5461

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 27, 2018, 09:37:30 PM »

{snipped for brevity}

I would point out that at best all this shows is that Newtonian gravitation doesn't work to explain celestial motion.

I am glad to see agreement that the Heliocentric System cannot be created or exist under current theory. Celestial Mechanics is in the stone age, without even a working theory.

What else do you have besides Newton? The Solar System is based on Newtonian physics. Einstein's General Relativity isn't any different, and only makes very slight adjustments to Newton's gravity.

From http://milesmathis.com/cm2.html

Unfortunately, it is known by everyone, including them, that Einstein never claimed to have overthrown Newton. Einstein only claimed to have extended Newton's equations by importing time (and therefore mass) differentials into his field. That is, GR is Newton plus SR. And this means that modern physicists have nowhere to hide. Their new field equations do not solve this problem, since motions are still determined by mass interactions. No amount of new math can hide the fact that the Moon is out of balance at New Moon and Full Moon in the three-body problem, no matter whether you try to solve it with Newton's math, Laplace's math, or Einstein's math.

Einstein's gravity predicts essentially the same thing as Newton's gravity. I don't see where you are going with your assertion.

It does NOT however prove that "The Heliocentric System Cannot Even Exist" as you so boldly claim. Can you please present your evidence supporting the statement that a heliocentric solar system cannot exist, and not simply fringe sources proclaiming Newtonian mechanics are incorrect?

Ralph Rene's example with the moon is pretty clear. It's using Newton's own equation.

His reputation as a "crank" is because he says that Newton was wrong. Since you are apparently agreeing with that assessment, that makes you the "crank" as well.

If no one can answer these challenges, then we must conclude that under the current model the Heliocentric System cannot exist.

5462

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 27, 2018, 07:44:00 PM »

The Heliocentric System Cannot Even Exist

That's an interesting claim. Care to back that up?

Look at the failure of the Three Body Problem efforts of astronomers and mathematicians to simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system. The available solutions do not look like heliocentric systems at all. They are unable to create anything that looks like a Sun-Earth-Moon system. They just can't create it.

Others have pointed out the impossibility of Heliocentric motions in other ways:

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/inventions-and-deceptions-hill-sphere/

The impossibility of the Moon’s orbit [according to Newtonian Gravity] was highlighted back in 1979 by Walter C Wright in his book “Gravity is a Push”:

“My conclusion is that the sun and the earth have no pull factor on the moon”



Ralph Rene similarly concluded that Newtonian Gravity was “impossible” in his 1998 book “The Last Skeptic of Science”:







Miles Mathis reviewed the work of Ralph Rene and concluded: “Mr. René is correct”.

    I think we must see that he is correct. We have a real problem here, and the standard-model answer is just one more pathetic dodge.
    … … … …
    Mr. René is correct. Even if the Moon and Earth could theoretically inhabit the same orbit, the Moon would have to be pulled lower at New Moon by the Sun. If it were, it could not re-establish its original distance. Once its distance from the Earth had been increased, its pull from the Earth would be lessened, due to the same equation. It would escape very quickly.

    Another Hole in Celestial Mechanics
    Miles Mathis
    http://milesmathis.com/cm2.html

It is apparent why, in the Restricted Three Body Problem simulations discussed earlier, the moon needs to be of zero mass in those models.

5463

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 27, 2018, 12:00:02 AM »

Yes, progress towards creating the basic orbits seen in the heliocentric system with the ideas of Newton, Kepler, and Copernicus. Because so far, over hundreds of years and the efforts of the greatest minds on earth, it has not been done.

Of course it's been done.  How do you think that deep space probes are able to use gravity assists tool around the solar system?

BTW, what kind of progress have the greatest minds of the FE community made in modeling the FE solar system?

Now you are appealing to NASA and trying to move the conversation to look at something else? Have you gave up already, Markjo?

It is apparent that you are implicitly agreeing that your position is incredibly weak, are backed into a corner, and trying to do anything possible to avoid facing reality.

The Heliocentric System Cannot Be Predicted

The Heliocentric System Cannot Be Created

The Heliocentric System Cannot Even Exist

5464

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 26, 2018, 11:14:46 PM »

Yeah, I know the Runge-Kutta methods and what they are for - you apparently don't.

Going back to the:http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem#Equations  the entire preamble is using mathematical analysis to derive the Hamiltonians which they then use to create a system of differential equations which then need to be integrated - in their case by computer.

You do know what is meant by mathematical analysis, don't you?  Calculus is one of the main processes of mathematical analysis.  If a solution is arrived by trough doing calculus (especial integration) it is an analytic solution, whether or not that integration was done by a machine or not.  Your references are attempting to compute an analytic solution.  Whether or not they use Runge-Kutta methids or not to do the integration.

Poliastro says that the image represents numerical methods for the Restricted Three Body Problem. Are you to assert that you know better than an astrodynamics software developer?

https://twitter.com/poliastro_py/status/993418078036873216

Look at this beautiful plot of several numerical methods for the restricted three body problem taken from Harier et al. "Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I". The use of high order Runge-Kutta methods is pervasive in Celestial Mechanics. Happy Monday!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DclUYMPXcAEOCUF.jpg

Progress can only be made if we assume such wacky scenarios.

Progress? 

Yes, progress towards creating the basic orbits seen in the heliocentric system with the ideas of Newton, Kepler, and Copernicus. Because so far, over hundreds of years and the efforts of the greatest minds on earth, it has not been done.

5465

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 26, 2018, 10:15:47 PM »

Regarding the Pop-Science Magazine Solar System Sim written in Applesoft BASIC

I took a look at this one. It appears to merely be creating 2-body orbits around a static sun. It does not appear to be a three-body or n-body problem simulator.

I placed the code from the last page into an online Applesoft BASIC Emulator here: http://www.calormen.com/jsbasic/

Using the settings Bill gave, I made two Earths, rotating in opposite directions, in the same orbit.



Full settings:

Code: [Select]

Sun-Earth1-Earth2 (3 Objects)

Sun
M1 = 1.9885E30
X1 = 0
Y1 = 0
VX1 = 0
VY1 = 0

Earth 1
M2 = 5.9724E24
X2 = 1.5210E11
Y2 = 0
VX2 = 0
VY2 = 29290

Earth 2
M3 = 5.9724E24
X3 = 0
Y3 = 1.5210E11
VX3 = 29290
VY3 = 0

Scale = 2E11
Time Step = 50000
Here were the results:

5466

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 26, 2018, 06:23:21 PM »

I will come back to your other arguments in a bit. This is the bit that makes it clear:

Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.

This is your distances complaint AGAIN! I've addressed it several times now. Just above here, I worked the math with all the distances included.

I have shown mathematically that those distances cancel.

I showed in the 3D simulation that those distances do not matter.

It is pretty obvious that distances do matter.

Your position: In RET a green arrow suspended in the air at the height of the moon which points at the sun will point in the same direction, regardless of whether the sun is 1 foot from the earth, 1 million miles from the earth, or 100 billion miles from the earth. It will point in the same direction nonetheless!

This is what you are saying, this is what the shady math is saying, and everyone knows that this is NOT TRUE.

5467

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Open the wiki to additional contributors

« on: July 26, 2018, 04:40:03 PM »

Lets just make JRowe an account and send him his credentials. He said that he would be interested in making improvements and changes.

5468

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 26, 2018, 04:42:46 AM »

Okay, I finished watching the video. I kept waiting with anticipation for math to be done under the dimensions of the Round Earth System, as advertised. However, that did not happen. The video mostly consisted of you reading the equations from the paper. The dimensions of the Round Earth System appear nowhere in it. In fact, the author says in the work that they avoided using the RET numbers.

From p. 9:

The value of the angle α is the same for the vectors m, s and z or their corresponding unit vectors, which are used in Eq. (11) to avoid having to know the actual distances of the moon and the sun from the observer.

The dimensions for the Round Earth System are nowhere in the math by the authors of that paper, nor is it in your video when describing the matter.

Secondly, it is apparent to all that the author needs to project images onto a plane close above the observer's head in order to attempt to describe this. It is entirely apparent that the authors cannot "really" explain it.

We may as well just say that the moon and sun are a close distance above the observer's head, as to entertain that.

Thirdly, I wanted to point out that at the 42 minute mark you claim that the distance from the earth to the sun doesn't matter, and the moon will point in the same direction regardless.

Will a green arrow that points at the sun, located at the height of the moon, as seen from earth, point in the same direction regardless of whether the sun was one foot away from the earth or if it were 100,000,000 miles away? Clearly not.

All-in-all the marks for the "Round Earth explanation" are poor, and I intend to point these things out when I get around to making the Wiki article on the subject.

5469

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 26, 2018, 01:58:02 AM »

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Mechanics_Cannot_Predict_The_Solar_System#The_Best_of_the_Best

Do these look like Heliocentric Orbits to you?

Neither of these are attempts at numerical solutions/simulations.  They are both the result of trying to find an analytic solution and run the solution on a computer to test it.  The two approaches use computers but are entirely different.  There is no analytic solution (yet), but numerical solutions exist and are deadly accurate.  You've been told this by many people in this thread.  You're mixing things up because you don't understand what your dealing with.

Incorrect

These are numerical solutions. The Runge-Kutta method is demonstrated in the second image. The Rung-Kutta method is a numerical method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runge%E2%80%93Kutta_methods

In numerical analysis, the Runge–Kutta methods are a family of implicit and explicit iterative methods, which include the well-known routine called the Euler Method, used in temporal discretization for the approximate solutions of ordinary differential equations

https://www.intmath.com/differential-equations/12-runge-kutta-rk4-des.php

Runge-Kutta is a common method for solving differential equations numerically. It's used by computer algebra systems.

My butt simple numerical solution is there for you or anyone else to try.  I'll give you all the help you need to get it going and to understand it.

I seriously doubt that your magazine-provided solar system sim does what you think it does. I will have a look when I get a chance.

5470

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 26, 2018, 01:15:32 AM »

The n-body situations with more than two bodies need bodies of the same mass (or some of the bodies mass-less) because that is the only way to bring equilibrium to the system. Otherwise, with unequal masses, the system attempts to kick out the smallest body, and the system often falls apart entirely. Progress can only be made if we assume such wacky scenarios.

Look into George Hill's work on the Three Body Problem and heliocentric orbits. When you add in a third mass to a two body system, it just goes crazy as the system attempts to kick out the smallest body, often tearing apart the system or destroying it in the process. The only way Hill was able to make any progress at all was by using the Restricted Three Body Problem. The Restricted Three Body Problem assumes that the mass of the moon is zero, and even then, the mass-less moon still goes crazy in its orbits around the earth. The only benefit of the Restricted Three Body Problem and the Mass-less moon is that the moon is no longer ejected from the system. It is confined to what is known as "Hill's Region".

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem



As seen above, the moon will go crazy and do random u-turns.

From the text that accompanies the image:

The simplest case:

It occurs when, the Jacobi constant being negative and big enough, the zero mass body (we shall still call it the Moon) moves in a component of the Hill region which is a disc around one of the massive bodies (the Earth). This fact already implies Hill's rigorous stability result: for all times such a Moon would not be able to escape from this disc. Nevertheless this does not prevent collisions with the Earth.

Other solutions to the Restricted Three Body Problem (which assumes a mass-less moon), as applied to the Sun-Earth-Moon system, are presented here in my article: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Mechanics_Cannot_Predict_The_Solar_System#The_Best_of_the_Best



Do these look like Heliocentric Orbits to you?

5471

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 25, 2018, 11:34:29 PM »

Verification and Validation

Even though our model is not entirely accurate, it recreates with graphical simplicity and mathematical correctness of the N-body simulation.

Hi Tom, why did you ignore the part where they said they recreated the solar system?  That would seem to contradict the thing you are saying. Yet you quoted it. Very, very disturbing b

FFS, read the paper.

As orbit hasn't been observed in the model

The next thing to do with the model is to further research how orbit fits into the n-body problem, and to look at other models in NetLogo that simulate these ideas so that we may identify what ours is missing and why we have not seen orbit.

5472

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 25, 2018, 10:58:37 PM »

What degree of stability are you referring to over what time span?

Any time span. Heliocentric orbits cannot be created in n-body simulations at all.

Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that the bodies are of equal mass or mass-less.

http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/

5473

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 25, 2018, 10:21:30 PM »

The numerical solutions are few and far between, are special cases that require bodies of equal mass or no mass, and cannot create heliocentric models, such as a stable heliocentric earth-moon system rotating around the sun.


Super Computing Challenge

Students participate in a programming challenge to simulate n-body orbits and the solar system:

http://www.supercomputingchallenge.org/14-15/finalreports/21.pdf

Simulation of Planetary Bodies in the Universe (N-Body)
New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge

Our solar system is an N-body system. N-body simulation is the simulation of astral bodies under gravity, using laws of classical mechanics to define how the astral bodies move. The goal of our project is to model the N-body problem in NetLogo. Code defining how astral bodies interact implements the inverse square law and a gravitational constant to calculate gravitational force between them.

Verification and Validation

Even though our model is not entirely accurate, it recreates with graphical simplicity and mathematical correctness of the N-body simulation. Through many many trials, we realize that normal orbits are incredibly complex and hard to obtain through any normal means, and causes us to conclude that our own solar system is an incredible anomaly of the universe

Who would have thought?

The paper discusses various other speculations surrounding their failure to even create basic orbits through "many many trials." What a special anomaly of the universe our solar system is! It is beyond the understanding of human science to create it! Surely its is the solar system that special, rather than something wrong with the ideas that are trying to be simulated.

The Heliocentric Solar System Cannot be Simulated

5474

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System

« on: July 25, 2018, 09:32:01 PM »

You solved all of the the n-body problems? Amazing. Why not release your wonder to the world?

5475

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 25, 2018, 08:35:22 PM »

They need to drum up support for another "mars" mission.

5476

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 25, 2018, 06:24:00 PM »

That's not the Round Earth Model. Since when in RET are images of bodies in space projected onto a plane close above the observer's heads?

5477

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bi-Polar Model: YouTube movement catching on

« on: July 25, 2018, 04:25:32 PM »

What rules did we change? None of the Flat Earth maps were presented with information that research had gone into the continental layouts.

5478

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Query: Age and formation of the Flat Earth

« on: July 24, 2018, 11:08:42 PM »

Pretty good image quality for Cassini's 1 megapixel 1990's digital camera technology.

5479

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Open the wiki to additional contributors

« on: July 24, 2018, 09:51:12 PM »

Perhaps. I certainly think the FAQ should be an accurate representation of Rowbotham's model. It is my understanding that most modern serious FE'ers remain somewhat close to it, and understanding it is a good starting point.

I think TFES is mostly to blame for the standard model. We did not have all of the information when the movement restarted. Unfortunately, the works from Lady Blount's Universal Zetetic Society did not really become available online until relatively recently. If we had all of the literature and research from the start I feel we would likely have been a bi-polar Flat Earth Society from the beginning and a true continuation which spent years further developing those theories rather than the monopole one. They really did research a lot of the issues after Rowbotham, as a continuing research organization, keeping up with current scientific developments such as discovery of the South Pole. I don't think Samuel Shenton had much of the UZS information available to him, either.

The history of the society is still a bit of a mystery and we are sort of still piecing the it all together from the bits and pieces we have. Before Rowbotham's Earth Not a Globe it seems the Flat Earth model had three poles. Rowotham's monopole model may have been an empirical decision for the time, due to lack of data. Figuring out the workings of those other models is a continuing project that will evolve in the Wiki.

Rowbotham's standard model will stand, however, until another one is sufficiently ready to take its place, and there is community buy-in. I think everyone can agree that this is reasonable. Most of the things we talk about don't have anything to do with the particular topology model used, and I don't see why it would prevent anyone from wanting to contribute.

5480

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Open the wiki to additional contributors

« on: July 24, 2018, 11:04:12 AM »

Maybe it just needs to be more clear for them:

Much of the model in the Wiki is basically my interpretation of Rowbotham. I am the one who wrote most of those pages, based on my own ideas, Rowbotham, and the loose community consensus from the other forum over previous years. I don't care at all if your ideas accompany or supersede my own. In fact, I encourage it. It's not hard to pick out areas where there may be more evidence for a different interpretation of things. If you put in your evidence and interpretation for something, even at the very top of one of the pages, there will likely be zero disagreement. No one is going to delete your content.

For the FAQ we present to the public, we just need some basic community consensus first. We can't have a mish-mash of monopole, bi-polar, and dual earth models in that one. Right? We can certainly link to the other models in there to start, strengthen our current pages for the general model elsewhere, and create new pages as need be. Evidence will be collected and winds will shift.

Documenting is the first step.