*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2695
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #80 on: April 02, 2021, 05:56:52 PM »
You continue to miss the point - perhaps deliberately. I do not contest the notion that a government is capable of telling the truth. I contest the notion that a government will always tell the truth. That is the cornerstone of your argument ...

No, it is not.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13210
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #81 on: April 02, 2021, 10:48:43 PM »
My question was how they could feel weightless for prolonged periods of time without being in orbit around a round earth.
I answered this question before you asked it. For all intents and purposes, they would be "in orbit", and the weightlessness of UA must be identical to that perceived in the RET gravitational model (otherwise, the base principles under which RET operates break down, and you have a much bigger problem on your hands).

No, it is not.
Excellent! You've just lowered the quality of your argument to the point where we no longer have to pretend to consider it seriously. Let's summarise your self-debunk:
  • Governments always tells the truth, therefore they are telling the truth now, too
  • Well, okay, the governments don't always tell the truth, but a government always tells the truth on certain subjects
  • Well, it is not actually important to my argument that any government always tells the truth about anything at all

Since you have now denied the core premise of your argument, I will kindly ask that you stop trying to waste our time with arguments from personal credibility.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2021, 11:15:25 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #82 on: April 03, 2021, 02:04:52 AM »
Quote
they would be "in orbit", and the weightlessness of UA must be identical to that perceived in the RET gravitational model (otherwise, the base principles under which RET operates break down, and you have a much bigger problem on your hands).

The problem is since the effects of UA are identical to gravity, how could weightlessness be achieved in a UA environment? 

There would have to be a way of neutralizing or cancelling out the effects of UA for the persons who are in orbit.
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #83 on: April 03, 2021, 06:20:48 AM »
I answered this question before you asked it. For all intents and purposes, they would be "in orbit", and the weightlessness of UA must be identical to that perceived in the RET gravitational model (otherwise, the base principles under which RET operates break down, and you have a much bigger problem on your hands).

That doesn’t answer the question. As fisherman says, if you’re saying that UA is the cause of everybody and everything on earth feeling 1g, how are our astronauts maintaining a constant distance from the earth’s surface without also accelerating at 1g in the same way? How is their motion different from, say, an airliner flying above the earth’s surface? Why would they feel weightless, when a passenger on the airliner doesn’t?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13210
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #84 on: April 03, 2021, 01:07:09 PM »
if you’re saying that UA is the cause of everybody and everything on earth feeling 1g
This is the opposite of what's the case. In order to perceive 1g of acceleration, an observer reasonably close to the Earth must not be directly affected by UA. In other words, the relative acceleration between the observer and the medium they're in must be 1g. If both the Earth and the observer were affected by UA, their relative acceleration would be 0g (ignoring relativistic effects for simplicity).
« Last Edit: April 03, 2021, 01:08:43 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1051
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #85 on: April 03, 2021, 01:23:17 PM »
Yep, that makes sense.

Where I get confused is where the boundary would be between observers close to earth (at least as high as highest air balloon, planes etc) and those who do not feel the effects of 'g' and are accelerating upward with the earth to feel weightless.

Are there available data that could be looked at to test or narrow down where that transition might lie? Flight logs/observed velocities of launching rockets maybe?

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #86 on: April 03, 2021, 01:25:29 PM »
if you’re saying that UA is the cause of everybody and everything on earth feeling 1g
This is the opposite of what's the case. In order to perceive 1g of acceleration, an observer reasonably close to the Earth must not be directly affected by UA. In other words, the relative acceleration between the observer and the medium they're in must be 1g. If both the Earth and the observer were affected by UA, their relative acceleration would be 0g (ignoring relativistic effects for simplicity).

Ok, I see what you mean. My point was what is different for the passengers on an airliner above a flat earth compared to an astronaut in a satellite above a flat earth? Why would one feel just the same as they do on the earths surface but the other feel weightless?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13210
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #87 on: April 03, 2021, 01:32:45 PM »
Are there available data that could be looked at to test or narrow down where that transition might lie? Flight logs/observed velocities of launching rockets maybe?
Not currently, no.

My point was what is different for the passengers on an airliner above a flat earth compared to an astronaut in a satellite above a flat earth? Why would one feel just the same as they do on the earths surface but the other feel weightless?
There are multiple hypotheses, none properly substantiated as of yet. I believe the leading one among those who subscribe to this model is that the Earth's mass somehow shields nearby objects from the effects of UA, similarly to how a sufficiently large/heavy object would shield objects downstream from a water current. As far as I'm concerned, it's better to say that this is an unknown.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #88 on: April 03, 2021, 02:09:28 PM »
There are multiple hypotheses, none properly substantiated as of yet. I believe the leading one among those who subscribe to this model is that the Earth's mass somehow shields nearby objects from the effects of UA, similarly to how a sufficiently large/heavy object would shield objects downstream from a water current. As far as I'm concerned, it's better to say that this is an unknown.

A straight answer to a straight question. Much appreciated.

That’s a massive ‘unknown’. Does the coherence of the well studied field of orbital mechanics, with all the nuances of things like Hohmann transfers, geo stationary orbits etc, not give you pause for contemplation?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 13210
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #89 on: April 03, 2021, 02:15:13 PM »
Does the coherence of the well studied field of orbital mechanics, with all the nuances of things like Hohmann transfers, geo stationary orbits etc, not give you pause for contemplation?
It certainly does. If I ever become a zealot for one side, a part of me will have died. I do strongly lean towards FET, but I do not consider it gospel by any stretch of the imagination. From where I'm sitting, it looks like both sides have their serious issues. I do my best* to acknowledge and improve on the issues with my own approach.

* - As with many things that involve fleshy human brains, your mileage may vary on this.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8750
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #90 on: April 05, 2021, 11:08:30 AM »
Does the coherence of the well studied field of orbital mechanics, with all the nuances of things like Hohmann transfers, geo stationary orbits etc, not give you pause for contemplation?

Considering that celestial mechanics doesn't work with more than two bodies, it doesn't sound too coherent to me.

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #91 on: April 05, 2021, 11:17:31 AM »

Considering that celestial mechanics doesn't work with more than two bodies, it doesn't sound too coherent to me.

And aerodynamics, by the same absurd measure, doesn’t work with compressible, turbulent airflow. Which means there’s no way engineers can design aircraft that fly.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8750
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #92 on: April 05, 2021, 11:40:21 AM »

Considering that celestial mechanics doesn't work with more than two bodies, it doesn't sound too coherent to me.

And aerodynamics, by the same absurd measure, doesn’t work with compressible, turbulent airflow. Which means there’s no way engineers can design aircraft that fly.

Considering that those comparisons have nothing to do with each other, I just see an invalid response.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 11:49:33 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #93 on: April 05, 2021, 11:48:35 AM »
Considering that those comparisons have nothing to do with each other, I just see an invalid response.

You are asserting that the fact that the n-body problem can’t usually be solved algebraically for cases where n>2 means that it is somehow flawed. Aside from being an utterly ridiculous misunderstanding of maths and physics, this also misses the point that numerous equations that occur in physics, engineering and other fields also cannot be solved via anything other than numerical methods. Hence my point about aerodynamics - we can’t solve the navier-stokes equations for most real world cases. This doesn’t make them wrong, just hard to solve. So we use various techniques, usually numerical methods or practical experiments with wind tunnels, to get reasonable approximations to work with.

Your lack of understanding of the n-body problem, or of differential equations in general, does not invalidate the underlying theory.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8750
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #94 on: April 05, 2021, 11:54:46 AM »
Considering that those comparisons have nothing to do with each other, I just see an invalid response.

You are asserting that the fact that the n-body problem can’t usually be solved algebraically for cases where n>2 means that it is somehow flawed. Aside from being an utterly ridiculous misunderstanding of maths and physics, this also misses the point that numerous equations that occur in physics, engineering and other fields also cannot be solved via anything other than numerical methods. Hence my point about aerodynamics - we can’t solve the navier-stokes equations for most real world cases. This doesn’t make them wrong, just hard to solve. So we use various techniques, usually numerical methods or practical experiments with wind tunnels, to get reasonable approximations to work with.

Your lack of understanding of the n-body problem, or of differential equations in general, does not invalidate the underlying theory.

Are you saying that when an asteroid floats around the solar system in the presence of the Sun and Jupiter that it's going to use a numerical approximation that only uses two bodies at a time or smudges the underlying laws?

No. What you proposed is utterly incoherent. The ability to solve the problem of multiple bodies with approximation has no bearing on actually solving the issue to describe the solar system.

It simply can't be done.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Quote
From p.89 of Atmospheric and Space Flight Dynamics: Modeling and Simulation with MATLAB (Archive) by Professor Ashish Tewari (bio) we read:

  “ In the next section, it will be shown that two additional integrals can be obtained when N = 2 from the considerations of relative motion of the two bodies. Hence, a two-body problem is analytically solvable. However, with N > 2, the number of unknown motion variables exceeds the total number of integrals; thus, no analytical solution exists for the N-body problem when N > 2. Due to this reason, we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion. The best we can do is to approximate the solution to the N-body problem either by a set of two-body solutions or by numerical solutions. ”

It doesn't work. And the planets aren't going to use the approximations that are necessary to get the N-Body problems to work in a real scenario.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 11:59:53 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #95 on: April 05, 2021, 12:09:47 PM »

Are you saying that when an asteroid floats around the solar system in the presence of the Sun and Jupiter that it's going to use a numerical approximation that only uses two bodies at a time or smudges the underlying laws?


Of course not. It will move according to the forces acting on it, just like an air molecule flowing past the wing of an aircraft. Neither situation can be modelled algebraically, but they still happen. And they can be modelled very successfully with numerical methods.

Why are you treating the n-body problem differently to all the many other complex problems that require numerical method solutions? Or do you think that the navier stokes equations are wrong as well?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8750
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #96 on: April 05, 2021, 12:16:15 PM »
You haven't shown that the issue with three bodies is anything like those other situations. I don't see a valid comparison.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote
Martin Gutzwiller

The end section of a paper titled Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem (Archive) by physicist Martin C. Gutzwiller (bio) concludes that Newton's laws are not a sufficient explanation:

  “ The three-body problem teaches us a sobering lesson about our ability to comprehend the outside world in terms of a few basic mathematical relations. Many physicists, maybe early in their careers, had hopes of coordinating their field of interest, if not all of physics, into some overall rational scheme. The more complicated situations could then be reduced to some simpler models in which all phenomena would find their explanation. This ideal goal of the scientific enterprise has been promoted by many distinguished scientists [see Weinberg’s (1992) Dream of a Final Theory, with a chapter ‘‘Two Cheers for Reductionism’’]....Many physicists may be tempted to see in Newton’s equations of motion and his universal gravitation a sufficient explanation for the three-body problem, with the details to be worked out by the technicians. But even a close look at the differential equations (29) and (30) does not prepare us for the idiosyncracies of the lunar motion, nor does it help us to understand the orbits of asteroids in the combined gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter.

The actual three body problem doesn't work to explain the orbits of asteroids under the combined gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter.

Yet you continue to post that we can just approximate it, while also admitting that the real bodies in the solar system aren't going to use approximations. Absurd.

« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #97 on: April 05, 2021, 12:52:07 PM »
Lack of a solution to a multi-body problem disproves round earth yet lack of a simple curve equation doesn't disprove EA.  Quite interesting logic.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8750
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #98 on: April 05, 2021, 01:09:49 PM »
The three body problem has no comparison with Parsifal's equation. The difference in effort and resources is substantial. The greatest mathematicians in history have been unable to get the RE astronomy system to work. It is quite an embarrassing failure.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2021, 01:12:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Iceman

  • *
  • Posts: 1051
  • where there's smoke there's wires
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #99 on: April 05, 2021, 01:26:46 PM »
Branding math for orbital calculations as an embarrassing failure that doesn't "work" seems rather disingenuous given we've sent orbiters, landed probes and/or rovers on a large number of objects in the solar system, and have established continuous monitoring of solar activity by installing satellites at lagrange points.