[totallackey]

You displayed a lack of knowledge about the background which is why I did have to give you a lesson on Tycho and Kepler and the geocentric model . You showed this - post 24 on this thread .

OK you got me on that one... please advise where I showed this lack of knowledge as you put it.

I am still waiting on you to provide compelling evidence for what you believe to be a stationary Earth. I have already given examples for both the rotation of the Earth so please refer back through the discussion for that. You can go into whatever level of detail you wish to in terms of the astronomy side of things.  I will always be able to keep up with you. On that subject.. and just out of interest what experience do you have in using telescopes? 

there is no experimental/observational derivation of his supposed laws

Really... how do you come to that conclusion?  I can provide details of how you can reach an analytical derivation of Keplers 3rd law for example. I will gladly give you instructions if you would like to try it yourself.  I take it you do know what his 3rd law is about?

I would prefer you take the actual math of Kepler, Einstein, and Newton, apply all of it into a CGI image of the supposed solar system and let's just see if it actually puts out on screen what is claimed by science.

I take it you know the math and all required inputs?

[newhorizons]

I would prefer you take the actual math of Kepler, Einstein, and Newton, apply all of it into a CGI image of the supposed solar system and let's just see if it actually puts out on screen what is claimed by science

I don't need to when it has already been done.  Check this out..

https://store.simulationcurriculum.com/products/starry-night-pro-plus-8

You have to buy this (which I have) and I can confirm that it is an excellent product. It does more than just paints pretty pictures of the night sky. It mathematically generates a simulation (=CGI image) of the night sky.  If you check the positions for Jupiters moons for example (or the visibility of the red spot for that matter) using the software and then compare these with what you actually see in a telescope you will find that it provides an almost exact match. So you can use it as an observation planner.

Jupiter is well positioned at the moment in the evening sky so if you have a pair of binoculars handy then I recommend you try it.  You can't see Jupiters GRS in binoculars but you can certainly see the four brightest satellites. Confirming computer predictions using direct observation.  I would say that qualifies as evidence wouldn't you?

I have yet to find any mathematically generated CGI images of a flat Earth however. If one exists then please point me to it.

[newhorizons]

Attached is a screenshot taken from my copy of SN8 to show the positions of the satellites and GRS of Jupiter for tonight.  You can see the GRS just to the left of Jupiters central meridian with the brightest satellites.  If it was clear enough tonight I would be glad to post an actual image of Jupiter taken through the telescope to compare it.

[Tom Bishop]

What makes you think that is based on the laws of Newton, rather than a pattern-based model?

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

And : https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

[newhorizons]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

[Tom Bishop]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

I think that astronomers and mathematicians have a hard time simulating systems with more than two bodies. There are plenty of people who think it is possible, or who link us to various visualizations and programs which might not be based on a full gravity simulation,  but I can't seem to find any statements in the official story telling us who solved it. The stories all seem to say that it's a difficult problem that was never solved.

[newhorizons]

So where does FET do it better where astronomers have failed then Tom? 

To be quite honest I don't really care how any of these simulations work.  Providing they can accurately predict consistently what I am likely to see in my telescope, that is all I need from it.  The mechanics behind it is not that important to me.

I referred earlier to Keplers laws. Specifically to the 3rd law which relates the period of a planets orbit with the distance of the planet from the Sun. This applies too all 8 major planets. You could interpret this as another example of one of your patterns I guess. There are patterns throughout nature and mathematics provides an excellent way of analysing and predicting such patterns.

The solar system comprises n bodies where n is a large and not precisely known number. It is a complex thing for mathematicians and astronomers to work with. But one way or another predicting astronomical events and phenomenon is something we seem to be quite good at now.  What are the planetary orbits if they are not patterns of one form or another regardless of how those patterns come about?

[ChrisTP]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

I think that astronomers and mathematicians have a hard time simulating systems with more than two bodies. There are plenty of people who think it is possible, or who link us to various visualizations and programs which might not be based on a full gravity simulation,  but I can't seem to find any statements in the official story telling us who solved it. The stories all seem to say that it's a difficult problem that was never solved.

It's interesting you mention this, if you recall I linked you to a simulation of 3 bodies (sun, earth and moon) where you could manipulate in real time the velocities, trajectories and mass of the bodies while they orbit;

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

All of this is based on maths and physics (and not predetermined keyframed animations) but I don't have to tell you that you might be sceptical about what's really going on in the code. As it happens, all the code is on github for you to check for yourself what's happening;

https://github.com/phetsims/gravity-and-orbits

If you don't fully understand (which is fine, no judgement) I'd recommend getting someone you trust who does understand to explain it. I haven't fully gone over all of it myself and it's does have a fair few third party dependencies which should also be listed and on github. You could also find the people listed in the credits and maybe ask them about it for more info but to anyone reading this please don't harass them (disclaimer).

Feel free to see if there is actually any foul play going on and if you do find anything that would be 'faking' it do tell, I'd be interested to find out too.

[newhorizons]

Those on the FET side regularly use the 3 body problem as their favourite line of attack for questioning the validity of the heliocentric model. But I have yet to see anything better come from their side to stand up as a viable alternative.

Somerled seems to be convinced that the lack of any direct sensation of Earth motion provides the best evidence for the earth being stationary. Now consider an astronaut located somewhere in interplanetary or even interstellar space travelling at say 17,500 miles an hour.  Looking around him, how would the astronaut be able to detect whether or not he was moving at all? He wouldn't be able to feel himself moving.  Furthermore since there will be nothing but stars all around him in which ever direction he looks, how can he have any sense of direction as we would define it?

We now place the astronaut on a spherical rocky body. How does the astronaut tell whether or not the body is moving in space or not? He can walk about on the body randomly forever without ever reaching an edge or a boundary to the surface. He will see different patterns of stars depending on where on the surface he is standing. The only place he cannot see any stars is directly 'below' him because the body is hiding them from view.

[Tom Bishop]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

I think that astronomers and mathematicians have a hard time simulating systems with more than two bodies. There are plenty of people who think it is possible, or who link us to various visualizations and programs which might not be based on a full gravity simulation,  but I can't seem to find any statements in the official story telling us who solved it. The stories all seem to say that it's a difficult problem that was never solved.

It's interesting you mention this, if you recall I linked you to a simulation of 3 bodies (sun, earth and moon) where you could manipulate in real time the velocities, trajectories and mass of the bodies while they orbit;

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

All of this is based on maths and physics (and not predetermined keyframed animations) but I don't have to tell you that you might be sceptical about what's really going on in the code. As it happens, all the code is on github for you to check for yourself what's happening;

https://github.com/phetsims/gravity-and-orbits

If you don't fully understand (which is fine, no judgement) I'd recommend getting someone you trust who does understand to explain it. I haven't fully gone over all of it myself and it's does have a fair few third party dependencies which should also be listed and on github. You could also find the people listed in the credits and maybe ask them about it for more info but to anyone reading this please don't harass them (disclaimer).

Feel free to see if there is actually any foul play going on and if you do find anything that would be 'faking' it do tell, I'd be interested to find out too.

You linked me to a small Earth Science applet for middle school students: https://phet.colorado.edu/en/contributions/view/3566

[ChrisTP]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

I think that astronomers and mathematicians have a hard time simulating systems with more than two bodies. There are plenty of people who think it is possible, or who link us to various visualizations and programs which might not be based on a full gravity simulation,  but I can't seem to find any statements in the official story telling us who solved it. The stories all seem to say that it's a difficult problem that was never solved.

It's interesting you mention this, if you recall I linked you to a simulation of 3 bodies (sun, earth and moon) where you could manipulate in real time the velocities, trajectories and mass of the bodies while they orbit;

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

All of this is based on maths and physics (and not predetermined keyframed animations) but I don't have to tell you that you might be sceptical about what's really going on in the code. As it happens, all the code is on github for you to check for yourself what's happening;

https://github.com/phetsims/gravity-and-orbits

If you don't fully understand (which is fine, no judgement) I'd recommend getting someone you trust who does understand to explain it. I haven't fully gone over all of it myself and it's does have a fair few third party dependencies which should also be listed and on github. You could also find the people listed in the credits and maybe ask them about it for more info but to anyone reading this please don't harass them (disclaimer).

Feel free to see if there is actually any foul play going on and if you do find anything that would be 'faking' it do tell, I'd be interested to find out too.

You linked me to a small Earth Science applet for middle school students: https://phet.colorado.edu/en/contributions/view/3566

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what your point is here? Are you saying because it's for middle school it's untrustworthy? Or that it's somehow invalidated because it's lower form education? Did you happen to look over the code for this mathematical representation of orbiting bodies already and find foul play?

What difference does it make if the code was made to represent orbits for middle schoolers? Is it or is it not a 3 body orbit based on maths playing out in real time (not predetermined)? You're gunna have to give me more info here I think.

[Tom Bishop]

I don't see that it claims to be a three body problem simulator. It's just an application for a middle school curriculum, like their sophisticated carpet simulator "John Travoltage".

[ChrisTP]

I don't see that it claims to be a three body problem simulator. It's just an application for a middle school curriculum, like their sophisticated carpet simulator "John Travoltage".

This is like saying if you're a terrible carpenter then you're a terrible Knitter... It's cool that you found other representations on their website and all, but maybe focus on the one I linked to you, with all of it's code included.

[totallackey]

I would prefer you take the actual math of Kepler, Einstein, and Newton, apply all of it into a CGI image of the supposed solar system and let's just see if it actually puts out on screen what is claimed by science

I don't need to when it has already been done.  Check this out..

https://store.simulationcurriculum.com/products/starry-night-pro-plus-8

You have to buy this (which I have) and I can confirm that it is an excellent product. It does more than just paints pretty pictures of the night sky. It mathematically generates a simulation (=CGI image) of the night sky.  If you check the positions for Jupiters moons for example (or the visibility of the red spot for that matter) using the software and then compare these with what you actually see in a telescope you will find that it provides an almost exact match. So you can use it as an observation planner.

Jupiter is well positioned at the moment in the evening sky so if you have a pair of binoculars handy then I recommend you try it.  You can't see Jupiters GRS in binoculars but you can certainly see the four brightest satellites. Confirming computer predictions using direct observation.  I would say that qualifies as evidence wouldn't you?

I have yet to find any mathematically generated CGI images of a flat Earth however. If one exists then please point me to it.

I would still appreciate it if you could confirm the the product you offer utilizes the math utilized by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

To do that, you would need to publish the inputs.

[totallackey]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

Just a guess...

What makes him think it is simply pattern inputs is the fact if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein.

[totallackey]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what your point is here? Are you saying because it's for middle school it's untrustworthy? Or that it's somehow invalidated because it's lower form education? Did you happen to look over the code for this mathematical representation of orbiting bodies already and find foul play?

What difference does it make if the code was made to represent orbits for middle schoolers? Is it or is it not a 3 body orbit based on maths playing out in real time (not predetermined)? You're gunna have to give me more info here I think.

It would be helpful for me, anyway, for you to definitively establish the code utilized for this model is, in fact, based on the math presented by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

[newhorizons]

@ Totallackey

I cant confirm what you say because it is not my product. If you want to know more information about the mechanics going on under the surface then I can only recommend you take that up with the developer. All I know is that I have been using SN since version 4 and I know it works.

Incidentally I also use another data source. The Horizons web interface from JPL which liknks into the software that controls my mount. That allows me to track objects like comets, asteroids and even satellites very accurately. They do not follow the same paths as the stars, Moon and planets. So Horizons feeds position data on a per minute basis to the mount so it can track anywhere in the sky as quickly as it needs to to keep a target centered.

[Tim Alphabeaver]

What makes you think that is based on the laws of Newton, rather than a pattern-based model?

I asked you in a different thread about astronomical observations that cannot be pattern-based, such as calculating the trajectory of an asteroid that's coming close to Earth. How could you calculate a close-approach of an asteroid if it's the first time this object has encountered Earth?

What kind of pattern are you talking about here, exactly? The Newtonian approach would of course be simple if you have enough data about the asteroid's velocity and position - you can just whack it into your favourite equation solver and calculate its position at future times to arbitrarily high accuracy with a large enough computer.

[AATW]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

I think that astronomers and mathematicians have a hard time simulating systems with more than two bodies. There are plenty of people who think it is possible, or who link us to various visualizations and programs which might not be based on a full gravity simulation,  but I can't seem to find any statements in the official story telling us who solved it. The stories all seem to say that it's a difficult problem that was never solved.

What you constantly fail to understand on this topic is that while the 'n body problem' has no analytical solution, it can be broken down into multiple 2 body problems which do have an analytical solution and then use numerical methods to solve it. That does make it an imperfect model but a model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Einstein showed that the Newtonian model is imperfect, it breaks down at speeds close to the speed of light, when masses get big and so on. For most practical purposes though it's adequate.

[Tom Bishop]

What makes you think it isn't Tom?

What are patterns based on? And where is the mathematically based CGI image of a flat Earth that seems to be very elusive.

I think that astronomers and mathematicians have a hard time simulating systems with more than two bodies. There are plenty of people who think it is possible, or who link us to various visualizations and programs which might not be based on a full gravity simulation,  but I can't seem to find any statements in the official story telling us who solved it. The stories all seem to say that it's a difficult problem that was never solved.

What you constantly fail to understand on this topic is that while the 'n body problem' has no analytical solution, it can be broken down into multiple 2 body problems which do have an analytical solution and then use numerical methods to solve it. That does make it an imperfect model but a model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. Einstein showed that the Newtonian model is imperfect, it breaks down at speeds close to the speed of light, when masses get big and so on. For most practical purposes though it's adequate.

Find a source other than your own opinion. Show us where it says that the Sun-Earth-Moon system is able to be simulated with the Three Body Problem.

All of the mainstream sources say that it's impossible: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The "numerical solutions" to the three body problem that you read references to are the figure eight and other highly symmetric solutions.