Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #120 on: April 05, 2021, 08:26:36 PM »
I would rather have no laws than adopting your lame tactic of holding up false ones and trying to justifying its massive failures.
What massive failures? Does your GPS not work? Mine does. Do you not have satellite TV? Maybe cable is more of a thing over there, but I have it as do millions of people and I’ve observed the way the dishes are angled differently in countries near the equator, a lot steeper exactly as you’d expect when pointing at a geostationary satellite “above” the equator.

Have you investigated the ISS? You know you can see it from the ground exactly where and when expected?

I’d say those are some pretty massive successes. What can FE predict? Give me one thing.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8629
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #121 on: April 05, 2021, 08:28:06 PM »
Why?  The model works just fine.  In fact, I'm hopping on a flight in couple weeks for a little vacay.  Sure hope those numerical approximations of airflow hold up.

You are mistaking prediction for a simulation of the underlying laws. Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

I can predict that my town will be hot during the summer and cold during the winter, but that has nothing to do with the underlying model or laws that made that happen. Prediction has nothing to do with it.

The Ancient Babylonians could predict the position of the moon and planets based on patterns over the centuries, and had no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion, but it would be foolish to mistake their ability to predict with their knowledge of the underlying laws.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 425
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #122 on: April 05, 2021, 08:32:24 PM »
You are mistaking prediction for a simulation of the underlying laws. Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

Now you're truly grasping for a relevant argument.  Nice work.
Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #123 on: April 05, 2021, 08:36:17 PM »
Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

Splitting the n body problem into multiple 2 body problems is clearly a solution “based on the underlying laws”.
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #124 on: April 05, 2021, 08:42:00 PM »
Why?  The model works just fine.  In fact, I'm hopping on a flight in couple weeks for a little vacay.  Sure hope those numerical approximations of airflow hold up.

You are mistaking prediction for a simulation of the underlying laws. Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

I can predict that my town will be hot during the summer and cold during the winter, but that has nothing to do with the underlying model or laws that made that happen. Prediction has nothing to do with it.

The Ancient Babylonians could predict the position of the moon and planets based on patterns over the centuries, and had no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion, but it would be foolish to mistake their ability to predict with their knowledge of the underlying laws.

We’ve been round this buoy before Tom, and you completely ignored it and waited for the conversation to move on so you didn’t have to address it.

Numerical methods, as used in the various ephemeris models we discussed earlier, are absolutely based on the underlying theories. They are open source as well - you can go to GitHub and look at the code if you want to.

Here’s a snippet of my previous post that you totally ignored:

Quote
Here's the description of DE 102, one of the early and simpler models, taken from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-94-009-7214-8_6.pdf:
Quote
A. Initial Conditions
The starting epoch of the integration was June 28, 1969 (JD 2440400.5), the ephemeris being integrated both forward and backward from this date. The initial conditions were the best available at that time and represented a least squares adjustment to a variety of observational data types. These included: 1) Lunar-laser ranging; 2) Mariner 9 and Viking Orbiter spacecraft ranging; 3) radar-ranging to Mercury, Venus, and Mars; and 4) Meridian circle optical data. These are described in detail in the paper cited above.
B. Equations of Motion
The equations of motion used in the integration included: 1) the n- body forces of the sun, moon, and the nine major planets; 2) the lunar librations; 3) isotropic, PPN-relativistic formulation; and 4) the perturbations from five asteroids. Though a number of the inherent constants have subsequently been modified, it is of importance to mention that the form of the equations of motion in DEl02/LE5l has not been changed in any o·f the more recent ephemerides produced at JPL.

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 425
  • When I grow up I wanna be like Pete
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #125 on: April 05, 2021, 08:42:57 PM »
I would rather have no laws than adopting your lame tactic of holding up false ones and trying to justifying its massive failures.

Reminded me of a post from some time back.  Which model has the 'massive failures' in predicting the path of the ISS observable by anyone on the planet.

Just came across this video that shows the orbital path of the ISS in both sphere and flat earth models.

***recommend muting volume so you dont have to hear the ridiculous added sound effects***



It's a pretty cool animation no matter how you look at it!

The downside is that it doesnt show day/night cycles along with the orbital path.

Curious if anyone has tried to model/visualize ISS paths with sun and moon path throughout the seasons?
Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #126 on: April 05, 2021, 08:44:49 PM »
Numerical approximations are good for prediction, but don't fully simulate it based on the underlying laws.

Splitting the n body problem into multiple 2 body problems is clearly a solution “based on the underlying laws”.

Absolutely true. Also worth pointing out that this isn’t the only technique in use - many models employ time-stepped techniques that don’t rely on 2-body models. Pros and cons of all of them, of course.


Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #127 on: April 05, 2021, 08:58:38 PM »
By Tom's logic, because we are currently unable to computationally and mathematically simulate the nature of human consciousness, consciousness is not real?

But, to determine that the Earth is a sphere, and to accurately compute the circumference of the earth, you need only simple tools and extremely simple math, to deduce a solution. So easy in fact that it was done over 2200 years ago. I would encourage Flat Earthers to conduct the same experiment Eratosthenes did in 200 BC.


*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2677
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #128 on: April 05, 2021, 09:34:58 PM »
But, to determine that the Earth is a sphere, and to accurately compute the circumference of the earth, you need only simple tools and extremely simple math, to deduce a solution. So easy in fact that it was done over 2200 years ago.

Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission acheived the same, with differing methods, in the 1600s and 1700s respectively, arriving at, within reasonable margin of error for the methods, the same result as each other.

As a double-check, if you take the orbit of the ISS to be a perfect circle around a globe, use the published and observed orbital time, and published speed to calculate the circumference travelled by the craft, if you then subtract the stated orbital height above the surface, and recalculate the circumference of that surface, you end up with a figure broadly the same as those derived by the three methods outlined above.

=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

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

Nearly?

Online SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 386
    • View Profile
Re: About the conspiracy
« Reply #129 on: April 05, 2021, 10:30:51 PM »

Norwood and the French Geodesic Mission acheived the same, with differing methods, in the 1600s and 1700s respectively, arriving at, within reasonable margin of error for the methods, the same result as each other.

As a double-check, if you take the orbit of the ISS to be a perfect circle around a globe, use the published and observed orbital time, and published speed to calculate the circumference travelled by the craft, if you then subtract the stated orbital height above the surface, and recalculate the circumference of that surface, you end up with a figure broadly the same as those derived by the three methods outlined above.

To add to the beauty of it, take the formula for centripetal acceleration (a=v2/r) and plug in the speed of the ISS (7700ms-1) and its distance from the centre of the earth (6800km) and you get 8.7ms-2, which is pretty much bang on what you’d expect g to be at the height of its orbit at around 400km from the earth’s surface. Neat.