61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?

« on: November 06, 2019, 07:00:29 PM »

These systems are rediculous and are nothing like what is proposed by astronomy. Most configurations will fly apart or collapse. Not all combinations of systems stay together. If you guys are going to argue that the Three Body Problem can simulate the systems of astronomy then you will need to show and demonstrate, rather than providing speculation.

I've talked with you about this before. This post really demonstrates that you don't understand what's being talked about. Nobody is arguing that there are analytical solutions to the n-body problem, as you are implying.
I think you need to do some research on the basics of numerical integration and how it is different from an analytic solution before you comment again.

And as for a demonstration, just look up NASA's Horizons catalogue and you'll see that it has very accurate orbital information about hundreds of thousands of bodies in the solar system, all by using numerical integration.
Are you now going to argue that these numerical calculations that demonstrably very accurately match real life are somehow invalid?

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?

« on: November 06, 2019, 06:47:54 PM »

Yes hundreds , glad we agree on that - your figure of 100,000s is more specific in that that figure  is a thousand hundreds . Wasn't it you that specified the solar system as a 10 body problem ?

I don't suggest anything about the atmosphere and it is chaos theory and the n-body problem which suggests the solar system is unstable .

Numerical simulations are not solutions to problems . They are simulations that is all . A computer may model an orbit but that won't be reality . In order to calculate an n-body orbit then all n-variable initial conditions must be known exactly - which we can never know , and this is why the problem is unsolvable .

Not even asteroid 2003 etc orbit is calculable , although you may simulate the orbit numerically . If we can't see ass2003 with the naked eye then how can we ,by observation , tell you where it will be in 50yrs ?

I didn't quite understand your answer - do you understand that the atmosphere is also an analytically unsolvable n-body problem or not?

A numerical simulation can predict where an asteroid will be in 50 years with a known error. As it turns out, the solar system is 'calm' enough such that you can predict the position of any body within the solar system to very high accuracy for the next at least 100 years, probably a lot more.

Just to try and open your eyes, here's something to think about: can you tell me of any physical system that is analytically (i.e. exactly) solvable? You'll find that there are almost 0 problems in Physics that are analytically solvable. It's just a reality of the complex world we live in.

63

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun

« on: November 06, 2019, 06:28:06 PM »

The difference amounts to a factor of O(n x 1⁶), where n ~<= 6.378

Here is how to calculate the radius of the Earth at a certain latitude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150919165338/http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/comp.infosystems.gis.html (section 5.1b)

Hey! That's what I said, right? So since Coriolos effect on a RLG is negligibe, it has no effect on my initial statement.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?

« on: November 05, 2019, 08:03:02 PM »

You should be aware that the "solar system " contains hundreds of bodies not just ten . This solar system is supposed to be part of a universe consisting of countless bodies - all in motion interacting through that magical force of attraction between masses . Chaotic indeed .

Planetary orbits are predictable through observation , always have been .

Meteorologist Edward Lorenz stumbled upon chaos theory while trying to predict weather patterns with his computer - read up on it .Thing about computers - put crap in , get crap out .

Hundreds? The Solar System contains at least hundreds of thousands, more depending on how you define it.
Let's say there are 1 trillion bodies (1e12) in our solar system. There are around 100 billion stars (1e11) in our galaxy. That means if you put all of the galaxies in the observable universe together (1e12), you get a 1e34-body system, which is 10,000,000 times less than there are particles in our atmosphere.

Both are chaotic, n-body systems with very high n, but you seem to be suggesting that the solar system is highly chaotic and that the atmosphere isn't chaotic. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Planetary orbits are predictable through numerical simulations.
Please tell me where asteroid 2003 Harding (6559 P-L) will be in 50 years through "observation". Tell me where its perihelion is, tell me its orbital eccentricity. You can't, but numerical simulations can.

65

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun

« on: November 05, 2019, 07:36:08 PM »

So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?

Very easy.

4AωsinΦ/c²

Houston latitude: 29.7604°

Fill in the figure for the area of the interferometer.

Then, you can compute the SAGNAC EFFECT for the same interferometer.

Find the radius of the spherical Earth at that latitude, the velocity of rotation (using the same latitude), and fill in the value of the length of the interferometer.

2VL(cos²Φ₁ + cos²Φ₂)/c²

Ok! For a triangular ring laser gyro of arm length 0.8inches in Houston, I got...
delta-t from Coriolis of 1.3e-20 s
delta-t from Sagnac of 1.6e-14 s

So I guess a ring laser gyro measuring 15 degrees an hour has an error of around 0.0000015 degrees per hour if it wasn't taking into account the Coriolis effect... am I missing something?

66

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun

« on: November 04, 2019, 01:52:59 PM »

So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?

67

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What are the (flat Earth) stars?

« on: November 04, 2019, 01:32:12 AM »

If you want real chaos then investigate the effect of chaos theory and the n-body problem associated with the orbits in the solar system model .

Are you really arguing that a 10-body problem of the solar system is more chaotic than the 10^44 - body system that is the atmosphere? Really?
Case in point - I can easily predict the orbits of all of the planets by numerically solving the n-body equation with a computer, and very accurately predict their positions for at least the next 100 years. Meanwhile the weather report can't even predict with 99% accuracy whether it's going to rain tomorrow.

You are not just a clown - you are the entire circus.

68

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun

« on: November 04, 2019, 01:11:07 AM »

There has to be, since Michelson only detected the Coriolis effect AND NOT the Sagnac effect on the MGX interferometer.

I am, as ever, sorry for my ignorance, Sandokhan. I have no idea what that means or why this means there must be an ether :-)

You truly rise above other flat eathers.

69

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun

« on: October 31, 2019, 09:15:39 PM »

That is why Michelson claimed that his CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, in order to assert ROTATION as well.

Ahhh yes, there could be an as-yet-undetected ether rotating at exactly the same frequency as the Sun rotating over the top of the flat Earth, how silly of me! I'll have to retract my previous statement, and instead just rely on pictures of the round Earth of evidence that it is in fact round. /s

p.s. How would the ether effect an Foucault pendulum?

p.p.s. long time no speak

70

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Size/distance of Sun

« on: October 31, 2019, 07:36:21 PM »

So far ,in the 500 years or so since it's introduction with no new evidence , science has provided not one proof of rotation or curvature . 

Laser ring gyros? Foucault's Pendulum? Actual pictures from space, taken every single day by satellites? Gravity being weaker at the equator?
Sorry if I'm being a broken record here - I know you've heard all of these before and dismissed them offhand for XYZ meaningless reason.
"NASA is fake blah blah"
"I don't understand how lasers work blah blah"
"Foucault's pendulum has errr motors in or something"

Distract, dismiss, ignore. But some youtube video of a dude with a P900 is concrete evidence, right?
Please provide me the maths that shows that a laser ring gyro doesn't show rotation of the Earth, and show me you're not like the rest of them. I'm sick and tired of flat earthers just dismissing stuff without even the slightest understanding of how it even works.

71

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: August 18, 2019, 09:20:52 PM »

If true, then there are thousands of stars exhibiting negative parallax.

I just looked this up myself in the 'Hipparcos, the New Reduction' catalogue. There are 23,000 results when I filter parallax >10 mas, and only 168 results when I filter for parallax of <-10 mas. This number goes down to 50 results (0.04%) when I filter <-20 mas, which was the test used in your quoted text before.

It looks like this problem goes away when you look at more recent, accurate catalogues. This is consistent with it being caused by uncertainty in observations.

72

Flat Earth Community / Re: Members All Around the Globe - a collection of the worst memes on our Flat Earth

« on: August 17, 2019, 11:34:50 PM »

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 17, 2019, 11:27:54 PM »

How do you know refraction even exists?

Because I paid attention in physics class in high school. I think pretty much every school is going to do an experimental demonstration of snell's law, I guess you missed out.

74

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Gravity Conundrum...

« on: August 17, 2019, 11:24:48 PM »

So... the Moon. No gravity to speak of...

Hehehe 

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!

« on: August 13, 2019, 07:13:25 PM »

You are referring to this page: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomy_is_a_Pseudoscience

Astronomy is literally a pseudoscience, as it relies on observation and interpretation.

[...]
those theories don't work out in the universe as they do on Earth. The theories need to be modified.
[...]
Does believing in a theory "on grounds of modesty" sound scientific to you?

You say that you think it's a pseudoscience, but then your argument evolves into "I don't agree with modern theories because of xyz reasons".

Science doesn't just become pseudoscience because you personally disagree with the theories put forward: it's science if it follows the scientific method. You seem to think that astronomy does follow the scientific method, as you even say yourself:

...based on the experimental science of the redshift and blueshift of light

So what exactly is your point? Some theories in astronomy include as-yet unproven assumptions? That doesn't mean the whole field isn't science, it just means that the experiment hasn't been done yet!

Let me ask you: did you also think that particle physics was a pseudoscience until the Higgs Boson was observed? That was an unproven assumption, which if I'm following your logic, renders the whole field of particle physics a "pseudoscience".

Of course you don't actually think that, because that would be moronic, so could you please enlighten me as to what exactly the point you're trying to make is?

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 13, 2019, 07:01:07 PM »

God I'm so glad this is absolutely not true, otherwise every time I wake up to sleep paralysis and see some crazy shit it would turn out to be real.

I think totallackey said that your senses are the only thing that is real, not everything you sense is real.

77

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?

« on: August 13, 2019, 06:59:25 PM »

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: our senses are not proof of anything.

I am of the opinion our senses are the only thing that is real.

After that, it then becomes one of subjective interpretation of what exactly was sensed.

How can you prove your senses are real if you can only subjectively interpret them?

You can't. This is just an something that every one of us must take for granted in order to have any meaningful discussion about any other topic.

78

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: August 11, 2019, 11:30:56 AM »

Another thing to think about: I grabbed this from stack exchange:

In mathematics, an expression is said to be a closed-form expression if it can be expressed analytically in terms of a finite number of certain "well-known" functions.

From what I've read analytic solutions and closed-form solutions are the same thing.
I could imagine a case like y=x^2, which is definitely closed-form, to not be closed-form to someone like Ptolemy. How do you calculate a square (or sqrt(x), or sin(x)) in 100AD? The answer seems to be that you get a table that someone else wrote and look it up.

79

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: August 11, 2019, 11:18:07 AM »

It says here that he was using numerical computations:

https://books.google.com/books?id=JVhTtVA2zr8C&pg=PA29&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

Then maybe they did use numerical solutions. Like I said - not an expert. I'd need a look at the equations to provide any useful input.

80

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model

« on: August 10, 2019, 09:42:36 PM »

Sort of like of Ptolmy used numerical computations and epicycles to predict the location of the planets?

I'm not well-versed on Ptolemy's model, but it seems to me that it's simple enough model where each body moves around a fixed circle. In this case, each body's motion could be solved analytically, so no need for a numerical solution.