleration (which later I fixed, cheating even more), etc.

Of course, to make this consistent, I've run the simulations tens or hundreds of million of times,
in batches with different configurations, with an automation to stop and report in case a stable orbit was found,
set to be equal or greater than ten full revolutions, for simplicity;
which happened only once, but unfortunately the moon was lost in space,
the earth managed to keep a consistent number of orbits (a few tens),
anyway even in that case the earth finally collapsed into the sun in a slow concentric spiral,
that took a considerable long time respect to the other simulations, not even completing ten orbits in most cases.
 
After several weeks of simulations on two different machines, that was my best success.
I've stared to think that there was something odd, therefore I've asked myself,
if I should reduce the problem to something much simpler,
like the orbit of a smaller satellite around the earth,
and after one month of new experiments, I was again deluded,
because doesn't matter what mass or other parameter I decided for the bodies, it wasn't working.

The only way to make it work was to do exactly like for the other simulations,
which consist in "cheating" even more,
specifying the parameters and limits that are ideal for the orbits to happen and persist.

This is the best example (most accessible) I found online, that is available to anyone,
without the need to be registered with any private scientific institution:


There is the source code linked into the description, it's made with Unity.

This guy did a very good job at creating a decent simulation,
apart some improvement needed for the precision, which he's not considering,
but because its target was a videogame-like simulation,
he cheated in two ways:
1) Finding the optimal parameters by trial and error and then fixing the numbers appropriately.
2) Making the earth revolve around the sun thanks to an instruction that forces the earth to move in circle,
as explained above for the other examples I found as well.

Notice that to find the correct parameters during a simulation by changing them randomly at each restart,
is exponentially less probable than doing it sequentially or just according to your own data or tests.

- The argument

I've decided to involve people I knew and I trusted for some opinion, one engineer with a PhD in physics,
which also helped me pointing out about the Runge-Kutta method as alternative for the interpolation problem,
even taking my results for good, remained skeptical,
for reasons that at some point became apparently personal and not objective,
unable to formulate a better hypothesis he concluded that there is some computational limitation,
this is not acceptable as an argument, and he even admitted it in the end, but then he lost interest,
and I didn't want to insist more, as we were already in an argument for other personal things,
from which I've deduced he wasn't objective anymore (still I may be wrong about it),
He suggested to figure out a model myself to prove it, or call for some expert to help me out.

Where my point is that is actually provable by anyone able to simulate it,
therefore someone should prove that such an assertion is wrong instead.

I've then asked a software engineer specialized in videogame development,
his approach was even more lazy, not being expert in mathematics like the previous peer,
he analyzed the experiment and admitting that the software may be right,
this may have been just a problem of physics he couldn't know or understand,
so that was a part he couldn't validate, therefore it didn't prove anything to him
and just like my first friend, he also suggested to figure out a model myself to prove it.
He still talks to me about it at least, instead than dismissing it entirely.

I've asked one more reliable friend, who happens to be a mathematician and professor,
which only came to the point of agreeing with me that maybe a Newtonian physics approach
may not entirely explain for orbits formations, but anyway other modern physics approaches,
from relativity to quantum physics may give the answer, which for me was at least a more positive perspective,
as at least it recognizes the problem.
Still, not understanding enough about computer programming,
he didn't want to speculate more on the topic. Reasonable.

Running out of experts I know personally, and knowing that people don't like this topic,
especially because the arguments generated around FE and other conspiracy theories,
I've decided to come here for...

- The question

With this story and the almost full explanation of what I've tried,
I'm here with the hope to find any person with the necessary skills in mathematics and/or
on physics simulation systems, to help me understand how to achieve a working simulation,
or on the other hand that can instead help with the research of a mathematical model
that may explain the computational results, as myself I'm not a mathematician,
surely not of the level that is needed to undertake this research.

If someone is sincerely interested,
and will be able to share privately with me some reference that attests its curriculum,
after some private chat and sharing the necessary personal data (no trolls, don't waste time),
I will disclose my data and my material, from there we could start collaborating privately.

- The hypothesis

For now, it appears to me, that is not realistic to think,
that our solar system formed as a result of a random macroscopic series of events.

It's not a matter of how many stars there are, or how much time has passed,
it's just doesn't result possible to simulate it according to the current description of gravity,
independently of how many hundreds of million of simulations are performed.

Keep in mind that nowadays we can simulate much more complex systems, like fluids for instance.

Under these apparent conditions, such equilibrium, even if found,
shouldn't necessarily being considered a "miracle"?
That's not what I sustain though, my hypothesis instead is that we got the math wrong,
or our solar system is somehow artificial?
Which sounds absurd but has more chances than happening randomly,
to think that we were so lucky to be on one star system out of billions to have worked out,
is intellectually offensive at the best, as we can see other stars and their planets,
which is even more counter-intuitive, as it should be pretty rare, according to my own analysis.

I'm not here for a debate, you can verify what I said by yourself, it's fully reproducible,
I'm here to find someone interested to research into this,
therefore avoid any comment with the purpose of debating in general,
if you want more details or have some technical question, anyway,
you are more than welcome.

Offline nthurd

  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #1 on: August 06, 2021, 08:02:41 AM »
Impressive and interesting.

My completely naive 3 cents. I think the problem with your simulation not working is that you are starting with bodies already formed. According to the theory I know (poorly) the bodies were formed from a "soup" of atoms/molecules which snowballed into celestial bodies, in exactly the right places for the system to work.

"Exactly" meaning that if you move Earth (for example) from current position by a small distance the system will fall apart. If this is the case then you would not be able to set initial conditions for your simulation (without being extremely lucky), maybe even double precision is not precise enough to orient bodies in space.

More naivety - you would have to start the simulation on the "soup" stage. Probably never getting our solar system as a result, best hope would be getting "a" system.

Edit. I have a brilliant analogy -> Simulation of a cheese race. As in:
Start with an image of the end of the race (our solar system) and simulate the race placing the participants in starting positions.
And an attempt at snarky remark -> Not being able to do this simulation does not mean the cheese does not exist.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2021, 08:14:08 AM by nthurd »

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #2 on: August 06, 2021, 12:24:49 PM »
Thanks for taking the time to read it all in first place,

Quote
I think the problem with your simulation not working is that you are starting with bodies already formed.

We can consider the simulation starting the moment right after the bodies took shape, is irrelevant:

As the simulation accounts for planets starting close in a formation, as well as far and all the ways in between with different velocities and trajectories,
a huge number of configuration are tried through the million of runs.

If the simulation would be about the formation of the bodies as well, the chance that they form as bodies and keep the orbit, drops even more drastically,
because the huge variation in mass over time (before stabilizing), which you should account for, of which anyway we only have final approximations,
and we can consider them good enough for this problem.

I've struggled to find a functional simulation for this simpler case, there is nothing I know of, that goes that far to simulate the mass formation too.

Quote
Not being able to do this simulation does not mean the cheese does not exist.

I see what you are trying to say, although I think you misread the situation for two reasons:

1) The simulation you propose (the race) is definitely deterministic, therefore your assertion is wrong,
because you can develop a correct model that forecast a correct prediction (simulation), with some error margin.
It's only a matter of having enough data, which theoretically, I have in my context as well.
We may argue that eventually, but in bona-fide I don't doubt the scientific data.

2) Not being able to simulate a system, that theoretically is less complex than another system you can simulate,
doesn't prove the given system doesn't exists obviously, but asserts that the dynamic through which we believe has formed, cannot be correct.
Which is exactly the subject of my research at this point.

I'm answering you, but I want to make you (and the other readers) notice that we are already entering a debate this way,
which is not my target, you may have inferred these information correctly on your own, but I don't want to attack you personally,
I'm just saying this in general.
 
I'm replying to the points you've made, because I really believe these are the two more common questions that naturally arise after my assertions,
therefore I thank you to point them out immediately, and I hope from now on the interventions will consider what was said here.

In order to critique my work, I seriously do expect someone pointing out technical details or propose alternative and well sounded ways to measure this.
Which requires a full understanding of the topic, therefore I would expect some question to better understand what I did and why exactly, before jumping to conclusions.

I'm more than happy if someone simply points out something sensible that invalidate my approach, or correct it,
but starting with allegories and analogies without knowing the system technically well enough, doesn't look like a profitable strategy to me.

Therefore the real first bunch of questions or replies I'm expecting, are about how in general these simulations works,
what I may have done wrong, what I've missed, etc.

To then move into what it may means mathematically and how to address it formally, if someone is expert enough to help me out.

Edit: Fixed formatting and some typo.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2021, 12:29:59 PM by ElCicoDeOro »

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1022
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2021, 01:27:51 PM »
I want to thank you for providing your input.

I have always believed gravity to be a lie and the idea of a solar system to be a complete and utter fabrication of fanciful sci fi enthusiasts. If it were as they say, then the entire thing could be rendered visually via a computer monitor or hologram, utilizing the values required to do so.

Of course, since it cannot, the entirety of it (i.e., the solar system, galaxies, etc.) is just pure BS. 

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #4 on: August 06, 2021, 02:14:54 PM »
I want to thank you for providing your input.

I have always believed gravity to be a lie and the idea of a solar system to be a complete and utter fabrication of fanciful sci fi enthusiasts. If it were as they say, then the entire thing could be rendered visually via a computer monitor or hologram, utilizing the values required to do so.

Of course, since it cannot, the entirety of it (i.e., the solar system, galaxies, etc.) is just pure BS.

Thank you for reading through, but I want to highlight that:

Quote
2) Not being able to simulate a system, that theoretically is less complex than another system you can simulate,
doesn't prove the given system doesn't exists obviously, but asserts that the dynamic through which we believe has formed, cannot be correct.
Which is exactly the subject of my research at this point.

I do not believe gravity to be a lie, it's a phenomena which we can actually experience, we can disagree on how it forms and it operates,
for my little understanding of FE theory, in short, your assumption is that: It's a "side-effect" of buoyancy through an invisible medium (ie. aether);
although to be honest I do not understand the whole point made in this wiki (and elsewhere),
as I didn't find a complete enough explanation, and I'm not even here to doubt it though.

I'm here in search of someone that can help me to understand better, again, not for a debate, but for some expert consultancy.
Possibly to dismiss or engage in my research in a shared open-source way,
also because I cannot afford the time and complication to set it up as a proper business,
and apparently no expert I know is even interested to discuss the topic, or to take it on, dedicating some time to it like I did.

In my mind, this type of websites that group theorists and debunkers, was something I should had tried, at this point.

I do not exclude I may have wasted my time, but I would like some confirmation and explanation, before moving forward.
I've never dismissed a project or research without a valid motivation, 
and I have some time I can subtract from other hobbies now.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2021, 02:17:52 PM by ElCicoDeOro »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9002
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #5 on: August 08, 2021, 05:03:26 AM »
You are correct. It's not possible for a sun with a planet and a moon to work under the accepted laws.

See our Wiki article on the topic and the linked articles at the bottom: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2767
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #6 on: August 08, 2021, 08:35:01 AM »
If it were as they say, then the entire thing could be rendered visually via a computer monitor or hologram, utilizing the values required to do so.

Of course, since it cannot ...

The absence of anyone doing this, or attempting it, only to your knowledge, is not, of itself, a proof of impossibility.

However;

Here's our solar system, in profile, to scale;

https://joshworth.com/dev/pixelspace/pixelspace_solarsystem.html

Here's an orrery of our solar system, also to scale;

https://in-the-sky.org/solarsystem.php

Here's how to make a model;

https://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/

Looks like it can.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #7 on: August 08, 2021, 01:17:15 PM »
To Mr. Bishop

Quote
See our Wiki article on the topic and the linked articles at the bottom: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Thank you for the reference, although I consulted that page already, and I find it correct overall,
there are some recent progresses about the Three Body Problem computationally speaking, that are not fully reported in there,
but it's not that relevant in the end, because as I've specified those still depends on "constrained computations",
that force the result to be what it is.

I wanted to give some practical example and problem, which can, and in my opinion *must* be undertaken scientifically as an exercise to better understand gravity.
Hoping than someone from this platform (both FEs or debunkers) may help me somehow,
just confuting it or bringing some more material to it, scientifically, or computationally to be more specific.

---

To Mr. Tumeni

Quote
The absence of anyone doing this, or attempting it, only to your knowledge, is not, of itself, a proof of impossibility.

I agree, that's exactly what I've replied as well, in more extensive terms.

But, you still have to prove something in order to approach it scientifically.
We need to define our subject(s), definition is the first step of any analytical process.

Unfortunately from your dismissive reply which just redirects me to

Quote
Here's how to make a model;

https://www.exploratorium.edu/ronh/solar_system/

I understand that perhaps you didn't want to take the time to read my post,
understandable, as it's pretty long, I've expected it,
but, as for your suggestion (the linked website), I'm again observing that:

1) There is no available source code apparently,
apart the simple scaling computations made into what is available for inspection from the website source code,
which I've briefly inspected, but the system computation is done into a private package apparently,
if you can provide the source code, I would be more than happy to analyse it.

Therefore we cannot know if:

2) It computes the orbits starting from equations that are purely descriptive, do not proving a model,
but just describing the movement according to the reference model.
Like it is done for most of the simulations I've found available with source code,
apart the few cases where the physics simulation approach was correct,
but it required "tricks" in order to work up to expectations,
as I've described, more or less toward the center of my long initial post.

Unfortunately your point cannot be sustained given the current state of affairs,
as there are simulations with source code that you can test yourself to prove my point indeed,
but there is no counterpart, to disprove it, which requires a working (and source code accessible) simulation.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2767
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2021, 01:53:27 PM »
To Mr. Tumeni

I understand that perhaps you didn't want to take the time to read my post

Yes, because I was replying directly to someone else's comment. I quoted who and what I was replying to. I was addressing their point, not the whole of your post.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2021, 02:05:20 PM »
To Tumeni,

Quote
Yes, because I was replying directly to someone else's comment. I quoted who and what I was replying to. I was addressing their point, not the whole of your post.

I see now, but as you have also linked that website about simulating the solar system,
I've actually thought that you were answering to me at that point.

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2021, 06:10:10 PM »
-The question (can anyone help?)

It seems you have rediscovered something very well known in the astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology circles (for decades, if not centuries).

Every person who has tried to do as you have has found the same thing.  No model we have, mathematical or otherwise, works to describe what we observe without "cheating". Many of us conclude, as you have, that this is strong evidence that the underlying "laws" we suspect govern the heavens are incorrect.

Quote
- The hypothesis

For now, it appears to me, that is not realistic to think,
that our solar system formed as a result of a random macroscopic series of events.

Correct.  As einstein said - God does not play dice with the universe.

Even with the "perfect" initial positions/velocities/masses all artificially contrived, the system doesn't remain stable.  It does not matter wether you try to swap out newtonian math for relativistic or not.

Most of what we were taught about the universe is merely mythology misrepresented as science.  None of the cosmological mythology can be modeled successfully (seemingly regardless of processing power) which includes the creation of all matter/energy, spherical planets/suns, and any orbits thereof. 

Quote
That's not what I sustain though, my hypothesis instead is that we got the math wrong,
or our solar system is somehow artificial?

Both appear likely to me.

Quote
I'm here to find someone interested to research into this,
therefore avoid any comment with the purpose of debating in general,
if you want more details or have some technical question, anyway,
you are more than welcome.

I've already done sufficient research on this topic, and there are many accessible documentaries/lectures from astrophysicists that can explain the issues encountered.  Inflation theory, for one of scores of examples, was contrived [made up] to provide a potential solution to the problem you have discovered.  My understanding is that currently it is an unanswered question, and because of the obscurity of the topic - no one really cares.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9002
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2021, 06:31:28 PM »
Quote from: ElChicoDeOro
I wanted to give some practical example and problem, which can, and in my opinion *must* be undertaken scientifically as an exercise to better understand gravity.
Hoping than someone from this platform (both FEs or debunkers) may help me somehow,
just confuting it or bringing some more material to it, scientifically, or computationally to be more specific.

There is enough information out there to show that it's already proven that the Three Body Problem doesn't work for non-symmetrical situations. The physicists repeatedly state and admit that themselves.

But if you're looking for a model that you can play with yourself, take a look at the Symplectic Integrators page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators

"Simulating the dynamics of the Sun–Earth–Moon system with a standard algorithm yields a dramatically wrong solution, predicting that the Moon is ejected from its orbit."

The authors of the article are mathematicians from the University of Geneva. Their paper, linked in the article, has source code for a SciLab simulation:



SciLab is open source software that is free to download: https://www.scilab.org/

The initial data is based on the values of the alleged RE Sun-Earth-Moon system:

Quote
Initial Data

  “ In Table 1 we provide masses, positions, and initial velocities of the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon at a given date (here 1st of January 2016), and a value for the gravitational constant G



Table 1: Initial data from [8] for Sun, Earth, Moon on 01/01/2016 at 0h00. Masses are given relative to the Sun mass M☉.
The Sun is chosen as reference and located at the origin (0, 0, 0). Distances are expressed in astronomical units ua, a quantity based on the Earth–Sun distance (1 ua is about 150 million kilometers), and the time is in Earth days ”

References

[8]Observatoire virtuel de l’IMCCE, Portail système solaire, Miriade ephemeris generator, Observatoire de Paris & CNRS (2016), http://vo.imcce.fr/webservices/miriade.

It also suggests that its based on the size of the RE system: "The distance between the Moon (blue trajectory) and the Earth (black trajectory) is scaled by a factor of 100 in the plots, to better distinguish the Earth and the Moon."

Usually the RE response to all of this is to concede and accept that the standard integrators do not work and then attempt to argue that that the symplectic integrators mentioned are the real ones, but this is clearly not the case, as evidenced by the other references in the Symplectic Integrators tfes.org wiki article.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 07:38:55 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2021, 07:36:12 PM »
To Jack,

Thanks for your opinion:

Quote
It seems you have rediscovered something very well known in the astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology circles (for decades, if not centuries).

Maybe this was very well known to you and a few others.
That wasn't clear to me honestly, not from my formal education or from my own researches or by any of my peers,
everyone knows that we have a model and therefore we expect that such model works in a simulation.
I couldn't had doubt the competency of who made such simulations without understanding the argument myself and being able to make such attempt.

Quote
Inflation theory, for one of scores of examples, was contrived [made up] to provide a potential solution to the problem you have discovered

I've researched into that I tend to agree, although I think it was mostly introduced to rectify LeMaitre
and not necessarily to fix a solution for my specific subject, but yes it's correlated.

Quote
there are many accessible documentaries/lectures from astrophysicists that can explain the issues encountered

Could you please point me to something specifically about the computational/simulation aspect of the problem?

I couldn't find any, apart the more cosmological/theoretical talks like the ones about inflation, or the three body problem,
which I want to clarify that even if very connected to my research, the three body problem it's a specialization of the problem.
I'm more focused on the formation and stability of an orbit formed randomly, even for a two body problem, which mathematically is already solved,
but practically you can't simulate it if not forcing it into being but fixing some desirable condition/parameter first, simulating it randomly it's worse than a lottery.

Perhaps my three bodies example took more attention than the two bodies example I've mentioned as well.

Quote
My understanding is that currently it is an unanswered question, and because of the obscurity of the topic - no one really cares.

You made me smile with this, I admit that I'm starting to think the same, which is shocking to me,
I would had expect more attention to the topic with the current technologies and experts available.


*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9002
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2021, 07:56:47 PM »
Maybe this was very well known to you and a few others.
That wasn't clear to me honestly, not from my formal education or from my own researches or by any of my peers,
everyone knows that we have a model and therefore we expect that such model works in a simulation.
I couldn't had doubt the competency of who made such simulations without understanding the argument myself and being able to make such attempt.

Well yes, you were educated by liars who aren't honest enough to teach you that the model doesn't work. More accurately, they are likely as deceived as you are, assuming things without knowledge, and the source of the lying comes from a long line of educators centuries ago who would rather hide the truth than to teach it. Modern educators who eventually stumble across things like this are complicit in ignoring problems and keeping students in ignorance to maintain the status quo.

Imagine what else they didn't teach us.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 08:02:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2021, 08:02:41 PM »
To Tom,

Thanks for this additional information and material, I didn't notice that page on the symplectic integrators, interesting.

Quote
There is enough information out there to show that it's already proven that the Three Body Problem doesn't work for non-symmetrical situations. The physicists repeatedly state and admit that themselves.

I was aware about it, but as I pointed out to Jack, my interest was more generic, as I saw the same issue with a two body problem as well,
unless we don't play with perfect circles and other unrealistic initial assumptions.

I will research into these theories and explanations about the symplectic integrators, I have to admit I'm ignorant about this term/concept,
but I knew, or at least I had a feeling, that some academic specialized into these fields may have been looking at this problem under its own terminology.

I know sci-lab although I never needed to use it (looks like matlab from my current ignorant point of view),
I didn't know that there was a specific example for this case made with it though.

Thanks for the link, I will check the source code tonight.
I will give it a try, even if at this point I have my own simulator, I'm interested to see what I can integrate from there.

The interesting part is that the simulations I've run produce a very similar result to what I can see into this GIF.

Honestly, I cannot believe that there is no much information about this topic,
and that this do not attract the attention of many, at least engineers and researchers curious just like me.

Therefore, it's time for me to search for any paper regarding the symplectic integrator and related works.

Perhaps I may need to update my simulation as a consequence, I will keep posting if I find anything new or interesting.

Thanks again for spending some time looking into this with me.

EDIT: Typos and grammar mistakes.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 08:09:27 PM by ElChicoDeOro »

Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2021, 08:48:14 PM »
To Tom,

After reviewing the FE wiki page, I've realized that was indeed because my ignorance,
with the given terminology, as I've initially suspected.

I've apparently used a symplectic integrator algorithm already,
which the Runge-Kutta methods are indeed (the wikipedia page doesn't mention this term though, is not even linked, I found it now though),
but as I pointed out in my initial post, that is not even necessary:

Such advanced integration is only needed if you want to maintain a system going for a long time,
or over long distances, or with a very slow/fast speed, which is not the case for a few iterations of an earth-sun or earth-moon simulation,
yes are big numbers but nothing exceptional, especially in paragon to the precision required for density and liquid simulations.

Anyway to address the issue I'm pointing out here, there is no need to iterate so far in the future,
or with such a precision, it's immediately apparent even on a smaller scale (considering just the earth-sun space),
that a generated orbit is not stable and this with or without a better integration.

The real problem lies into the initial conditions mostly,
these proof-of-concept simulations and graphs usually show planets already sitting at the right spot,
and I guess with some other hidden prefixed parameter as well (for what I noticed looking at some source),
which is exactly the part that more fascinated me, that is, trying to create some order from the initial chaos,
but if I can't even simulate a simple case without playing "god", then there is something wrong.

Anyway I'm curios to try to implement different types of these symplectic integrators,
to see if anything change for the simplest cases.

I've just started looking at some papers I found, I guess that will take me a while,
but I wanted to share this first thought just after realizing my ignorance about this symplectic integrator terminology,
fancy way to say "accurate integration for motion".

EDIT: Typos and mistakes.

UPDATE:

The example from https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Sun-Earth-Moon-Integrators.png
where the moon goes around the sun thanks to the better integration, is not what I experience in my simulations,
I think this is given by the fact that, again, the sun is fixed and/or the earth is "forced" into an ellipse;
because I can clearly see the earth having issues to stabilize in first place when I generate a system from scratch.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2021, 11:03:31 PM by ElChicoDeOro »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9002
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2021, 09:41:00 PM »
Can you share your methods or source code you use to generate a system from scratch. It would be useful to see if that that be provided as a way for people to experiment with different orbits until they are satisfied that basic orbits with three bodies are generally unworkable. It's best if people can see and experiment for themselves.

The symplectic integrators are a cheat, yes.


Re: On gravity and the solar system.
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2021, 01:36:25 AM »
Sorry didn't came back to the thread as I didn't see much activity and had no updates to share.

Quote
Can you share your methods or source code you use to generate a system from scratch. It would be useful to see if that that be provided as a way for people to experiment with different orbits until they are satisfied that basic orbits with three bodies are generally unworkable. It's best if people can see and experiment for themselves.

I can't share mine, because I want to publish it when/if I will think will be opportune, and I want to collaborate only privately, with identifiable people, as I specified in my first post.

Anyway,
apart the different engine and libraries (because I'm using Unreal Engine for my tests), the one example I've linked,
made in Unity by that guy on youtube (I think in my very first post), is a complete parametric solution with source code.

You can start from there and randomize the initial conditions into sensible ranges.

There are not many differences between mine and that one, apart that there is his specific game-example logic (which you can scrap),
the parametric simulation in there is what you are looking for. He also had simplified the math a bit,
but even with my further elaboration (integrating with more accuracy) didn't change anything, so I would consider that a good starting point.

I've been very busy recently and also dragged by my personal life problems, but I keep coming back to these tests,
and once I will have a better idea of what is not working and why, I will publish my material and of course share it with you in this blog.

I prefer to keep looking for collaborators privately from now on,
although I gave a try to this internet corner as I've explained in previous posts,
as well as several attempts on other blogs or platforms dedicated to astrophysics and computational science,
I didn't really obtained much, but I was glad to share my attempts, and I will keep coming back here from time to time.