The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: stevecanuck on March 19, 2021, 10:10:06 PM

Title: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stevecanuck on March 19, 2021, 10:10:06 PM

This is NOT to ask what FET can or can not explain, but to ask if there's something RET and the existence of the universe fails to explain. I believe RET has perfectly logical and provable explanations for the following (I have undoubtedly missed some). So, to reiterate, are there any phenomena that RET either can't explain or contradicts?

gravity
seasons
day and night
light and dark distribution
eccentricity, obliquity, and precession per Milankovitch cycles
area of continents and seas
distance from any point A to any point B on earth
direction from any point A to any point B on earth
continental drift
geologic strata
tides
eclipses
different stars visible in north vs south
moon waxing on right in the north and on left in the south
ocean currents
coriolis effect
weather patterns
magnetic field
space travel
all satellite functions such as GPS, satellite phone, satellite radio
millions of photos of earth from space

and all without inventing new phenomena such as EA and UA. 

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 19, 2021, 10:24:44 PM
There's always going to be something that science can't explain - that's an inevitable consequence of finding out more about our world and the universe around it. The alt science brigade, whether it's quack medicine or, as is the case here, FET proponents, seize on either past mistakes or uncertainties in current thinking as evidence that their ideas might be valid. It's a bogus argument, of course, because FET doesn't stand up to any scrutiny at all, and there's nothing observable that is in conflict with the earth being spherical.

To your point, the most obvious unknown aspect of modern physics is probably dark energy, which is a very new, unproven hypothesis intended to explain the unexpected expansion of the universe. Which in no way whatsoever means the world is flat.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: fortytwo on March 20, 2021, 08:56:19 AM
Gravity is the base for RET but is not explained by it, so it should not be part of the list. IMHO it is known how gravity works (at least locally) but not what gravity exactly is.
It could also be called "invented phenomena" like EA and UA.
The difference to EA and UA is that the theory of gravity is well defined. One can calculate with it and make prediction. So gravity is testable which is not the case for any of the FE forces.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 20, 2021, 09:41:28 AM
Right. You could say that we have hypothesised that mass attracts and called it gravity without any explanation as to why. In that sense it’s as much as an invention as UA.

The difference is that gravity explains why the earth is a sphere and why all coherent objects above a certain mass are. It explains how planets and stars form. It explains why the planets orbit as they do and can predict their paths - which led to the discovery of Neptune. And it explains the variations in gravitational force we observe in different locations.

UA doesn’t do any of this and the last of those is explained either by denying it or by the invention of another as hoc unexplained mechanism.

Even if we didn’t understand what “powers” gravity it would still be a very useful model of reality. Although didn’t Einstein go quite a long way to explaining the mechanism?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 20, 2021, 02:11:18 PM
Right. You could say that we have hypothesised that mass attracts and called it gravity without any explanation as to why. In that sense it’s as much as an invention as UA.

The difference is that gravity explains why the earth is a sphere and why all coherent objects above a certain mass are. It explains how planets and stars form. It explains why the planets orbit as they do and can predict their paths - which led to the discovery of Neptune. And it explains the variations in gravitational force we observe in different locations.

UA doesn’t do any of this and the last of those is explained either by denying it or by the invention of another as hoc unexplained mechanism.

Even if we didn’t understand what “powers” gravity it would still be a very useful model of reality. Although didn’t Einstein go quite a long way to explaining the mechanism?

Indeed. I'd also point that, whilst gravity isn't fully understood, it is entirely coherent with other physical phenomena and consistent with our observations. It also differs enormously from UA in that gravity is a force, and therefore requires no transfer of energy unless things are moving along the force axis (note that orbits therefore require no energy, as the velocity is perpendicular to the force). UA requires some mysterious and unknown energy source to keep us perpetually accelerating, and is at odds with the variance in g measured at different points on the planet.

EA is also completely at odds with what we observe, and isn't even consistent with itself. It is a distortion of light, but yet causes no apparent distortion of the stars as they rotate majestically around the celestial poles. It is a vertical bending of light beams, and yet there is no single solution for the amount of 'bend' that would provide a satisfactory explanation of the observed altitude angle of, say, Polaris at every latitude between the equator and the north pole. RET explains those observed angles perfectly - light travels in straight lines, notwithstanding refraction close to the horizon, and the curved surface of the earth perfectly explains the changing altitude angle with latitude - the observed angles all point in the same direction when you plot them on a curved earth.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stevecanuck on March 20, 2021, 03:48:27 PM
Right. You could say that we have hypothesised that mass attracts and called it gravity without any explanation as to why. In that sense it’s as much as an invention as UA.

The difference is that gravity explains why the earth is a sphere and why all coherent objects above a certain mass are. It explains how planets and stars form. It explains why the planets orbit as they do and can predict their paths - which led to the discovery of Neptune. And it explains the variations in gravitational force we observe in different locations.

UA doesn’t do any of this and the last of those is explained either by denying it or by the invention of another as hoc unexplained mechanism.

Even if we didn’t understand what “powers” gravity it would still be a very useful model of reality. Although didn’t Einstein go quite a long way to explaining the mechanism?

Tides as caused by the moon's gravity and eccentricity (Milankovitch) are two more phenomena that comport with RET and gravitational effects 100%.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/

Also, there's something about UA that I've never seen discussed, which is the importance of PERFECT perpendicularity of the UA force and the shape of the both sides of a flat earth. Just think of pushing something flat with an accelerating car and of how easy it would be to get slightly off center and cause said flat object to start spinning. Also the weight of the flat side would have to be evenly distributed to keep from spinning. It's an absurd concept no matter how you approach it.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Mothra on March 21, 2021, 04:11:34 PM
RET can not explain the power of Shobijin to summon me.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stevecanuck on March 21, 2021, 04:51:02 PM
RET can not explain the power of Shobijin to summon me.

Give them my regards next time you see them.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: tusstoss on March 21, 2021, 07:14:21 PM
You don't have to explain or prove anything if you believe!
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2021, 07:26:20 PM
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 21, 2021, 09:14:55 PM
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Wow. How many times are you not going to be able to understand this? If you still don’t understand that there are numerical solutions to this problem which work perfectly well for all practical purposes then I don’t know how to help you.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2021, 09:28:07 PM
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Wow. How many times are you not going to be able to understand this? If you still don’t understand that there are numerical solutions to this problem which work perfectly well for all practical purposes then I don’t know how to help you.

You are incorrect about your assumption that numerical solutions fully simulate gravity - https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 21, 2021, 09:41:30 PM
Please stop straw manning.
I said the solutions work for all practical purposes.
We just put a rover on Mars so they seem to work pretty well.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 21, 2021, 10:19:42 PM
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Longtitube on March 21, 2021, 10:48:52 PM
Tom, in your quest for mathematical completeness I would suggest you avoid travelling anywhere by aircraft. These machines are designed by engineers who lack a 100% complete mathematical solution to the design of the structures and instead use numerical solutions. This is obviously shoddy work, just like the lack of absolute precision in the problems you mention in the wiki.

For that matter, numerical solutions are also used in designing your car: better stop driving too. Even when a numerical solution approaches 99.95% accuracy it's not to be trusted? This is ridiculous, such ignorance of practical mathematics is embarassing.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 21, 2021, 10:50:41 PM
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

Because of;

The hundreds of years of practical experience of it,
the measurements which correspond with it, and
the extensive space travel, since the 1960s or so, which has had flight paths based upon it.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Mothra on March 22, 2021, 01:02:10 AM
If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

And the Bishop's constant is ??????????????

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 22, 2021, 06:44:39 AM
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?
What do you think is the significance if it doesn’t exist? I mean, there’s no way of trisecting an angle either. Does that mean thirds don’t exist? ???

The thing you seem to repeatedly not understand is that a model doesn’t have to be perfect to be a good enough model of reality to be extremely useful.

The numerical models which exist are good enough to land a rover on Mars or send a probe to Pluto, I’d say that’s good enough for all practical purposes.

Meanwhile, FE can’t make a single prediction about anything which matches reality. Your “equation” of EA has no derivation and contains a constant which is unknown. New models only become accepted and replace old ones if they are shown to be a better model of reality than the ones which exist. That’s how the geocentric got replaced by the heliocentric one. As equipment got better and observations more accurate the heliocentric model was shown to be better.

Your model isn’t taken seriously because...well, there isn’t really a coherent FE model. So coming back to the thread title there probably are things which RET doesn’t have completely figured out. Actually, there must be - otherwise all the scientist would be out of a job. But it’s demonstrably a better model than a FE one which has no predictive power and relies on a series of ad hoc often contradictory unexplained mechanisms as well as a lot of conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 22, 2021, 06:49:12 AM
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

This is utterly preposterous I'm afraid.

Firstly, you have completely misunderstood the papers you are quoting. In this one, for example - https://publications.mfo.de/handle/mfo/1355 (https://publications.mfo.de/handle/mfo/1355) - the 'standard algorithm' used to calculate the example where the moon is ejected from the three-body system is an explicit Euler solution, which is in itself a numerical method - a simplification needed to deal with the complexity of the set of PDEs. That you are holding this up as some sort of 'correct' answer and implying that the authors have tinkered with some parameters until they got to the answer they wanted shows a total failure to comprehend the information you have used in the wiki.

In the example in the paper the entire point was that, over time, implicit and explicit Euler methods do not conserve the energy of a system - there is a small error at each step that aggregates over time. This makes them poor choices for the long-term simulation of an n-body problem. The symplectic method used does conserve energy, and is therefore better in this regards, even though it is far from perfect.

Partial differential equations are extremely difficult to solve algebraically except for certain very specific cases, but they are everywhere in scientific and engineering problems at the micro and macro levels. It is impossible, for example, to solve the Navier Stokes equations for turbulent / viscous, compressible flow over an aircraft, but this is the information needed to accurately calculate lift and drag. And yet our aircraft don't fall from the sky; this is because aerodynamicists make judicious use of wind tunnels and various numerical methods, often involving vast computing power, to approximate solutions. Their inability to solve the equations by algebra does not make aviation impossible.   

There's nothing wrong with not understanding this stuff - it's complex, and well into undergraduate maths / physics / engineering territory - but it might be worth getting your assertions checked over by somebody who does understand it before publishing a wiki article about it.

 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stevecanuck on March 22, 2021, 09:18:23 PM
There are many problems with RE. The biggest problem with RE is that they can't get their gravity system to make orbits with more than two bodies - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Okay, you tried to give one. Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals, I would call that a swing and a miss. However, since there are "many problems with RE", you should be able to simply give us the next one on your list.

P.S. Add the fact that the moon has impact craters to my original list.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2021, 09:24:18 PM
Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals

I don't see any quality. AATW, Tunemi, SteelyBob are citing themselves as their source versus the physicists who say directly that the three body problem does not work.

Professor Ashish Tewari said (https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions) "we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion"

They simply can't do it. Don't pretend that you are a better authority than he is.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: WTF_Seriously on March 22, 2021, 09:41:15 PM

Professor Ashish Tewari said (https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions) "we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion"


Did you miss the little point I emphasized?  Funny how he didn't go on to say that this definitively proves the n-body system is false.  I wonder why.

You can't even give the equation of a single curved line.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stevecanuck on March 22, 2021, 09:42:06 PM
Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals

I don't see any quality. AATW, Tunemi, SteelyBob are citing themselves as their source versus the physicists who say directly that the three body problem does not work.

Professor Ashish Tewari said (https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions) "we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion"

They simply can't do it. Don't pretend that you are a better authority than he is.

They seemed to explain that quite thoroughly. I guess pi doesn't exist because an exact number can't be determined for it.

Anyway, were still waiting to hear of the other "many problems".
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 22, 2021, 10:03:10 PM
I don't see any quality. AATW, Tunemi, SteelyBob are citing themselves as their source versus the physicists who say directly that the three body problem does not work.

No, I did not. I referred to activities which showed that it works well enough to send stuff around and to other planets. The citations are in libraries worldwide, and in multiple records, in multiple form, of multiple space flights.

AATW said much the same, as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 22, 2021, 10:04:39 PM
Given the excellent quality of the rebuttals

I don't see any quality. AATW, Tunemi, SteelyBob are citing themselves as their source versus the physicists who say directly that the three body problem does not work.

Professor Ashish Tewari said (https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions) "we cannot mathematically prove certain observed facts (such as the stability of the solar system) concerning N-body motion"

They simply can't do it. Don't pretend that you are a better authority than he is.

Are you seriously, publicly doubling down on this one? Unbelievable. Nice appeal to authority at the end there as well, which is of course both a schoolboy debating fallacy and completely misses the mark, given that we all entirely agree with the authority in question, whereas you just don't understand or are wilfully misrepresenting what he is saying.

It's pretty astonishing that as a flat earth proponent you are quoting somebody who is referring to the stability of the solar system as one of many 'certain observed facts', but let's park that for the time being.

Tewari's quote in full, from your own wiki:

Quote
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.


The problem, as he himself explains in your own wiki quote , is not that planets can't do what they are observed to do, it's that you simply can't solve the problem algebraically. As I pointed out, that is true of countless complex science and engineering problems involving PDEs, and is in no way indicative of them not being true. If you really want citations, check out the Clay Millennium prizes, one of which is a particular aspect of the N-S equation solution. 21 years on, and nobody has claimed it. And yet our aircraft still fly...

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 22, 2021, 11:04:32 PM
I don't see any quality. AATW, Tunemi, SteelyBob are citing themselves as their source versus the physicists who say directly that the three body problem does not work.

Weirdly, you seem to be disagreeing with me while quoting someone who says exactly what I’m trying to explain. There is no analytical solution, but there are numerical solutions.
If you continue not to be able to understand this then I’m not sure how to help, this has been explained to you in multiple previous threads.

We clearly have very different definitions of something which “does not work”. The rover currently sitting on Mars and the pictures we got back from a probe sent to Pluto tells me that the solutions we do have work rather well. Meanwhile, I note you dodged the question about what predictive power FE has.

The authority you quote by the way is a Professor in a Department of Aerospace Engineering who has written multiple books about space flight, so do you cede to his authority on that and therefore the shape of the earth or are you simply cherry picking again?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: jack44556677 on March 23, 2021, 03:17:41 AM
Sure, ignore the three body paradox.

How about the creation of spherical balls of matter in the first place (in order to have any systems, of any number, at all).

None of the models can do that without invoking massive amounts of speculative fiction.

Stars, planets, you name it.  Not without "supermassive black holes" and worse...
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 23, 2021, 07:26:19 AM
Sure, ignore the three body paradox.

How about the creation of spherical balls of matter in the first place (in order to have any systems, of any number, at all).

None of the models can do that without invoking massive amounts of speculative fiction.

Stars, planets, you name it.  Not without "supermassive black holes" and worse...

We have the physical, observational, and anecdotal proof of its shape from over 60 years of space flights around our planet.

The presence of only speculation about its origin and formation is not a disproof of its current shape.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: jack44556677 on March 23, 2021, 07:52:04 AM
I don't accept data that requires such abject appeal to authority (cannot be validated / verified independently), but even assuming you do AND that the earth is a sphere (and everything else in the heavens, to boot) doesn't help us explain what is (or why it is) through theory.

I would like to be clear that I think this entire thread is a farce (very much related, if not quintessentially demonstrative, of what JSS is certain does not exist in the "zealous" thread). 

RET is not a thing and surely if it was it wouldn't contain the totality of all the universe within it.  We are merely criticizing creation mythology that is disingenuously/erroneously passed off as science from childhood.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 23, 2021, 08:38:24 AM
I don't accept data that requires such abject appeal to authority (cannot be validated / verified independently)

That's great. Show us some data that you do accept, then, and show the independent validation/verification of it. More than one of us have asked for details of the "research" you have done. Ideal time to tell us.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 23, 2021, 09:26:31 AM
Sure, ignore the three body paradox.

It's not a paradox. It's called the 'three body problem'. It's a maths problem that can't be solved algebraically and has solutions that tend to be chaotic in nature, meaning that small perturbations in starting conditions result in large changes in outcome. It's not paradoxical.


How about the creation of spherical balls of matter in the first place (in order to have any systems, of any number, at all).

None of the models can do that without invoking massive amounts of speculative fiction.

Stars, planets, you name it.  Not without "supermassive black holes" and worse...

Whilst there are indeed huge aspects of how things came to be that remain unexplained, things like spherical planets etc are at least consistent and coherent with our current thinking. How a flat earth came to be would be equally mysterious and unanswered and, given the total lack of coherence and enormous logical leaps required, far more speculative and fictitious.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on March 23, 2021, 10:54:16 AM
I see that you conceded that numerical solutions do not fully simulate gravity. If the greatest mathematicians have not been able to get this gravity system to work, why should anyone believe that this system exists?

This is utterly preposterous I'm afraid.

Firstly, you have completely misunderstood the papers you are quoting. In this one, for example - https://publications.mfo.de/handle/mfo/1355 (https://publications.mfo.de/handle/mfo/1355) - the 'standard algorithm' used to calculate the example where the moon is ejected from the three-body system is an explicit Euler solution, which is in itself a numerical method - a simplification needed to deal with the complexity of the set of PDEs. That you are holding this up as some sort of 'correct' answer and implying that the authors have tinkered with some parameters until they got to the answer they wanted shows a total failure to comprehend the information you have used in the wiki.

In the example in the paper the entire point was that, over time, implicit and explicit Euler methods do not conserve the energy of a system - there is a small error at each step that aggregates over time. This makes them poor choices for the long-term simulation of an n-body problem. The symplectic method used does conserve energy, and is therefore better in this regards, even though it is far from perfect.

Partial differential equations are extremely difficult to solve algebraically except for certain very specific cases, but they are everywhere in scientific and engineering problems at the micro and macro levels. It is impossible, for example, to solve the Navier Stokes equations for turbulent / viscous, compressible flow over an aircraft, but this is the information needed to accurately calculate lift and drag. And yet our aircraft don't fall from the sky; this is because aerodynamicists make judicious use of wind tunnels and various numerical methods, often involving vast computing power, to approximate solutions. Their inability to solve the equations by algebra does not make aviation impossible.   

There's nothing wrong with not understanding this stuff - it's complex, and well into undergraduate maths / physics / engineering territory - but it might be worth getting your assertions checked over by somebody who does understand it before publishing a wiki article about it.
Next time I believe you could spare us the long winded sentences and simply state the following:

"There is no numerical solution to the n-body problem."
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 23, 2021, 11:04:09 AM
Next time I believe you could spare us the long winded sentences and simply state the following:

"There is no numerical solution to the n-body problem."

Well, no I couldn't, because that's almost the precise opposite of what I said. There are almost no algebraic solutions to the n-body problem, aside from certain very specific unique cases, and almost every other solution is a numeric one of some kind.

Moreover, it is important to understand that the example Tom is using to highlight his point is in itself a numeric solution - he has completely failed to understand that, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: iamcpc on March 23, 2021, 07:04:25 PM
Because of;

The hundreds of years of practical experience of it,
the measurements which correspond with it, and
the extensive space travel, since the 1960s or so, which has had flight paths based upon it.

Here is an example:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg


at the 2.52 minute mark which represents our solar system according to modern physics I notice that none of the marbles turned into moons and orbited other planets.

at the 4:40 mark he tries to demonstrate the three body system but it sure looks to me like both marbles are just orbiting the "sun" in that example. One marble does not do more than bump into the other once or twice. They never form what to me looks like a three body system which exists in our solar system with the sun, the earth, and the moon.

From a mathematical perspective we are unable to explain how our moon orbits our earth while the entire earth moon system also orbits the sun.

If we are unable to explain how this three body system works questioning how our 293857298375 body solar system works is not so illogical
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 23, 2021, 07:48:20 PM

at the 2.52 minute mark which represents our solar system according to modern physics I notice that none of the marbles turned into moons and orbited other planets.

at the 4:40 mark he tries to demonstrate the three body system but it sure looks to me like both marbles are just orbiting the "sun" in that example. One marble does not do more than bump into the other once or twice. They never form what to me looks like a three body system which exists in our solar system with the sun, the earth, and the moon.


That's a ridiculous interpretation of an experiment that is clearly intended as an illustrative teaching aid, and not an accurate simulation of things. For a start, the marbles are all the same size, and none of them are heavy enough to distort the fabric enough to have the effect needed.


From a mathematical perspective we are unable to explain how our moon orbits our earth while the entire earth moon system also orbits the sun.


If by 'mathematical perspective' you mean 'write down an equation that enables us to plug in variables and output position and velocity and data' then no, we can't, but that doesn't mean we can't explain what's going on, or that the planets don't do what we expect them to do. Indeed, we have very accurate predictive models for planetary motion based on the n-body formulae - we just acknowledge that they aren't perfect over long time frames due to both the slight inaccuracies inherent in numerical methods and the sensitivity of the long-term results to small changes in starting conditions, which we can't measure perfectly. If you require that extremely high bar to be reached by every aspect of science, then we would also have no explanation for the behaviour of molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles, or how aircraft fly, to pick just two examples of things that can't be algebraically solved and require numerical method solutions.

If we are unable to explain how this three body system works questioning how our 293857298375 body solar system works is not so illogical

Questioning it is entirely reasonable; assuming that an entirely baseless alternative model for the shape and disposition of the earth and its solar system, with no supporting evidence, no predictive power, and a whole range of enormous observable contradictions, is in fact a better choice due to some extremely minor limitations at the frontiers of human understanding is just plain daft.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: scomato on March 23, 2021, 09:43:20 PM
Because of;

The hundreds of years of practical experience of it,
the measurements which correspond with it, and
the extensive space travel, since the 1960s or so, which has had flight paths based upon it.

Here is an example:


https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg


at the 2.52 minute mark which represents our solar system according to modern physics I notice that none of the marbles turned into moons and orbited other planets.

at the 4:40 mark he tries to demonstrate the three body system but it sure looks to me like both marbles are just orbiting the "sun" in that example. One marble does not do more than bump into the other once or twice. They never form what to me looks like a three body system which exists in our solar system with the sun, the earth, and the moon.

From a mathematical perspective we are unable to explain how our moon orbits our earth while the entire earth moon system also orbits the sun.

If we are unable to explain how this three body system works questioning how our 293857298375 body solar system works is not so illogical

Can you be more specific about what is wrong with the mathematical solutions to orbit calculations? This is material that would be covered in a 4th year undergraduate Physics course, well within reach of understanding by a 21 year old student.

Here are the relevant formulas for reference:

(https://i.imgur.com/JJFSZOq.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/6seYBWH.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/QdMEQCo.png)
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: iamcpc on March 23, 2021, 10:08:35 PM

Can you be more specific about what is wrong with the mathematical solutions to orbit calculations? This is material that would be covered in a 4th year undergraduate Physics course, well within reach of understanding by a 21 year old student.



It's not that they are wrong. Also those formulas you linked were not for systems with 298357 bodies all with mass all pulling on each other. Your orbital speed equation only has two bodies.

Also the gravitational force calculation only has two bodies.

your orbital period could be used to calculate the orbital period of our moon in relation to our earth. Could that same formula used to calculate the orbital period of our moon while it is orbiting our earth which is also orbiting the sun? If so where are the variables for all three of those bodies in that equation?

In physics and classical mechanics, the three-body problem is the problem of taking the initial positions and velocities (or momenta) of three point masses and solving for their subsequent motion according to Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation.[1] The three-body problem is a special case of the n-body problem. Unlike two-body problems, no general closed-form solution exists,[1] as the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required.





If by 'mathematical perspective' you mean 'write down an equation that enables us to plug in variables and output position and velocity and data' then no, we can't, but that doesn't mean we can't explain what's going on, or that the planets don't do what we expect them to do. Indeed, we have very accurate predictive models for planetary motion based on the n-body formulae - we just acknowledge that they aren't perfect over long time frames due to both the slight inaccuracies inherent in numerical methods and the sensitivity of the long-term results to small changes in starting conditions, which we can't measure perfectly. If you require that extremely high bar to be reached by every aspect of science, then we would also have no explanation for the behaviour of molecules, atoms and sub-atomic particles, or how aircraft fly, to pick just two examples of things that can't be algebraically solved and require numerical method solutions.

Well that is something that RET can't explain. If we have laws of gravity why can't we put a formula and plug in variables to accurately model the orbits of all these bodies on the solar system?

Questioning it is entirely reasonable; assuming that an entirely baseless alternative model for the shape and disposition of the earth and its solar system, with no supporting evidence, no predictive power, and a whole range of enormous observable contradictions, is in fact a better choice due to some extremely minor limitations at the frontiers of human understanding is just plain daft.


Different people have different views and different levels of strictness on what qualifies as evidence. I assure you that most models are not baseless and each individual person can present you evidence for their own specific FE model.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 23, 2021, 10:15:22 PM

Can you be more specific about what is wrong with the mathematical solutions to orbit calculations? This is material that would be covered in a 4th year undergraduate Physics course, well within reach of understanding by a 21 year old student.



It's not that they are wrong. Also those formulas you linked were not for systems with 298357 bodies all with mass all pulling on each other. Your orbital speed equation only has two bodies.

Also the gravitational force calculation only has two bodies.

your orbital period could be used to calculate the orbital period of our moon in relation to our earth. Could that same formula used to calculate the orbital period of our moon while it is orbiting our earth which is also orbiting the sun? If so where are the variables for all three of those bodies in that equation?

In physics and classical mechanics, the three-body problem is the problem of taking the initial positions and velocities (or momenta) of three point masses and solving for their subsequent motion according to Newton's laws of motion and Newton's law of universal gravitation.[1] The three-body problem is a special case of the n-body problem. Unlike two-body problems, no general closed-form solution exists,[1] as the resulting dynamical system is chaotic for most initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required.

I refer you to my previous reply. Numerical method solutions do not mean a lack of understanding or plausibility. Also the chaotic nature of the orbits is well understood. Yes, it's chaotic, but over enormous periods of time, meaning we observe a stable situation which is predictable over anything but enormous time spans.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2021, 10:28:36 PM
Numerical solutions tend to be workarounds which are not based on the underlying laws.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Quote
From a question posted on researchgate.net (https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_kind_of_problem_solutions_do_you_rate_higher_analytical_or_numerical):

  “ Q. What kind of problem solutions do you rate higher: analytical or numerical? More problems can be solved numerically, using computers. But some of the same problems can be solved analytically. What would your preference be? ”

Mohammad Firoz Khan, Ph.D. responds:

  “ A researcher would like to solve it analytically so that it is clear what are premises, assumptions and mathematical rules behind the problem. As such problem is clearly understood. Numerical solution using computers give solution, not the understanding of the problem. It is quite blind. However, in emergency one may resort to this option. ”

Jason Brownlee, Ph.D., tells us on machinelearningmastery.com (https://machinelearningmastery.com/analytical-vs-numerical-solutions-in-machine-learning):

  “ An analytical solution involves framing the problem in a well-understood form and calculating the exact solution. A numerical solution means making guesses at the solution and testing whether the problem is solved well enough to stop. ”

http://www.math.pitt.edu/~sussmanm/2071Spring09/lab02/index.html

  “ With rare exceptions, a numerical solution is always wrong; the important question is, how wrong is it? ”
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 23, 2021, 11:00:03 PM
Numerical solutions tend to be workarounds which are not based on the underlying laws.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Quote
From a question posted on researchgate.net (https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_kind_of_problem_solutions_do_you_rate_higher_analytical_or_numerical):

  “ Q. What kind of problem solutions do you rate higher: analytical or numerical? More problems can be solved numerically, using computers. But some of the same problems can be solved analytically. What would your preference be? ”

Mohammad Firoz Khan, Ph.D. responds:

  “ A researcher would like to solve it analytically so that it is clear what are premises, assumptions and mathematical rules behind the problem. As such problem is clearly understood. Numerical solution using computers give solution, not the understanding of the problem. It is quite blind. However, in emergency one may resort to this option. ”

Jason Brownlee, Ph.D., tells us on machinelearningmastery.com (https://machinelearningmastery.com/analytical-vs-numerical-solutions-in-machine-learning):

  “ An analytical solution involves framing the problem in a well-understood form and calculating the exact solution. A numerical solution means making guesses at the solution and testing whether the problem is solved well enough to stop. ”

http://www.math.pitt.edu/~sussmanm/2071Spring09/lab02/index.html

  “ With rare exceptions, a numerical solution is always wrong; the important question is, how wrong is it? ”

First of all let's remove Jason Brownlee from the discussion - he is clearly talking about something very different when he refers to 'numerical solutions'. He's isn't wrong in what he's saying, but the problems he is solving are completely different - he is describing using machine learning to search complex problem/solution spaces, hence discussions of techniques like gradient ascent etc, which is indeed a trial-based technique. In numerical methods such as FE in structures, or CFD in aerodynamics, we aren't making guesses and refining by trial and error, we are taking a set of equations that cannot be solved algebraically and applying expertise and judgment to simplify the problem enough to be able to compute an answer that is useful. The methods used to tackle the n-body problem are similar - there's no guesswork involved.

To your opening line:

Quote
Numerical solutions tend to be workarounds which are not based on the underlying laws.

You are always demanding evidence. Well, let's see some then. That's a massive statement, and you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support it. Of course, any scientist will always prefer an analytical solution if one is possible, but that doesn't mean that numerical solutions are invalid or indicative of a fallacious theory, as you seem to be trying to suggest. Your last post sums it up quite well - yes, any numerical solution will have a degree of error in it. The skill is in deciding how significant that error is. Given that most aircraft are designed using CFD, we are clearly able to refine results to a usable degree of precision, and the need for CFD does not render the navier stokes equations invalid, nor the underlying theories of aerodynamics.

Evidence then, please, for numerical methods tending to be 'workarounds' and 'not based on the underlying laws'.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2021, 11:26:49 PM
Quote from: SteelyBob
First of all let's remove Jason Brownlee from the discussion - he is clearly talking about something very different when he refers to 'numerical solutions'.

I don't see that you are as qualified to correct or contradict him. He clearly expresses that the analytical solutions are the problems in well-understood form like the other references.

You are always demanding evidence. Well, let's see some then. That's a massive statement, and you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support it.

Actually, I have. It is you who has not provided evidence for their statements. In that same link it shows that they are combining multiple two-body problems as a workaround for the problem of computing multiple bodies:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Quote
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/440/1/719/1747624

 “ We developed a Keplerian-based Hamiltonian splitting for solving the gravitational N-body problem. This splitting allows us to approximate the solution of a general N-body problem by a composition of multiple, independently evolved two-body problems. While the Hamiltonian splitting is exact, we show that the composition of independent two-body problems results in a non-symplectic non-time-symmetric first-order map. A time-symmetric second-order map is then constructed by composing this basic first-order map with its self-adjoint. The resulting method is precise for each individual two-body solution and produces quick and accurate results for near-Keplerian N-body systems, like planetary systems or a cluster of stars that orbit a supermassive black hole. ”

https://hanspeterschaub.info/Papers/UnderGradStudents/ConicReport.pdf

  “ The patched-conic approximation has thus been developed as a more accurate solution to interplanetary transfer description. It involves partitioning the overall transfer into distinct conic solutions. For instance, as a spacecraft travels from Earth to Mars, its orbit is approximated as a hyperbolic departure, an elliptic transfer, and a hyperbolic arrival. The patched-conic approximation breaks the entire orbit down into several two-body problems. In other words, only one celestial body’s influence is considered to be acting upon the spacecraft at all times. ”

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/452/2/1934/1069988

  “ In this paper, we present a new symplectic integrator for collisional gravitational N-body dynamics. The integrator is inspired by the non-symplectic and non-reversible integrator in Gonçalves Ferrari et al. (2014), SAKURA, and makes use of Kepler solvers. Like SAKURA we decompose the N-body problem into two-body problems. In contrast to SAKURA, our two-body problems are not independent. The integrator is reversible and symplectic and conserves nine integrals of motion of the N-body problem to machine precision. ”
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 24, 2021, 12:05:06 AM


I don't see that you are as qualified to contradict or correct him. He clearly expresses that the analytical solutions are the problems in well-understood form like the other references.


My qualifications and his are completely irrelevant. That's your second appeal to authority in this thread alone - it's a bone mistake in any debate, and all the more embarrassing because you aren't even doing it right, given that I'm not contradicting or correcting either of the people whose authority you are appealing to.

I'm not disagreeing with Jason - I'm saying he's working in a different field, and the meaning he is assigning to 'numerical solution' is somewhat different to that which we are discussing. I don't think have time, nor would the mods wish for me to explain the difference between machine learning and solving partial differential equations. If you don't appreciate the difference, it's probably best not to make assertions about those subjects.


You are always demanding evidence. Well, let's see some then. That's a massive statement, and you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support it.

Actually, I have. It is you who has not provided evidence for their statements. In that same link it shows that they are combining multiple two-body problems as a workaround for the problem of computing multiple bodies:

I asked for evidence to show that numerical solutions ‘tend to be workarounds not based on the underlying laws.

Your Dunning-Kruger statement there has two important parts. 'Tend' implies 'more often than not', so we need not just one example, but some evidence to support your contention that it is the norm. Furthermore, the one example you've given there clearly is based on the underlying laws. It's not just some stuff they guessed, as you keep implying.


[edited to fix a quote error]
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 24, 2021, 09:41:25 AM
In that same link it shows that they are combining multiple two-body problems as a workaround for the problem of computing multiple bodies

Right. And? You previously said that:

Numerical solutions tend to be workarounds which are not based on the underlying laws.

And now you're providing links and evidence that the numerical solution here DOES use the underlying laws, it just splits the problem into a series of problems which can be solved.
And given that there's a rover sitting on Mars right now and we have close up pictures of all the planets from probes which were sent there, I'd say that approach works rather well.

Meanwhile, the closest the FE come to having anything which could be called a theory or law is EA which has an equation with no derivation and an unknown constant and can't be used to make any predictions at all. ???
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 24, 2021, 10:08:54 AM
Is acceptance of a three-body problem in the first place an acceptance of the presence of the three bodies concerned  ...  and therefore an acceptance of RE?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 10:43:25 AM
Next time I believe you could spare us the long winded sentences and simply state the following:

"There is no numerical solution to the n-body problem."

Well, no I couldn't, because that's almost the precise opposite of what I said. There are almost no algebraic solutions to the n-body problem, aside from certain very specific unique cases, and almost every other solution is a numeric one of some kind.

Moreover, it is important to understand that the example Tom is using to highlight his point is in itself a numeric solution - he has completely failed to understand that, or is deliberately misrepresenting it.

at the 2.52 minute mark which represents our solar system according to modern physics I notice that none of the marbles turned into moons and orbited other planets.

at the 4:40 mark he tries to demonstrate the three body system but it sure looks to me like both marbles are just orbiting the "sun" in that example. One marble does not do more than bump into the other once or twice. They never form what to me looks like a three body system which exists in our solar system with the sun, the earth, and the moon.

That's a ridiculous interpretation of an experiment that is clearly intended as an illustrative teaching aid, and not an accurate simulation of things.
LOL! that's the issue.

A numerical solution that you claim to exist can be modeled, right out in the open.

But it cannot in this case, because gravity is entirely fictional.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 24, 2021, 12:34:02 PM
LOL! that's the issue.

A numerical solution that you claim to exist can be modeled, right out in the open.

But it cannot in this case, because gravity is entirely fictional.

Eh? I’m sorry, but that just makes no sense at all. Are you suggesting that numerical solutions to the n-body problem don’t exist? There’s loads of them out there - even Tom has linked to some in his wiki (not that he realised they were numerical methods, but that’s another story...)
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 12:43:39 PM
LOL! that's the issue.

A numerical solution that you claim to exist can be modeled, right out in the open.

But it cannot in this case, because gravity is entirely fictional.

Eh? I’m sorry, but that just makes no sense at all. Are you suggesting that numerical solutions to the n-body problem don’t exist? There’s loads of them out there - even Tom has linked to some in his wiki (not that he realised they were numerical methods, but that’s another story...)
Numerical solutions can be modeled.

I have no clue why this is difficult for you to understand.

Trouble is, mythical gravity cannot.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 24, 2021, 01:26:39 PM

Numerical solutions can be modeled.


Mmmmm..sort of. A numerical solution is, generally speaking, a model of something. It's not something you would model.

I have no clue why this is difficult for you to understand.

To be honest, you don't seem to be reading or comprehending what's being said - your comments seem to be slightly inconsistent non-sequiturs.

Trouble is, mythical gravity cannot.

That doesn't really follow. Even if you take the view that gravity doesn't exist, to suggest that it can't be modelled is ridiculous. The formula for working out gravitational attraction is very simple indeed - it's just a function of the mass of the two objects in question and the distance between them. Whether you agree that gravity exists or not, that's the formula, and models of gravity's effects are all based on it.

The fact that you can't create a formula to express the positions and velocities over time for more than 2 bodies (in most situations) has nothing to do with gravity being real or not, it's just maths. We can't calculate the positions of electrons around an atom for the same reason, nor can we calculate the airflow around a car or aircraft. But aircraft fly - the inability to build plug-in formulae to describe the airflow does not make the principles of aerodynamics invalid.

The numerical solutions models that have been made replicate planetary orbits very well indeed. As with all models, they have limitations, but we can accurately work out the position of the planets over timeframes spanning centuries. That's excellent, and strongly suggests that the underlying theory is valid. That predictive power is enormously important - FET has none whatsoever, which should really make FET proponents wonder if something is amiss with the model.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on March 24, 2021, 03:36:01 PM

Numerical solutions can be modeled.


Mmmmm..sort of. A numerical solution is, generally speaking, a model of something. It's not something you would model.

I have no clue why this is difficult for you to understand.

To be honest, you don't seem to be reading or comprehending what's being said - your comments seem to be slightly inconsistent non-sequiturs.

Trouble is, mythical gravity cannot.

That doesn't really follow. Even if you take the view that gravity doesn't exist, to suggest that it can't be modelled is ridiculous. The formula for working out gravitational attraction is very simple indeed - it's just a function of the mass of the two objects in question and the distance between them. Whether you agree that gravity exists or not, that's the formula, and models of gravity's effects are all based on it.

The fact that you can't create a formula to express the positions and velocities over time for more than 2 bodies (in most situations) has nothing to do with gravity being real or not, it's just maths. We can't calculate the positions of electrons around an atom for the same reason, nor can we calculate the airflow around a car or aircraft. But aircraft fly - the inability to build plug-in formulae to describe the airflow does not make the principles of aerodynamics invalid.

The numerical solutions models that have been made replicate planetary orbits very well indeed. As with all models, they have limitations, but we can accurately work out the position of the planets over timeframes spanning centuries. That's excellent, and strongly suggests that the underlying theory is valid. That predictive power is enormously important - FET has none whatsoever, which should really make FET proponents wonder if something is amiss with the model.
2 bodies.

That is all.

Watching something for several years will give you a good idea of what is going to happen. Insurance companies make a killing off of this principle. Past practice is the best indicator of future performance.

You do not need gravity to make this true which is a good thing since it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 24, 2021, 04:35:15 PM

2 bodies.

That is all.


There seems to be a belief creeping into the thread that all numerical solutions of the n-body problem are based on, or are somehow limited to 2-body calculations. That is simply not the case at all. Hamiltonian splitting is one such option, but there are countless others using a wide variety of methods. There are even guides out there on building your own n-body simulator, if you're interested. Here's one: https://medium.com/swlh/create-your-own-n-body-simulation-with-python-f417234885e9 (https://medium.com/swlh/create-your-own-n-body-simulation-with-python-f417234885e9) - note that the code involves building a set of matrices with the gravitational force of each n-body acting on each of the other bodies. The simulation works in a step-wise manner - the smaller the step, the longer it takes to process, but the more accurate it is. Whilst you can't necessarily know how accurate the end result is, you can check the energy states of the system - the more constant, the better the simulation.

Here's another study: https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4780668&fileOId=4780676 (https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=4780668&fileOId=4780676) - note they back test the models against 2 and 3 body problems with known solutions, demonstrating the accuracy of the different methods.

This stuff isn't new. The planet Neptune was actually discovered because people noticed that the known planets weren't conforming to the models at the time, meaning that something else must be in the system causing the error. So they looked at the right piece of sky at the right time and...voila...a new planet. That's pretty awesome, considering it was mid-19th century. 

Watching something for several years will give you a good idea of what is going to happen. Insurance companies make a killing off of this principle. Past practice is the best indicator of future performance.

You do not need gravity to make this true which is a good thing since it doesn't exist.

You can run these models yourself and verify the accuracy if you wish (although you need major computing power to get decent results). If you are suggesting that all the cutting edge solar-system and indeed galaxy/ universal modals are actually just fudges based on observations then, once again, we have a FET proponent making an appeal to a massive conspiracy where just one dissenting voice could achieve global superstar status if they blew the cover off...but nobody ever does. Could it not just be that, actually, the models are pretty good and the solar system is actually the way we think it is, with a round earth in orbit around the sun and gravity operating as theorised and measured?

Your skepticism is a positive trait, but unless you have an alternative predictive model that outperforms what we already have and aligns with our observed world...why believe in it?

Your arguments that the mathematical difficulty of solving n-body is indicative of gravity not existing is just ludicrous - the same problems exist in countless of other scientific problems. Do you doubt aerodynamics for the same reason?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: jack44556677 on March 24, 2021, 09:22:29 PM
I think action80 has described the problem very well, despite any slight inconsistencies of verbiage you may see.

The concept itself is intractable, which is to say directly paradoxical, which is to say non-real.  The fact that what we observe cannot be modeled with the concept is unsurprising, and shows that newton was wrong (about a great many things, unsurprisingly).

We know where a light in the sky will be because of its past "performance" as action80 rightly points out.  It's how we "predict" eclipses too, from charts.

Another way to describe / aspect of the paradox is in the answerS to the question, "what happens to you at the center of the earth"?

Newton didn't know, and we don't either.  The concept suggests that the immense weight of everything crushes you, AND that you get rend asunder by the gravitational forces pulling you outward in all directions, AND that you feel nothing because all gravitational forces cancel themselves out.

Gravitation is a philosophically unsound and unscientific posit, which newton understood and admitted. He asked that his name not be associated with it as a result.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 24, 2021, 09:38:39 PM
We know where a light in the sky will be because of its past "performance" as action80 rightly points out.  It's how we "predict" eclipses too, from charts

You may well be able to predict the occurrence from past history, but the actual behaviour (duration, path, etc) which will be seen by observers on the day is determined with respect to a globe Earth.

Look at the predicted behaviour of the Great American Eclipse of a few years back. Charts were shown months in advance of what to expect. When and were it would first be seen making landfall on the USA, where it would leave. Where observers would need to be to see totality. How long totality would last. How much less would be seen as one moved off the central path. How the speed of the eclipse shadow varied according to which part of the globe it was projected upon, and how this affected the timing of the eclipse shadow's progress.

All shown in advance, and NOBODY reported any deviation from this.

Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2021, 09:42:11 PM
Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.

If the eclipses repeat themselves, why not?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 24, 2021, 09:43:46 PM
Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.

If the eclipses repeat themselves, why not?

because the various factors that I outlined do not repeat.

EDIT for image(s)

(https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/ct8PX49qBKJYJkvnthrJJA-970-80.jpg.webp)

(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017_eclipse_globe-370x360.jpg)

See in the second one, how the time segments expand and contract? Because the eclipse is passing over a curved surface.

How the %age visible lines, above and below, vary in separation? Because of the curved surface.

etc etc
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 24, 2021, 10:38:23 PM
We know where a light in the sky will be because of its past "performance" as action80 rightly points out.  It's how we "predict" eclipses too, from charts

Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.

If the eclipses repeat themselves, why not?

Well ... you stated in another thread, that Astronomy is a pseudoscience, and broadly that observations (of "lights in the sky") should be discounted, etc. ...
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 24, 2021, 11:44:13 PM
Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.

If the eclipses repeat themselves, why not?

because the various factors that I outlined do not repeat.

Actually, they do:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 25, 2021, 05:17:29 AM
Impossible to predict all of this, to this degree of accuracy, simply by extrapolation of dates from previous eclipses.

If the eclipses repeat themselves, why not?

because the various factors that I outlined do not repeat.

Actually, they do:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."

I cited a number of different factors which vary with each, you refer to ONLY the period between each recurrence.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 25, 2021, 05:32:09 AM
I cited a number of different factors which vary with each, you refer to ONLY the period between each recurrence.

If it repeats then the attributes are the same.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 25, 2021, 05:39:45 AM
I cited a number of different factors which vary with each, you refer to ONLY the period between each recurrence.

If it repeats then the attributes are the same.

No, they are not. Please refer again to the images above.

Attributes which vary;

Observable duration
Place in which eclipse can be observed (or not)
Width of central path in which eclipse can be seen
Fall-off of visibility each side of central path

etc
etc

EDIT for image from the webpage you quoted;

(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/Saros145.GIF)

All different. With different attributes.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 25, 2021, 03:16:29 PM
The fact that what we observe cannot be modeled with the concept is unsurprising, and shows that newton was wrong (about a great many things, unsurprisingly).

What is the basis for this statement? I've just shown, and indeed Tom himself has shown, that it absolutely can be modelled very successfully using the simple gravity inverse square law.

Are you suggesting that any theory that can't be solved algebraically is invalid?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 12:03:50 AM
EDIT for image from the webpage you quoted;

If you went to NASA's eclipse website then you would know that there are no n-Body equations on there. It says that the Saros cycle repeats itself and that is how they are able to calculate it. It shifts a bit with recurrences, and multiple sets of Saros series are in operation at any given time, but it is nonetheless calculated based on past patterns and events.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 26, 2021, 12:17:59 AM
EDIT for image from the webpage you quoted;

If you went to NASA's eclipse website then you would know that there are no n-Body equations on there. It says that the Saros cycle repeats itself and that is how they are able to calculate it. It shifts a bit with recurrences, and multiple sets of Saros series are in operation at any given time, but it is nonetheless calculated based on past patterns and events.

I did go to NASA's eclipse website and apparently you are incorrect on a couple of fronts. Specifically, to gain greater predictive measures of eclipses, they rely on the JPL DE405 ephemeris. JPL DE405 is described as:

"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the Astronomical Almanac has been based on JPL DE405."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

In regard to the n-body calculations, yes, the JPL DE405 ephemeris relies on them:

"Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws. The initial conditions were both constants such as planetary masses, from outside sources, and parameters such as initial positions and velocities, adjusted to produce output which was a "best fit" to a large set of observations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

And here: DE 102 - A numerically integrated ephemeris of the moon and planets spanning forty-four centuries
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1983A%26A...125..150N/0000150.000.html
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 12:30:49 AM
EDIT for image from the webpage you quoted;

If you went to NASA's eclipse website then you would know that there are no n-Body equations on there. It says that the Saros cycle repeats itself and that is how they are able to calculate it. It shifts a bit with recurrences, and multiple sets of Saros series are in operation at any given time, but it is nonetheless calculated based on past patterns and events.

I did go to NASA's eclipse website and apparently you are incorrect on a couple of fronts. Specifically, to gain greater predictive measures of eclipses, they rely on the JPL DE405 ephemeris. JPL DE405 is described as:

"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the Astronomical Almanac has been based on JPL DE405."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

In regard to the n-body calculations, yes, the JPL DE405 ephemeris relies on them:

"Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws. The initial conditions were both constants such as planetary masses, from outside sources, and parameters such as initial positions and velocities, adjusted to produce output which was a "best fit" to a large set of observations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

And here: DE 102 - A numerically integrated ephemeris of the moon and planets spanning forty-four centuries
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1983A%26A...125..150N/0000150.000.html

Incorrect. The Saros Cycle predicts the time of the eclipse, not the position of the Sun. To predict the position of the Sun you would have to use some other system. Saros is mentioned 14,400 times (https://www.google.com/search?q=saros+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Feclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov) on the NASA eclipse website. Obviously they are using the Saros Cycle to predict the eclipse.

Your quote only says that it is being used for retrieving the position of the the Sun, and not for the earth or moon. The system you referenced in your quote for predicting the position of the Sun further says that it is based on numerical solutions, not analytic solutions. Numericical solutions are not solutions based directly on the underlying laws - https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Not only is this system not analytical, it is based on epicycles. What you quoted indicated that it is based on perturbations. Perturbations are epicycles - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

So it's still using the ancient Saros Cycle pattern to predict the eclipse, and this non-analytical system is only used for predicting the position of the Sun. How does this hodge-podge mess help you in any way?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 12:55:27 AM
Once again, that page (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html) does not say that the system used is being used for the eclipse prediction. It's being used for getting the position of the sun.

On the website there is a tool which output sun positions along with the eclipse times:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/JSEX/JSEX-NA.html

(https://i.imgur.com/qnie6UL.png)

It's clearly being used to generate the position of the sun at the time of the eclipse, so that you know where to look, and nothing to do with predicting the time of the eclipse. The eclipse is predicted with the Saros Cycle. This is why it is mentioned 14,400 times (https://www.google.com/search?q=saros+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Feclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov) on the NASA eclipse website.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 26, 2021, 12:56:44 AM
EDIT for image from the webpage you quoted;

If you went to NASA's eclipse website then you would know that there are no n-Body equations on there. It says that the Saros cycle repeats itself and that is how they are able to calculate it. It shifts a bit with recurrences, and multiple sets of Saros series are in operation at any given time, but it is nonetheless calculated based on past patterns and events.

I did go to NASA's eclipse website and apparently you are incorrect on a couple of fronts. Specifically, to gain greater predictive measures of eclipses, they rely on the JPL DE405 ephemeris. JPL DE405 is described as:

"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system ephemeris. This ephemeris consists of computer representations of the positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering the span 1599 Dec 09 to 2201 Feb 20. Beginning in 2003, the Astronomical Almanac has been based on JPL DE405."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

In regard to the n-body calculations, yes, the JPL DE405 ephemeris relies on them:

"Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws. The initial conditions were both constants such as planetary masses, from outside sources, and parameters such as initial positions and velocities, adjusted to produce output which was a "best fit" to a large set of observations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

And here: DE 102 - A numerically integrated ephemeris of the moon and planets spanning forty-four centuries
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1983A%26A...125..150N/0000150.000.html

Incorrect. The Saros Cycle predicts the time of the eclipse, not the position of the Sun. To predict the position of the Sun you would have to use some other system. Saros Cycle is mentioned 14,400 times (https://www.google.com/search?q=saros+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Feclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov) on the NASA eclipse website. Obviously they are using the Saros Cycle to predict the eclipse.

Your quote only says that it is being used for the sun, and not for the earth or moon. The system you referenced in your quote for predicting the position of the Sun further says that it is based on numerical solutions, not analytic solutions. Numericical solutions are not solutions based directly on the underlying equations - https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Not only is this system not analytical, it is based on epicycles. What you quoted indicated that it is based on perturbations. Perturbations are epicycles - https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

So it's still using the ancient Saros Cycle pattern to predict the eclipse, and this non-analytical system is only used for predicting the position of the Sun. How does this hodge-podge mess help you in any way?

Who said the position of the sun alone predicts eclipses? No one.

And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

The construction of the ephemeris: "The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[4]
Positions and velocities of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and planets, along with the orientation of the Moon, are stored as Chebyshev polynomial coefficients fit in 32-day-long segments.[8]


And yes, the NASA eclipse site is heavily reliant on the Saros cycles for sure. It goes on to say, "Because the Saros period is not equal to a whole number of days, its biggest drawback is that subsequent eclipses are visible from different parts of the globe. The extra 1/3 day displacement means that Earth must rotate an additional ~8 hours or ~120º with each cycle."

Funny that you use NASA and it's heliocentric based ephemerides, calculations, and predictions as some sort of source for your notions.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 01:00:31 AM
Quote
And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon. They are likely using it for the javascript tool mentioned above, so that you know where to look during the Solar Eclipse. The page you linked mentioning that JPL DE program even specifies "Solar Eclipse" in that title. The Saros Cycle predicts when the eclipse will recur, not where the Sun will be to see it. If the Saros Cycle was not being used to predict the eclipse there would not be extensive pages describing how to predict the eclipse with it. Obviously there would be no need to use an ancient system based on patterns at all if they were using an alternative modern system.

On another page it clearly states:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

Quote
The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well.

From another page, the Five Millennium Catalogue of Solar Eclipses:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html

Quote
The recurrence of solar eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle.

They are using the Saros cycle to predict the eclipse, and not this numerical system you are referencing. The website specifies that this numerical system is used to predict the position of the Sun. There is a reason Saros is mentioned thousands of times throughout the website and why there there are extensive Saros charts. The reason is because the Saros Cycle is being used to predict the eclipse.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 26, 2021, 01:16:09 AM
Quote
And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon.

Incorrect again:

"Positions and velocities of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and planets, along with the orientation of the Moon, are stored as Chebyshev polynomial coefficients fit in 32-day-long segments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

They are likely using it for the javascript tool mentioned above, so that you know where to look during the eclipse. The Saros Cycle predicts when the eclipse will recur, not where the Sun will be to see it. If the Saros Cycle was not being used to predict the eclipse there would not be extensive pages describing how to predict the eclipse with it. Obviously there would be no need to use an ancient system based on patterns at all if they were using an alternative modern system.

Who said they are using an "alternative"? No one.

They use the ephemeris and many other tools and measurements and calculations to get as detailed as possible about eclipses. Not just the when, but the exact where, even what the prediction of the corona will look like at a given location.

On another page it clearly states:

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

Quote
The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well.

From another page, the FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF SOLAR ECLIPSES

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html

Quote
The recurrence of solar eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle.


They are using the Saros cycle to predict the eclipse, and not this system you are referencing. The website specifies that is used to predict the position of the Sun. There is a reason Saros is mentioned 14,400 times throughout the website and why there there are extensive Saros charts. The reason is because it is being used to predict the eclipse.

Yes, and it goes on to say regarding the FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF SOLAR ECLIPSES you reference:

"The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002)."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MKSE.html

Go figure, your own source even references the Moon landing. Hilarious.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 01:35:35 AM
Quote
And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon.

Incorrect again:

"Positions and velocities of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and planets, along with the orientation of the Moon, are stored as Chebyshev polynomial coefficients fit in 32-day-long segments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

We can see that you have once again resorted to duplicity. That's a Wikipedia page about the numerical tool. That is not the NASA Eclipse Page. The NASA Eclipse page says that they are using this tool to retrieve the position of the Sun for the Solar Eclipse calculations. It does not say Earth or Moon.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

Quote
SOLAR ECLIPSE PREDICTIONS WITH JPL DE405

The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system

Does this page say that the system is being used to predict anything with the Earth or Moon? No.

It is obvious why they would need the position of the Sun, because the Saros Cycle alone only predicts the time of the recurrence of the eclipse, not where the Sun will be at that time.

Quote
Yes, and it goes on to say regarding the FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF SOLAR ECLIPSES you reference:

"The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002)."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MKSE.html

And the word Ephemerides give it away.  Ephemerides the position of a celestial body in the Sky. Obviously your assertion that the JPL DE System is predicting the eclipse is incorrect if they have to use multiple types of numerical systems to for the Ephemerides of different bodies, along with the Saros Cycle, to present the data on the website.

You have not shown that the systems are actually based on the underlying laws, and nor have you explained why they would need to use the Saros Cycle if you think that such a system exists.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 26, 2021, 02:01:41 AM
You have not shown that the systems are actually based on the underlying laws, and nor have you explained why they would need to use the Saros Cycle if you think that such a system exists.

Yes, actually I have. You're just skipping over the references. It's a combination of predictive tactics/sources, Saros included. From your NASA eclipse site:

"Modern digital computers using high precision solar and lunar ephemerides can directly predict the dates and circumstances of eclipses. Nevertheless, the Saros and Inex cycles remain useful tools in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEperiodicity.html

They mix the various heliocentric ephemerides with the Saros to gain a complete picture of an eclipse, all of which culminate in the when, and exact where, as mentioned through the NASA eclipse site..

And I still find it hilarious that the Apollo moon reflectors are cited in part of the ephemerides used for a complete picture of an eclipse. A source you cite. When did you become a NASA believer?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 02:14:35 AM
Yes, actually I have. You're just skipping over the references. It's a combination of predictive tactics/sources, Saros included. From your NASA eclipse site:

"Modern digital computers using high precision solar and lunar ephemerides can directly predict the dates and circumstances of eclipses. Nevertheless, the Saros and Inex cycles remain useful tools in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEperiodicity.html

They mix the various heliocentric ephemerides with the Saros to gain a complete picture of an eclipse, all of which culminate in the when, and exact where, as mentioned through the NASA eclipse site..

Incorrect. That quote says that solar and lunar ephemerides systems can also predict when they align in the sky. It says nothing about the nature of those systems, however. Ptolmy's Almagest system was an ephemerides computational system from the year 2 A.D. which had nothing to do with gravity or the underlying laws of the system.

After that brief mention, it doesn't mention that ephemerides method again, and continues to talk about the Saros method, mentioning it hundreds of times.

The ephemerides tools you have brought up references numerical perturbations. You have failed to show that any of this is based on the underlying laws. Merely pointing at the names of systems and assuming things is a terrible way to show anything.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: scomato on March 26, 2021, 02:30:49 AM
Quote
And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon.

Incorrect again:

"Positions and velocities of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and planets, along with the orientation of the Moon, are stored as Chebyshev polynomial coefficients fit in 32-day-long segments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

We can see that you have once again resorted to duplicity. That's a Wikipedia page about the numerical tool. That is not the NASA Eclipse Page. The NASA Eclipse page says that they are using this tool to retrieve the position of the Sun for the Solar Eclipse calculations. It does not say Earth or Moon.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

Quote
SOLAR ECLIPSE PREDICTIONS WITH JPL DE405

The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system

Does this page say that the system is being used to predict anything with the Earth or Moon? No.

It is obvious why they would need the position of the Sun, because the Saros Cycle alone only predicts the time of the recurrence of the eclipse, not where the Sun will be at that time.

Quote
Yes, and it goes on to say regarding the FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF SOLAR ECLIPSES you reference:

"The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002)."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MKSE.html

And the word Ephemerides give it away.  Ephemerides the position of a celestial body in the Sky. Obviously your assertion that the JPL DE System is predicting the eclipse is incorrect if they have to use multiple types of numerical systems to for the Ephemerides of different bodies, along with the Saros Cycle, to present the data on the website.

You have not shown that the systems are actually based on the underlying laws, and nor have you explained why they would need to use the Saros Cycle if you think that such a system exists.

The first sentence in your link says "The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system", well, here are the parameters used as part of the calculation in question:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results

(https://i.imgur.com/k94NLzM.png)

Obviously the above parameters are heretical to Flat Earth. How can the Earth have an Equatorial Radius of 6378.137 KM, or a Heliocentric orbital speed of 29.79 km/s?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 02:49:06 AM
Quote
And wrong again, moon and earth are included.

What you quoted only says that it is being used to retrieve the position of the Sun, and does not mention its use for the Earth or Moon.

Incorrect again:

"Positions and velocities of the Sun, Earth, Moon, and planets, along with the orientation of the Moon, are stored as Chebyshev polynomial coefficients fit in 32-day-long segments."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris

We can see that you have once again resorted to duplicity. That's a Wikipedia page about the numerical tool. That is not the NASA Eclipse Page. The NASA Eclipse page says that they are using this tool to retrieve the position of the Sun for the Solar Eclipse calculations. It does not say Earth or Moon.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/de405-predictions.html

Quote
SOLAR ECLIPSE PREDICTIONS WITH JPL DE405

The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system

Does this page say that the system is being used to predict anything with the Earth or Moon? No.

It is obvious why they would need the position of the Sun, because the Saros Cycle alone only predicts the time of the recurrence of the eclipse, not where the Sun will be at that time.

Quote
Yes, and it goes on to say regarding the FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF SOLAR ECLIPSES you reference:

"The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002)."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MKSE.html

And the word Ephemerides give it away.  Ephemerides the position of a celestial body in the Sky. Obviously your assertion that the JPL DE System is predicting the eclipse is incorrect if they have to use multiple types of numerical systems to for the Ephemerides of different bodies, along with the Saros Cycle, to present the data on the website.

You have not shown that the systems are actually based on the underlying laws, and nor have you explained why they would need to use the Saros Cycle if you think that such a system exists.

The first sentence in your link says "The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the JPL DE405 solar system", well, here are the parameters used as part of the calculation in question:

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results

(https://i.imgur.com/k94NLzM.png)

Obviously the above parameters are heretical to Flat Earth. How can the Earth have an Equatorial Radius of 6378.137 KM, or a Heliocentric orbital speed of 29.79 km/s?

That's an different program called JPL Horizons. JPL DE and JPL Horizons are different.

And I just see you showing that it can list some geophysical properties for RE Theory from its database. But this is different than showing that it uses those properties to create a dynamic working model of the solar system using Newton's laws.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 26, 2021, 03:02:09 AM
It says right here that the properties you listed are not necessarily used or relevant, is for general informational purposes only, and is just text from other sources.

https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons_doc#intro

Quote
Major Body Physical Parameters:

  The bulk-property parameters or constants shown as "object data" when
  a planet or natural satellite is selected are not necessarily used in
  or even relevant to Horizons ephemeris calculations.

  They are displayed for general informational purposes only, to confirm
  the selected object, and are from a variety of sources but primarily
  collected from the scientific literature and summarized in the following:

    Yoder, C. "Astrometric and Geometric Properties of Earth and the Solar
    System", published in "Global Earth Physics: A Handbook of Physical
    Constants", AGU Reference Shelf 1, 1995, with some updates and
    corrections.

    Clawson, J.F., et al., "Spacecraft Thermal Environments", Chapter 2
    in "Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook, Volume I: Fundamental
    Technologies", ed. D. Gilmore, 2002.

    NSSDCA Planetary Fact Sheets (August 2018),
      https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 26, 2021, 03:11:09 AM
Merely pointing at the names of systems and assuming things is a terrible way to show anything.

If that's not ironic - Not only pointing at, but counting as well:

Saros is mentioned 14,400 times on the NASA eclipse website. Obviously they are using the Saros Cycle to predict the eclipse.

You can jump up and down all you want about Saros. But it's plain to see from the site you constantly reference that NASA uses Saros along with other heliocentric programs and calculations to predict/complete a holistic view of an eclipse event. It's been documented and presented.

How about we try this: Can you use just Saros to predict the exact when, where path (down to the single km level), duration of totality at the 'where', the shape and size of the corona where and when, on a flat earth? I'll await your predictive prognostication.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 26, 2021, 10:19:51 AM
Numericical solutions are not solutions based directly on the underlying laws - https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Tom, again, this is demonstrably utter nonsense. Stepping back from the particular problem at hand, and just speaking generally, numerical methods are a broad class of computational technique. To categorise all of them as not being based on their underlying laws is false. There are numerous problems in physics and engineering (for example) where system dynamics are governed by time-based differential equations that simply cannot be solved algebraically. This fact does not invalidate the principles in question. Moreover, even if they could be solved by simple algebra, it's also important to realise that in many cases, planetary motion included, the resulting output would still have some degree of error due to the modelling assumptions made (eg point masses versus spheres, neglecting some objects as being too small to be significant) and small errors in starting conditions (mass estimation, velocity, position data etc). So to characterise numerical solutions as 'wrong' and algebraic solutions as 'correct' is in itself a flawed logic. In aerodynamics, for example, algebraic solutions of gas flow past solid bodies are usually quite poor, as the simplifications required to reduce the equations to something solvable involve removing important real-world effects such as viscosity and turbulence.

Your repeated assertion that numerical methods aren't based on the underlying laws is frankly absurd. Whilst there may well be examples of this, it is certainly not a valid statement for the totality of numerical methods. Computational fluid dynamics algorithms, for example, are absolutely based on the behaviours of gases and the equations that govern them. Numerical methods for solving flow past complex shapes typically involve breaking the flow field down into discrete elements, akin to pixels, and solving each tiny element's input and output flows in turn, with the whole system advanced in small discrete time-steps. This does of course introduce error, but the smaller the elements and the smaller the time-steps, the less error there is, and the closer to the truth we get. I mention aerodynamics simply because it's a field I'm trained in, but you can find examples of this kind of solution used in all manner of science, ranging from particle physics through to astronomy.

I've very much enjoyed reading around the JPL ephemeris models - not something I'd encountered before. It's abundantly obvious from reading into them that they are absolutely based on the underlying physics. The simpler models were essentially time-stepped newtonian solutions for point masses, whereas the more recent models exploit greater computational power and include all kinds of sophistications to better approximate planet shapes and internal composition, correct for relativistic effects, include small bodies such as asteroids etc...it's impressive science.

Your assertion that NASA's inclusions of Saros cycles is somehow indicative of failings or sleight of hand in their modelling is equally absurd. Yes, solar and lunar eclipses adhere to the Saros cycles - that's well understood. But Saros models are not completely accurate in terms of accurately geo-locating eclipse shadows, and it is clear that the various ephemeris models are now considerably more accurate in terms of predictive power.

You have not shown that the systems are actually based on the underlying laws

Ok then, let's go.

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 (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.

Presumably, as a flat-earther, the lunar laser ranging and radar ranging of various planets is problematic for you? Likewise Mariner 9 and Voyager 9 data is equally conspiratorial?

I'm still waiting for that evidence, by the way. Maybe you could provide it in the same post that includes your eclipse predictive prognostication.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: existoid on March 26, 2021, 08:38:52 PM
Just read through this whole thing - understood maybe half of it? - (those who remember me from when I first joined and was active a year ago perhaps recall I suck at math  ;D ).

But the thread virtually immediately deviated (as soon as Tom commented  ::)  ) from what observations about the world does RET not explain to whether we can solve the three body problem...

Here's my question (asking in sincerity, since I suck at math, recall), in an attempt to bring it back to the OP and an actual response from the FET crowd:

Does the fact that our maths cannot numerically(?) solve the three body problem* count as an "observation" that RET fails to explain? 

I don't think so.

Tom's response and the entire rabbit hole of this thread regarding numerical/analytic methods is a category error in some sense.

RET does explain the observation that there are orbiting bodies - planets, moons, etc. - in our solar system. And it explains it with comprehensive consistency with other elements of RET and accepted science.

So there's yet to be an observed phenomenon suggested in this thread that actually answers the OP. 

*Hope I didn't butcher that formulation  :(

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stevecanuck on March 26, 2021, 10:55:03 PM
Just read through this whole thing - understood maybe half of it? - (those who remember me from when I first joined and was active a year ago perhaps recall I suck at math  ;D ).

But the thread virtually immediately deviated (as soon as Tom commented  ::)  ) from what observations about the world does RET not explain to whether we can solve the three body problem...

Here's my question (asking in sincerity, since I suck at math, recall), in an attempt to bring it back to the OP and an actual response from the FET crowd:

Does the fact that our maths cannot numerically(?) solve the three body problem* count as an "observation" that RET fails to explain? 

I don't think so.

Tom's response and the entire rabbit hole of this thread regarding numerical/analytic methods is a category error in some sense.

RET does explain the observation that there are orbiting bodies - planets, moons, etc. - in our solar system. And it explains it with comprehensive consistency with other elements of RET and accepted science.

So there's yet to be an observed phenomenon suggested in this thread that actually answers the OP. 

*Hope I didn't butcher that formulation  :(

Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Mothra on March 27, 2021, 01:14:25 AM
Saying the inability to mathematically solve the N-body problem is proof that RET is incorrect is the same as saying that weather doesn't exist because humans have yet to invent a 100% accurate way to model it.

What's that? Oh, the Shobijin are calling.  I must leave now.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 27, 2021, 01:09:45 PM
Saying the inability to mathematically solve the N-body problem is proof that RET is incorrect is the same as saying that weather doesn't exist because humans have yet to invent a 100% accurate way to model it.

What's that? Oh, the Shobijin are calling.  I must leave now.

Oh dear! You’ve gone there. Wait until we lift the lid on numerical weather prediction and discover the modelling of the earth’s rotation...
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 27, 2021, 02:05:29 PM
The ability to predict something doesn't mean that you predicted it based on the underlying laws. I can predict that my town is going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and I can do that regardless of what model or physical laws actually exist to make that happen. You are mistaking prediction accuracy for full understanding and simulation of the underlying laws

Numerical models are merely approximations, and there are numerous references for this.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on March 27, 2021, 02:23:32 PM
NASA announced this morning that a "possibility" of the Earth being struck by the asteroid Apophis in 2068 has now been dismissed following a most recent analysis of its current position and orbit: 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-analysis-earth-is-safe-from-asteroid-apophis-for-100-plus-years

In fact, they predict that there is no possibility of this particular asteroid hitting Earth for at least 100 years.  That's a relief. 

Would it be Tom's position that he concurs, on the basis that there is no previous evidence of this asteroid striking Earth?  How would FE predict an unprecedented event? 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 27, 2021, 02:24:55 PM
The ability to predict something doesn't mean that you predicted it based on the underlying laws. I can predict that my town is going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and I can do that regardless of what model or physical laws actually exist to make that happen. You are mistaking prediction accuracy for full understanding and simulation of the underlying laws

Numerical models are merely approximations, and there are numerous references for this.

So is the DE405 ephemeris model, for example, not based on physical laws then, in your view? Despite all the supporting documentation saying that it absolutely is?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: ConfusedMonkeh on March 27, 2021, 03:56:40 PM
If gravity is actually universal acceleration, why does the moon and Jupiter have different gravitational attraction?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 27, 2021, 06:36:12 PM
The ability to predict something doesn't mean that you predicted it based on the underlying laws. I can predict that my town is going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and I can do that regardless of what model or physical laws actually exist to make that happen. You are mistaking prediction accuracy for full understanding and simulation of the underlying laws

As I pointed out above, the behaviour of an eclipse, describing what people on the ground will actually see, as opposed to merely predicting date and time, can be predicted in advance. We've seen the predictions, based on a globe earth, and we've seen that nobody reported anything outwith the predicted behaviour. The folks who predict this can outline the basis upon which they are making the prediction. They can tell you which laws they have based it on.

You saying that they may not have needed to use said laws to make an approximate prediction is not of itself a proof that they did not use those laws in making a detailed prediction.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 28, 2021, 11:51:26 AM
Numerical models are merely approximations, and there are numerous references for this.
They are approximations in the same way that this is an approximation of pi

3. 141592653589793238462643383279

That’s not the exact value because pi is irrational. But in real life that is more than enough digits to calculate values for all practical purposes.

You have been shown that the n body problem can be solved by breaking it into a series of 2 body problems which can be solved - so clearly using the underlying laws. And while it’s not a perfect solution we have close up photos of Pluto, a network of GPS satellites, the ISS and a rover on Mars. And eclipse paths are calculated down to city block level, you can’t do that with a Saros cycle. So these problems are solved in every practical sense.

Your repeated mistake is to think that a solution has to be perfect to be useful and the lack of a perfect solution is in some way damning. There’s no such thing as an accurate long term weather forecast because of the complexity of the atmosphere and the chaotic nature of the maths. That doesn’t mean the weather doesn’t exist or that all the underlying laws are flawed.
Meanwhile the closest you guys have to a working theory is an equation for EA which has no derivation and contains a constant with an unknown value. Can you name one prediction that FET can make about the world?

So while sure, there are things which mainstream science still has to figure out, FET doesn’t seem to have anything figured out. And that’s the horse you’re backing? ???
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: scomato on March 28, 2021, 08:21:09 PM
Numerical models are merely approximations, and there are numerous references for this.
They are approximations in the same way that this is an approximation of pi

3. 141592653589793238462643383279

That’s not the exact value because pi is irrational. But in real life that is more than enough digits to calculate values for all practical purposes.

You have been shown that the n body problem can be solved by breaking it into a series of 2 body problems which can be solved - so clearly using the underlying laws. And while it’s not a perfect solution we have close up photos of Pluto, a network of GPS satellites, the ISS and a rover on Mars. And eclipse paths are calculated down to city block level, you can’t do that with a Saros cycle. So these problems are solved in every practical sense.

Your repeated mistake is to think that a solution has to be perfect to be useful and the lack of a perfect solution is in some way damning. There’s no such thing as an accurate long term weather forecast because of the complexity of the atmosphere and the chaotic nature of the maths. That doesn’t mean the weather doesn’t exist or that all the underlying laws are flawed.
Meanwhile the closest you guys have to a working theory is an equation for EA which has no derivation and contains a constant with an unknown value. Can you name one prediction that FET can make about the world?

So while sure, there are things which mainstream science still has to figure out, FET doesn’t seem to have anything figured out. And that’s the horse you’re backing? ???

If the obvious facts are able to convince flat earthers that they are wrong, there wouldn't have been any flat earthers to begin with.

Trying to come here to convince people otherwise is a losing battle that only feeds the beast, because flat earth is a product of mass psychological reactance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/

It's a well understood quirk in the behavior of our primitive human brains that, when confronted with a threat to free-behavior; ie "Being persuaded to buy a specific product in the grocery store, being forced to pay tuition fees, being prohibited from using a mobile phone in school, and being instructed to perform work for the boss are all examples of threats to the freedom to act as desired, and this is where reactance comes into play. Reactance is an unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviors. It serves as a motivator to restore one’s freedom." 

So of course there are Flat Earthers, when we live in a society where belief in a Flat Earth is not really allowed, it carries the cost of ridicule and intellectual disrespect by regular members of society. For people whose belief in flat earth overrides their will to confront the truth, who are furthermore told that they 'must believe' that the Earth is round, psychological reactance would predict those people to double down on their beliefs because in that moment they are not experiencing education or persuasion, they are experiencing an assault on their freedom of belief.

And its not like you or I are immune to reactance either. When the Government prohibits drugs, people go out of their way to get them. When a high school principal bans tank tops, all the guys will show up the next day wearing tanktops in protest. https://www.greeleytribune.com/2013/05/18/high-school-boys-protest-dress-code/ It's why classified and secret government documents have so much appeal, the more restricted they are to us, the more we want to see what's inside. It is connected to the Streisand Effect as well.

If Joe Biden were to tweet, right now, 'I believe that Americans should not be allowed to own Assault Shotguns' you would wish you held stock in those shotgun companies because those products are going to be flying off the shelves. It's just our human nature to be like that.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2021, 07:42:47 PM
Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.

It's pretty much documented in the Wiki.

The question for me at this point is more of a matter of what does work, rather than what doesn't work. I also suspect that the topics described are incomplete on the numerous issues plaguing RE. The problems and anomalies and contradictions tend to be suppressed and ignored rather than publicized and celebrated.

Here are some I find interesting:

Mechanics

The physics of the giant RE galaxies don't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

The model of the RE Sun doesn't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Inconsistent_Brightness:_A_Round_Earth_Mystery

Cosmology

RE Cosmology doesn't work. Scientific American calls modern cosmology a folk tale - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmology_Has_Some_Big_Problems

Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

RE Galaxies don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies

Gravity

Can't truly model more than two bodies at a time - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Astrophysicist Ryan Martin: "As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!"

Variations of gravity inconsistent, contradictory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Relativity

Light's velocity does not change on a horizonal plane from the earth's movement around the Sun, but does change when the detectors and receivers move in a laboratory experiment.

Earth's movement has no affect on light velocity on an experiment on a horizontal plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

Devices with moving detectors and receivers in a laboratory do measure a change - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Also, a change is detected on a vertical plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Vertical_Michelson-Morley_Experiments
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 29, 2021, 09:08:05 PM
I picked one at random;

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

1. The Wiki is about vintage stuff. Astronomers looking through vintage/early telescopes and such. We've moved on since then.

2. How does this have any bearing on the shape of the Earth?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 29, 2021, 09:45:37 PM
Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2021, 09:59:53 PM
I picked one at random;

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

1. The Wiki is about vintage stuff. Astronomers looking through vintage/early telescopes and such. We've moved on since then.

2. How does this have any bearing on the shape of the Earth?

It doesn't matter how old it is. It's still RE cannon. You guys also still quote RE proofs from 300 B.C. and call that cannon.

The stars should shrink to perspective in the giant RE universe needed by heliocentrism. They don't. Optical Illusions are postulated. This is a problem because those observations are contradicted by Galileo's experiment in the link and the use of the apparent sizes of the planets in Astronomy. It is also a problem that you say that the FE sun should shrink to perspective while ignoring your own stars.

Quote from: stack
Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?

Incorrect. That is not what the Wiki says. The Wiki doesn't say that you can't get illusions to work in RE. The Wiki says that they did get it to work, with the illusions. According to the official heliocentrisism vs. geocentrism story they think it was proven wrong, by postulating these optical illusions. That sentence is correct.

The problem is that you are invoking illusions to explain the diameter of the stars, which Professor Graney says is contradicted by various things. He calls Galileo's experiments which contradict the illusion to be lies and Astronomers who use the sizes of planets by their apparent sizes to be "nonsense".

It's also a problem that the RE stars and RE galaxies don't shrink to perspective, and illusions are invoked, while you simultaneously criticize the size of the FE Sun not shrinking to perspective.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 29, 2021, 10:12:08 PM
I picked one at random;

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

1. The Wiki is about vintage stuff. Astronomers looking through vintage/early telescopes and such. We've moved on since then.

2. How does this have any bearing on the shape of the Earth?

It doesn't matter how old it is. It's still RE cannon. You guys also still quote RE proofs from 300 B.C and call that cannon.

The stars should shrink to perspective in the giant RE universe needed by heliocentrism. They don't. Optical Illusions are postulated. This is a problem because those observations are contradicted by other things, and you also say that the FE sun should shrink to perspective while ignoring your own stars.

Quote from: stack
Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?

The Wiki doesn't say that you can't get illusions to work in RE. According to the official heliocentric vs geocentrism story it was proven wrong, by postulating these optical illusions.

The problem is that you are invoking illusions, which Professor Graney says is contradicted by various things. He calls Galileo's experiments that contract it to be lies and Astronomers who use the sizes of planets by their apparent sizes to be "nonsense".

Yet Professor Graney concludes:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong"

See the "They were eventually proved wrong" bit? In summation, Professor Graney directly contradicts you regardless of what he says about Galileo's experiments performed 100's of years ago. Can you not fully comprehend that part of his sentence? Get it? Those opposed to Copernicanism were eventually proved wrong according to your source. Eventually. That's what the good professor's article is all about: Hundreds of years ago there was a great lack of evidence supporting heliocentrism.
But the Professor still concludes that those opposed to Copernicanism were eventually proved wrong.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2021, 10:17:14 PM
According to the official story of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism the heliocentrists do think it was proven wrong, with the optical illusions. I don't see an issue with that context.

We can see that you won't even attempt to address the contradictions and will just continue quoting sentences out of context, perpetuating your poor defense of this and showing us all that you have nothing.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 29, 2021, 10:42:43 PM
According to the official story of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism the heliocentrists do think it was proven wrong, with the optical illusions. I don't see an issue with that context.

We can see that you won't even attempt to address the contradictions and will just continue quoting sentences out of context, perpetuating your poor defense of this and showing us all that you have nothing.

The context of the article is that 100's of years ago, heliocentrism wasn't well evidenced and wasn't a religious fight as commonly conveyed, it was actually a scientific one. The opening premise:

"Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn’t come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology."

And in the conclusion of the article, which is certainly not out of context at all, the bookend to the opening of the piece, is:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."

What could be more contextual than their closing statement and more contradictory to your position? Nothing.

Do I need to cite also in the article where they state the evidence amassed much after Gallileo's age in support of heliocentrism? It's all right there in the article you seemed to have omitted. Do you dispute their closing statement?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on March 29, 2021, 10:43:55 PM
It doesn't matter how old it is. It's still RE cannon. You guys also still quote RE proofs from 300 B.C. and call that cannon.

The stars should shrink to perspective in the giant RE universe needed by heliocentrism. They don't. Optical Illusions are postulated. This is a problem because those observations are contradicted by Galileo's experiment in the link and the use of the apparent sizes of the planets in Astronomy. It is also a problem that you say that the FE sun should shrink to perspective while ignoring your own stars.

I specifically stated that we've moved on since then. I'm sure that the instruments and optics used today are far better than those used by Galileo, Copernicus and their peers.

Can you cite any more recent observations than Galileo's to show that "the stars don't shrink to perspective" ?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 29, 2021, 11:25:29 PM
According to the official story of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism the heliocentrists do think it was proven wrong, with the optical illusions. I don't see an issue with that context.

We can see that you won't even attempt to address the contradictions and will just continue quoting sentences out of context, perpetuating your poor defense of this and showing us all that you have nothing.

The context of the article is that 100's of years ago, heliocentrism wasn't well evidenced and wasn't a religious fight as commonly conveyed, it was actually a scientific one. The opening premise:

"Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn’t come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology."

And in the conclusion of the article, which is certainly not out of context at all, the bookend to the opening of the piece, is:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."

You're just quoting the same sentence over and over about how something was "proved wrong" by heliocentrists. They do think that they proved it wrong. No issue with that statement.

However, your explanation for the star illusion only works if you call Galileo a liar, and that he is perpetuating fake experiments which contradict your illusion theory. It's not really a good theory if you have to champion Galileo in one sentence and call him a scientific fraud in the next. I would suggest that you guys work on getting your act together.

I specifically stated that we've moved on since then. I'm sure that the instruments and optics used today are far better than those used by Galileo, Copernicus and their peers.

Can you cite any more recent observations than Galileo's to show that "the stars don't shrink to perspective" ?

Your star problems and illusions are still cannon. You didn't move on. The story explains the problem and how it was solved with an illusion. The author Prof. Graney also says that the illusion is contradicted by other experiments.

Kepler is still cited for his laws of planetary motion, Newton is still cited on gravity, and Galileo is still cited for heliocentrism and his Equivalence Principle experiments. Einstein came up with Relativity over 100 years ago. Aristotle's proofs are thousands of years old, and still cited. Don't tell me that if it's old that you guys throw it away.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: fisherman on March 30, 2021, 12:16:14 AM
Quote
The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Not true.

Quote
Finally Einstein's reinterpretation eradicates an awkwardness of Newtonian theory. That theory had to posit that increases in gravitational mass in bodies are perfectly and exactly compensated by corresponding increases in inertial mass, so that the uniqueness of free fall can be preserved. Einstein's redescription does away with that coincidence and even the very idea of distinct inertial and gravitational masses. In his theory, bodies now just have mass, or, in the light of special relativity, mass-energy. For Einstein the primitive notion is the geometrical structure of spacetime with the curved trajectories traced out by all freely falling bodies, independently of their mass.

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 12:26:10 AM
Quote
The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Not true.

Quote
Finally Einstein's reinterpretation eradicates an awkwardness of Newtonian theory. That theory had to posit that increases in gravitational mass in bodies are perfectly and exactly compensated by corresponding increases in inertial mass, so that the uniqueness of free fall can be preserved. Einstein's redescription does away with that coincidence and even the very idea of distinct inertial and gravitational masses. In his theory, bodies now just have mass, or, in the light of special relativity, mass-energy. For Einstein the primitive notion is the geometrical structure of spacetime with the curved trajectories traced out by all freely falling bodies, independently of their mass.

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/

My source who says that it's still a coincidence is a physicist - https://www.queensu.ca/physics/ryan-martin

Your source who says the opposite is someone with a history and philosophy degree - http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html#Bio

Physicist > Someone with a history and philosophy degree
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 12:47:30 AM
Another quote from Anatoly Alekseyevich Logunov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Logunov), a theoretical physcist:

https://pdfroom.com/books/the-theory-of-gravity/X623zYb6g4Z

"GRT does not comply with the equivalence principle,
does not explain the equality of the inert and active
gravitational masses, and gives no unique prediction
for gravitational effects. It does not contain the usual
conservation laws of energy–momentum and of angu-
lar momentum of matter."

GRT = General Relativity Theory, as defined earlier in the paper:

"Therein, also, critical comments are presented con-
cerning general relativity theory (GRT), which still remain in
force."

Here is another quote, from a publication of the AIAA on p.99 (https://web.archive.org/web/20201013002343/https://ia601505.us.archive.org/24/items/reynolds1986/reynolds1986.pdf):

"Newton proposed two formulas: the law of motion, F = ma, and the law of gravitation, F = GMm/r2. The mass, m, has two distinct meanings in the two formulas, one as the receptacle of inertia, the other as the source and receptacle of gravitation; yet somehow the two are identical. Stated another way, if mi and mg are respectively inertial and gravitational mass, then for any two bodies A and B, regardless of what substance they are, the quantity

(https://i.imgur.com/Io0uQAq.png)

appears to be identically zero. It was just this identity that Einstein denominated a principle (weak equivalence) and extended (strong equivalence) to all the laws of phyics in accelerated frames, whether the acceleration is ineitial or gravitational in origin. Strong equivalence is the basis on which it becomes possible in general relativity to represent gravitation by a curvature of spacetime. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, however, general relativity does not explain equivalence. The principle is an assumption that, once made, allows the effects of gravity to be represented thus. The phenomenon remains a mystery and still needs testing."
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: fisherman on March 30, 2021, 12:59:41 AM
Quote
My source who says that it's still a coincidence is a physicist - https://www.queensu.ca/physics/ryan-martin

Your source who says the opposite is someone with a history and philosophy degree - http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html#Bio

Physicist > Someone with a history and philosophy degree


LOL, John Norton's creds are good enough that you cite him on your own wiki, multiple times.  All taken out of context of course.  He is considered one of the world's leading academics on Einstein and worked on the Einstein Papers Project. 

Quote
John Norton, an internationally recognized expert in the science of Albert Einstein, has published extensively on Einstein’s discoveries of general relativity, special relativity and the light quantum and also on philosophical aspects of Einstein’s work. He has been a contributing editor to the publication of Einstein’s collected papers and serves on the publication project’s advisory board. His most notable achievement was the analysis of the “Zurich Notebook,” which contains private calculations made by Einstein in preparation for his greatest discovery, the general theory of relativity
.

You might want to familarize your self with his CV.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html

or his wikipedia page

Quote
Norton is considered an authority on the science of Albert Einstein and the philosophy of science. He has published on general relativity, special relativity, the relationship between thermodynamics and information processing, quantum physics, and the genesis of scientific theories. He is well known for his analysis of Einstein's "Zurich Notebook," a small, brown notebook which contains Einstein's private day-to-day calculations during a critical period (1912–1913) in his development of general relativity.[4] The trio of Einstein scholars, John Norton, John Stachel, and John Earman, have sometimes been jokingly referred to as John3 = John Norton × John Stachel × John Earman.[5]
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 30, 2021, 01:05:08 AM
He's not a physicist. He's a historian and a philosopher. It doesn't matter if he writes about it. He doesn't know the physics as well as an expert in physics. I have quoted multiple physicists. Physicists would know physics to a better degree than a historian and a philosopher would.

I would suggest getting better qualified expert sources than that paltry attempt. Telling a story is different than knowing the physics.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Iceman on March 30, 2021, 01:23:40 AM
Appealing to the authority of a quote you found from one physicist while also discounting the work of countless others when it comes to rocket development, orbital calculations, space travel, rover design and implementation...
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: fisherman on March 30, 2021, 03:35:10 AM
Quote
He's not a physicist. He's a historian and a philosopher. It doesn't matter if he writes about it. He doesn't know the physics as well as an expert in physics. I have quoted multiple physicists. Physicists would know physics to a better degree than a historian and a philosopher would.

I would suggest getting better qualified expert sources than that paltry attempt
.

Paltry??? John Norton is one of the most respected academics on Einstein in the world and is cited in literally thousands of scientific works.  You obviously don't understand what "philosophy of science" means or the significance of the fact that he undertook the analysis of Einstein's Zurich notebook.  If you don't think that required an understanding of the physics involved...well, let's just say I am not surprised.

Quote
Telling a story is different than knowing the physics.

Philosophy of Science is "telling the story of the physics".  You can't tell the story of how Einstein came up with GR without understanding the physics.


Here's a few excerpts from his analysis.

Quote
Suddenly, without any warning of the transition, we find the basic notion of general relativity, the "line element" written at the top of the page.
line element
The coefficients Gμν enable us to compute the spatio-temporal interval ds between events separated by infinitesimal coordinate differences dxμ. If these coefficients assign spatio-temporal intervals that do not conform to a flat geometry, then we have captured the full range of gravitational effects in the manner of Einstein's general theory.

This is quite possibly the first time Einstein has written down this expression. The coefficients Gμν of what we now know as the "metric tensor" are written with an upper case G. Einstein shifted within a few pages to the lower case g, which remained his standard notation from then on.

The big project is to find how this quantity gμν, the metric tensor, is generated by source masses. These are the "gravitational field equations." That is this theory's analog of Newton's inverse square law of gravity. The lower half of the page is clearly making rudimentary efforts in that direction. There Einstein chooses a "Spezialfall" -- a special case -- in which the coefficients of the metric tensor revert to the values of special relativity, excepting G44 = c2. Einstein then tries to apply the gravitational field equation from his 1912 theory of static gravitational fields.

Einstein's analysis continues at this simple level on the facing page.There he asks beginner's questions. He looks at the coordinate divergence of the metric tensor and asks "Ist dies invariant?"-- "Is this invariant?" As the computation that follows immediately shows, it is not.

Quote
On this page Einstein sets up the equations for conservation of energy and momentum for continuous matter in general relativity. He starts with the equation of motion for a point mass--the geodesic equation--but now written in the form of an Euler-Lagrange equation:
5R snip1
He then applies this to a cloud of non-interacting dust particles in free fall to arrive at what we now recognize to be the condition of the vanishing of the covariant divergence of the stress energy tensor Tμν.
5R snip
However there is good evidence that Einstein's knowledge of tensor calculus is still limited. He does not know or is not sure that the operator acting on Tμν in this equation is a generally covariant operator. To check the operator, he replaces Tμν by the tensor gμν and sees whether the result is zero or a four vector ("0 oder Vierervektor"), as it should be if the operator is generally covariant. It proves to be zero and Einstein is satisfied. He writes "Stimmt"--"Correct".


http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Zurich_Notebook/index.html

He literally goes through Einstein's private calculations on GR and explains them page by page, line by line and calculation by calculation. And this is just an informal commentary on his website. The actual textbook he wrote is introduced by
Quote
The notes documenting Einstein’s search for field equations for this theory take up the better part of the notebook. They start on pp. 39L–41R and continue on pp. 5R–29L and pp. 42L–43L. Our text is a detailed running commentary on these notes. 2 It provides line-by-line reconstructions of all calculations and discusses the purpose behind them.


Yeah, that's a guy who doesn't understand physics.  ::)

Logunov rejected GR in favor of his own theory of gravitation...which has its own explanation as to why inertial mass and gravitational mass are equivalent.  So take your pick on either theory.  Either way, its not a mystery or a coincidence.



Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 30, 2021, 07:42:40 AM
Physicist > Someone with a history and philosophy degree

And what shape do physicists think the earth is? :)
Your "appeal to authority" thing is very selective, you cherry pick bits and pieces from people you regard as authorities when you think their (often out of context) comments back up your beliefs.
But you reject their thoughts on gravity being a thing or the shape of the earth. ???
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 30, 2021, 11:33:29 AM
Physicist > Someone with a history and philosophy degree

And what shape do physicists think the earth is? :)
Your "appeal to authority" thing is very selective, you cherry pick bits and pieces from people you regard as authorities when you think their (often out of context) comments back up your beliefs.
But you reject their thoughts on gravity being a thing or the shape of the earth. ???

Scientists have changed the definition of Gravity and what they think it is consistently since antiquity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory

Why would I believe that right now at this point in history, they finally have it nailed down? Because I happen to be alive at the exact point when it is understood? I'm sure someone could have claimed the same in 1400 AD. If we had the same conversation in the 1940's you'd be saying Einstein knew all with his general relativity and Edwin Hubble confirmed it and I am so stupid thinking they are wrong.

And yet here we are in 2021 and
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_gravitational_theory
Several decades after the discovery of general relativity, it was realized that it cannot be the complete theory of gravity because it is incompatible with quantum mechanics.[72] Later it was understood that it is possible to describe gravity in the framework of quantum field theory like the other fundamental forces. In this framework, the attractive force of gravity arises due to exchange of virtual gravitons, in the same way as the electromagnetic force arises from exchange of virtual photons.[73][74] This reproduces general relativity in the classical limit, but only at the linearized level and postulating that the conditions for the applicability of Ehrenfest theorem holds, which is not always the case. Moreover, this approach fails at short distances of the order of the Planck length.[72]

Theoretical models such as string theory and loop quantum gravity are current candidates for a possible 'theory of everything'.

They'll change it all again at some point in the future. In other words, they still can't explain gravity and you write

But you reject their thoughts on gravity being a thing

Yes, they only have models that don't work. They'll tell you that themselves.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: fisherman on March 30, 2021, 02:03:40 PM
Physicist > Someone with a history and philosophy degree

And what shape do physicists think the earth is? :)
Your "appeal to authority" thing is very selective, you cherry pick bits and pieces from people you regard as authorities when you think their (often out of context) comments back up your beliefs.
But you reject their thoughts on gravity being a thing or the shape of the earth. ???

The level of cherry picking and hypocrisy is mind blowing.

Not only does he use an introductory quote from a paper written by someone he claims “doesn’t understand the physics” to support his position, the whole purpose of the paper he quotes is to contradict the very position he uses it to support.  If he’d actually read the whole paper without cherry picking, he would see that the whole paper is Norton (using the physics he doesn’t understand) explaining how and why Einstein ultimately “solved” the “coincidence” of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass...and that is the whole purpose of the paper.

Quote
Einstein's principle of equivalence asserted that the properties of space that manifest themselves in inertial effects are really the properties of a field structure in space: moreover this same structure also governs gravitational effects. As a result, the privileged inertial states of motion defined by inertial eff ects are not properties of space but of this structure and the various possible dispositions of inertial motions in space are determined completely by it. Space of itself is to be expected to designate no states of motion as privileged Einstein's principle of Equivalence 41 This principle guided Einstein to seek his general theory of relativity as a gravitation theory of which special relativity was a special case. There the principle found precise theoretical expression. The structure responsible for inertial and gravitational effects is the metric tensor. The space-time manifold itself has no properties that would enable us to designate the motion associated with any given world line as privileged, that is as \inertial" or \unaccelerated." This designation depends entirely on the metric and the and structure for space-time that it determines.

To claim that the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass is considered a coincidence in GR shows a basic lack of understanding of it.  The solution to the coincidence, the existence of the gravitational-inertial field, is the very heart of GR.  Without solving that coincidence, there is no GR.

Moreover, the same paper he cites to support using the EP as evidence of UA, explicitly contradicts that it can be used to support UA, using Einstein’s own words.
Quote
He explained this to a correspondent in a letter of July 12, 1953, reminding him that the principle could not be used to generate arbitrary gravitational fields by acceleration:

The equivalence principle does not assert that every gravitational field (e.g., the one associated with the Earth) can be produced by acceleration of the coordinate system. It only asserts that the qualities of physical space, as they present themselves from an accelerated coordinate system, represent a special case of the gravitational field. It is the same in the case of the rotation of the coordinate system: there is de facto no reason to trace centrifugal effects back to a `real' rotation.19


Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 30, 2021, 03:48:56 PM
Why would I believe that right now at this point in history, they finally have it nailed down? Because I happen to be alive at the exact point when it is understood?
Because there's a rover sitting on Mars right now.
Because your phone has GPS.
Because there's an ISS which you can literally see from the ground exactly when the website tells you it will be overhead.
Because they predicted the path of the solar eclipse to the block level.
Because there's a whole area of expertise which uses gravity to find resources underground.

Now, of course our model of gravity has changed over time, but it's hardly true to say that Newton was some old duffer. Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's for all practical purposes.
GPS does need to take account of Relativistic effects because if you want a precise position you need a very precise timestamp, but for things like rockets going to Mars Newton will do fine, thanks very much. Of course science should always be looking to improve models, but the ones we have seem to work pretty well for most practical purposes.

Quote
Yes, they only have models that don't work. They'll tell you that themselves.

You'll have to tell that to the ISS and the Perseverance Rover.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 30, 2021, 06:36:35 PM
Because there's a rover sitting on Mars right now.
No there isn't.

Because your phone has GPS.
No it doesn't.

Because there's an ISS which you can literally see from the ground exactly when the website tells you it will be overhead.
No I can't.

Because they predicted the path of the solar eclipse to the block level.
No, you are being absurd.

Because there's a whole area of expertise which uses gravity to find resources underground.
No, you're just repeating made up lies.

Now, of course our model of gravity has changed over time, but it's hardly true to say that Newton was some old duffer.
The guy was into alchemy, a creationist, believed that metals vegetate, that the whole cosmos/matter is alive and that gravity is caused by emissions of an alchemical principle he called salniter. But hey, I wouldn't accuse you of picking and choosing.

Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's for all practical purposes.
It is possible they are both wrong being as one leans on the work of the other.

GPS does need to take account of Relativistic effects because if you want a precise position you need a very precise timestamp, but for things like rockets going to Mars Newton will do fine, thanks very much. Of course science should always be looking to improve models, but the ones we have seem to work pretty well for most practical purposes.
And everyone lived happily ever after? I love your little stories.

Quote
Yes, they only have models that don't work. They'll tell you that themselves.
You'll have to tell that to the ISS and the Perseverance Rover.
They'd have to exist first.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 30, 2021, 07:12:09 PM
Right. So your counter argument is basically “nuh-uh”?

And sure, Newton probably did believe some crazy stuff. It’s easy to point and laugh at people who lived centuries ago. We are all products of the era we grew up in. As you’ve intimated, it’s likely that in the future people will look back at some of our beliefs and scoff. But our current models are good enough to do the things I’ve mentioned. Just denying them isn’t a counter argument. So I think many of our current beliefs will stand the test of time, as have Newton’s.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 07:24:56 PM
Because there's a rover sitting on Mars right now.
No there isn't.

How do you know?

Because your phone has GPS.
No it doesn't.

What kind of mobile do you have? Mine has GPS. Maybe you need to upgrade from your Nokia brick.

Because there's an ISS which you can literally see from the ground exactly when the website tells you it will be overhead.
No I can't.

Maybe you can't because your Nokia brick doesn't have app support. But if you upgrade, you can get something like the ISS spotter app (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/iss-spotter/id523486350), track the ISS and when overhead, snap a picture like this:

(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ISS-STS-131.jpg)

Here's a beginner's guide for tracking and capturing the ISS:
A Beginner’s Guide to Photographing The International Space Station (ISS)
https://www.universetoday.com/93588/a-beginners-guide-to-photographing-the-international-space-station-iss/

Because they predicted the path of the solar eclipse to the block level.
No, you are being absurd.

You can look this up too, but I'll give you a head start of just how precise the path predictions are and how they come about them:

How Scientists Predict the Path of the 2017 Total Solar Eclipse
https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html

Because there's a whole area of expertise which uses gravity to find resources underground.
No, you're just repeating made up lies.

Geodesy & Gravimetry. Look them up.

Now, of course our model of gravity has changed over time, but it's hardly true to say that Newton was some old duffer.
The guy was into alchemy, a creationist, believed that metals vegetate, that the whole cosmos/matter is alive and that gravity is caused by emissions of an alchemical principle he called salniter. But hey, I wouldn't accuse you of picking and choosing.

We didn't stop exploring gravity 300 years ago. Like a lot of things, we've learned a thing or two in the past few centuries.

Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's for all practical purposes.
It is possible they are both wrong being as one leans on the work of the other.

Anything is possible. We sure do rely on building a bunch of stuff because of those two. Even your Nokia brick.

GPS does need to take account of Relativistic effects because if you want a precise position you need a very precise timestamp, but for things like rockets going to Mars Newton will do fine, thanks very much. Of course science should always be looking to improve models, but the ones we have seem to work pretty well for most practical purposes.
And everyone lived happily ever after? I love your little stories.

How does GPS work without Relativistic effects?

Quote
Yes, they only have models that don't work. They'll tell you that themselves.
You'll have to tell that to the ISS and the Perseverance Rover.
They'd have to exist first.

See above.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 30, 2021, 07:29:40 PM
Right. So your counter argument is basically “nuh-uh”?

And sure, Newton probably did believe some crazy stuff. It’s easy to point and laugh at people who lived centuries ago. We are all products of the era we grew up in. As you’ve intimated, it’s likely that in the future people will look back at some of our beliefs and scoff. But our current models are good enough to do the things I’ve mentioned. Just denying them isn’t a counter argument. So I think many of our current beliefs will stand the test of time, as have Newton’s.

So you are picking and choosing. You don't like his theories on turning base metals into gold. Or on a clockwork universe crafted by God. You don't like his work on the elixir of life and immortality. You aren't keen on his work predicting the end of the earth in 2060. But you do like his work on how apples fall off trees because it reassures you that the earth is round.   ::) As time has gone on, more and more of Newton's theories have been scrubbed as farcical. The trend is that one day we'll realise the guy was an absolute nugget who set science back centuries. 

@Stack, no. We aren't arguing 18 points at once. Pick your favourite and go with that.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stack on March 30, 2021, 07:36:33 PM
Right. So your counter argument is basically “nuh-uh”?

And sure, Newton probably did believe some crazy stuff. It’s easy to point and laugh at people who lived centuries ago. We are all products of the era we grew up in. As you’ve intimated, it’s likely that in the future people will look back at some of our beliefs and scoff. But our current models are good enough to do the things I’ve mentioned. Just denying them isn’t a counter argument. So I think many of our current beliefs will stand the test of time, as have Newton’s.

So you are picking and choosing. You don't like his theories on turning base metals into gold. Or on a clockwork universe crafted by God. You don't like his work on the elixir of life and immortality. You aren't keen on his work predicting the end of the earth in 2060. But you do like his work on how apples fall off trees because it reassures you that the earth is round.   ::) As time has gone on, more and more of Newton's theories have been scrubbed as farcical. The trend is that one day we'll realise the guy was an absolute nugget who set science back centuries. 

@Stack, no. We aren't arguing 18 points at once. Pick your favourite and go with that.

You're the one that parsed them out...

But in any case. What is that thing in the sky you can track and image known commonly as the ISS?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: existoid on March 30, 2021, 07:44:35 PM
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0

 


Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 30, 2021, 09:03:08 PM
So you are picking and choosing.
If you want to call it that then so are you.
You don't like his theory about gravity because he believed some other things which turned out to be wrong and it means your delusion about the shape of the earth is wrong.

Quote
But you do like his work on how apples fall off trees because it reassures you that the earth is round.
I don't need reassuring. It is of no consequence what shape the earth is. It just happens to be a globe but it wouldn't affect my life one jot if it were not. It's not about whether I "like" his work, it's simply that it turned out to be a jolly good model of how things work and can actually explain observations. It helped us discover Neptune and put men on the moon and do all the other things I mentioned.
Not bad for an "absolute nugget" who thought he might be able to turn base metals into gold.

Quote
As time has gone on, more and more of Newton's theories have been scrubbed as farcical. The trend is that one day we'll realise the guy was an absolute nugget who set science back centuries.

You'll have to tell the ISS that. It passed over England this week, you know. You could have done some investigation if you'd bothered to.
Just saying "nuh-uh" isn't a counter-argument.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on March 30, 2021, 10:01:42 PM

(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ISS-STS-131.jpg)


I love that ISS picture, and others like it. I'm really curious to know what FEers think the ISS is...you can literally see it yourself with relatively cheap equipment and a clear night. And you can see the shape of it. It's clearly heavier than air and non-aerodynamic. And it looks exactly like the diagrams of it. So what's holding it up and causing it to move so fast, if not orbital mechanics?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Dr David Thork on March 30, 2021, 10:28:52 PM
It just happens to be a globe but it wouldn't affect my life one jot if it were not. It's not about whether I "like" his work, it's simply that it turned out to be a jolly good model of how things work and can actually explain observations.
The Bohr model is a jolly good model. But it has no basis in reality. ... oooh, maybe I should formulate a flat atom theory. 🤔
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: stevecanuck on March 30, 2021, 10:49:15 PM
Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.

It's pretty much documented in the Wiki.

The question for me at this point is more of a matter of what does work, rather than what doesn't work. I also suspect that the topics described are incomplete on the numerous issues plaguing RE. The problems and anomalies and contradictions tend to be suppressed and ignored rather than publicized and celebrated.

Here are some I find interesting:

Mechanics

The physics of the giant RE galaxies don't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

The model of the RE Sun doesn't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Inconsistent_Brightness:_A_Round_Earth_Mystery

Cosmology

RE Cosmology doesn't work. Scientific American calls modern cosmology a folk tale - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmology_Has_Some_Big_Problems

Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

RE Galaxies don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies

Gravity

Can't truly model more than two bodies at a time - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Astrophysicist Ryan Martin: "As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!"

Variations of gravity inconsistent, contradictory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Relativity

Light's velocity does not change on a horizonal plane from the earth's movement around the Sun, but does change when the detectors and receivers move in a laboratory experiment.

Earth's movement has no affect on light velocity on an experiment on a horizontal plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

Devices with moving detectors and receivers in a laboratory do measure a change - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Also, a change is detected on a vertical plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Vertical_Michelson-Morley_Experiments

None of that has anything to do with the shape of the earth.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: AATW on March 31, 2021, 07:49:05 AM
It just happens to be a globe but it wouldn't affect my life one jot if it were not. It's not about whether I "like" his work, it's simply that it turned out to be a jolly good model of how things work and can actually explain observations.
The Bohr model is a jolly good model. But it has no basis in reality. ... oooh, maybe I should formulate a flat atom theory. 🤔
https://www.intelligentspeculation.com/blog/false-equivalence

The clear difference being that the earth is something we can directly observe. And have.
Spoiler: It's a globe.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 04, 2021, 01:40:56 AM
Not only does he use an introductory quote from a paper written by someone he claims “doesn’t understand the physics” to support his position, the whole purpose of the paper he quotes is to contradict the very position he uses it to support.  If he’d actually read the whole paper without cherry picking, he would see that the whole paper is Norton (using the physics he doesn’t understand) explaining how and why Einstein ultimately “solved” the “coincidence” of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass...and that is the whole purpose of the paper.

A historian is an appropriate source to cite on an undisputed topic or factoid about physics. However, if a physicist disagrees with him, the historian's opinion is pretty much garbage. He simply doesn't have the required credentials to rebut a physicist, no matter how many times anyone calls him an 'expert'.

Now, when you have a qualified source for us on this, do let us know.

None of that has anything to do with the shape of the earth.

Actually, it does. The giant and distant sun and large universe is part of the RE Theory.

https://web.archive.org/web/20120205001209/http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2006/05/19/5000-for-proving-the-earth-is-a-globe/

(https://i.imgur.com/u6Eazv7.jpg)
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Iceman on April 04, 2021, 02:28:21 AM

A historian is an appropriate source to cite on an undisputed topic or factoid about physics. However, if a physicist disagrees with him, the historian's opinion is pretty much garbage. He simply doesn't have the required credentials to rebut a physicist, no matter how many times anyone calls him an 'expert'.

I don't disagree with you... but I would say the historian in question is a bit of a special case.

More importantly though, relying on subject matter experts is a good way to gather information on relevant subjects (I know, what a deep, insightful proposition). So I would then ask... what subject matter experts form the basis of understanding antarctica or the ice wall? The glaciologists I know view the ice wall as the marine terminus of ice streams, which are fed by ice flowing from accumulation areas thousands of kilometers inland, and hundreds of meters higher in elevation (Bennett, 2003; Wellner et al. 2006; Wingham et al 2006; Bell et al 2007; Ò'Cofaigh et al. 2008; Livinstone et al. 2012; Rignot et al. 2019)*.

Or maybe we should ask the explorers? Historical and modern men and women who have crossed the continent or conducted research at the south pole?

If you're going to defend your position on one aspect of things by allowing the opinions of a subject matter expert outweigh the work of others with less foundational background in the subject, I would suggest you consider applying the same level of scrutiny to other aspects of FET.

*enter those those names/year+Antarctica+ "ice streams" in a google scholar search...as memory serves, most or all are open access publications
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: fisherman on April 04, 2021, 08:14:08 AM
Quote
However, if a physicist disagrees with him, the historian's opinion is pretty much garbage. He simply doesn't have the required credentials to rebut a physicist, no matter how many times anyone calls him an 'expert'.

Now, when you have a qualified source for us on this, do let us know.

Physicists don’t disagree with him, not even the ones you quote. Is another one of your own sources qualified enough for you?

The guy who said “There is no a-priori reason why the quantity that determines the magnitude of the gravitational force on the particle should equal the quantity that determines the particle’s resistance to an an applied force in general”, also said, in the very same book you quote

“These observations led Einstein to make a profound proposal that simultaneously provides for a relativistic description of gravity and incorporates in a natural way the equivalence principle and consequently the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein’s proposal was that gravity should no longer be regarded as a force in the conventional sense but rather as a manifestation of the curvature of the spacetime”

Do you need to discredit him also now?

The book you quote by Ryan Martin is about Classical Physics so it is no surprise that he would describe the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass as a coincidence.  In classical physics, it is.

If you read Einstein’s quote that Nigel Calder references, you’ll find that Einstein goes on to explain the “astonishing fact” of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force.

You obviously didn’t even read the whole context of anything you quoted. Just cherry picked quotes you thought would support your point and not a single one of them does.  If John Norton is so unreliable why did you quote him?  You obviously had no idea who he is or what his credentials are, but he sounded good and that’s good enough for you.

You now have to resort to discrediting one of your own sources because you either can’t be bothered to actually read them or are incapable of understanding that he was contradicting the very point you were trying to make. It doesn’t matter if Norton is right or wrong, the smartest person in the world or a lunatic. You quoted him without the slightest idea of what he was talking about and completely missed the larger point I was making, which is your “wiki”, at least on this point, is the poorest excuse for “research” or “scholarship” I have ever seen.

Since you can’t be bothered with actually doing your own research, I’ll explain to you exactly why GR solves the great mystery. In GR, gravity is not a force, if gravity is not a force, then it can’t effect mass. A non-force can’t act on mass and mass can’t resist a non-force. The distinction between gravitational and inertial mass is a false one. They are the same thing...just “mass” whose behavior that we perceive as gravitational effects is determined by the spacetime curvature. 

When you see the term gravitational mass in the context of GR, it is referring to active gravitational mass, which is mass that gives rise to the gravitational field...which according to FE doesn't exist.

Quote
In General Relativity and in other geometric theories of gravity, the gravitational mass must always be taken to be the active gravitational mass, because in such theories there is no passive gravitational mass. A body in a gravitational field moves in response to the curved spacetime geometry, not in response to an impressed gravitational force; thus, the mass of the body is not a receptor of gravitational force, and passive mass is a meaningless concept—it is merely an artifact of the Newtonian approximation

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1010/1010.5557.pdf

Hans Ohanian studied physics at Berkeley and at Princeton, where he worked on relativity with John A. Wheeler.  He taught at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Union College, the University of Rome, and the University of Vermont. He's written several physics textbooks and dozens of articles dealing with relativity, gravitation, and quantum theory, including numerous articles on fundamental physics published in the American Journal of Physics, where he served as associate editor for several years

Is he enough of a physicist for you?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 05, 2021, 10:45:26 AM
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 05, 2021, 11:23:04 AM
Physicists don’t disagree with him, not even the ones you quote. Is another one of your own sources qualified enough for you?

The guy who said “There is no a-priori reason why the quantity that determines the magnitude of the gravitational force on the particle should equal the quantity that determines the particle’s resistance to an an applied force in general”, also said, in the very same book you quote

“These observations led Einstein to make a profound proposal that simultaneously provides for a relativistic description of gravity and incorporates in a natural way the equivalence principle and consequently the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein’s proposal was that gravity should no longer be regarded as a force in the conventional sense but rather as a manifestation of the curvature of the spacetime”

Do you need to discredit him also now?

Incorrect. That author does not say that the equivalency is not a coincidence. What you quoted merely says that Einstein proposed the equivalency.

Ryan Martin says that it is a coincidence:

  “ As you recall, the weight of an object is given by the mass of the object multiplied by the strength of the gravitational field, g. There is no reason that the mass that is used to calculate weight, Fg = mg, has to be the same quantity as the mass that is used to calculate inertia F = ma. Thus, people will sometimes make the distinction between “gravitational mass” (the mass that you use to calculate weight and the force of gravity) and “inertial mass” as described above. Very precise experiments have been carried out to determine if the gravitational and inertial masses are equal. So far, experiments have been unable to detect any difference between the two quantities. As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!

Quote
The book you quote by Ryan Martin is about Classical Physics so it is no surprise that he would describe the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass as a coincidence.  In classical physics, it is.


Wrong. It clearly says that he is referring to both Newton and Einstein in the above quote.

Quote
If you read Einstein’s quote that Nigel Calder references, you’ll find that Einstein goes on to explain the “astonishing fact” of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational force.

It is astonishing that it should be that way, yes.

Quote
You obviously didn’t even read the whole context of anything you quoted. Just cherry picked quotes you thought would support your point and not a single one of them does.

Anyone can see that you are the one trying to cherry pick quotes that don't even say what you want them to say.

Quote
If John Norton is so unreliable why did you quote him?  You obviously had no idea who he is or what his credentials are, but he sounded good and that’s good enough for you.

As previously stated, a historian can be quoted on a point about physics, but if a physicist disagrees with him, that opinion is of little value. A historian isn't as credible as a physicist, sorry.

Quote
Since you can’t be bothered with actually doing your own research, I’ll explain to you exactly why GR solves the great mystery.

You aren't a physicist, either. Your opinion is also of little value in comparison.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 05, 2021, 11:36:55 AM
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

Well, not WW2 but one interesting example of warfare south of the equator is the Falklands conflict of 1982. The argentine Air Force’s strike aircraft were based on their mainland’s east coast bases, roughly 400nm from the contested islands. This put them at the very limit of their range, meaning they had very little spare fuel for combat when they reached their targets.

Look at the area on the monopole FE map - the distortion is considerable. Hard to measure exactly, but turn the U.K. on its side and, according to that map, you could fit at least two of them in between the middle of the Falklands and, say, San Julian. The U.K. is roughly 500nm north-south so, unless you are seriously challenging the size of the U.K., you are suggesting that a journey of such significance for so many young Argentine pilots is in fact far further than any of them realised. That’s a pretty ridiculous assertion.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on April 05, 2021, 03:21:13 PM
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.


Just off the cuff, how about the Battle of the Coral Sea, May 1942. 

And further to Bob's; the Battle of the Falkland Islands during World War 1, in December 1914.  A British fleet was hunting a German Naval squadron in the South Atlantic.  In the era before radar, satellites and radio aids, the British fleet not only had to find the Germans based on reports from merchant vessels, but when using high speed the capital ships typically needed to bunker (take on coal) every 3 days.  To do this, they had to rendezvous at sea with coal-carrying auxiliaries.  They could obviously only do this if they knew where they were. 

And yes, the plotting boards were flat.  Almost as flat as a computer screen. 

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: fisherman on April 05, 2021, 06:12:14 PM
Quote
Wrong. It clearly says that he is referring to both Newton and Einstein in the above quote.


Of course, GR assumes the equivalence of the gravitational and inertial mass.  That principle is the foundation of the whole theory.  But saying that GR assumes that is not the same thing as saying that GR doesn’t justify that assumption.  And since the whole book is about classical mechanics, there would be no reason for the author to explain that. 

Quote
Incorrect. That author does not say that the equivalency is not a coincidence. What you quoted merely says that Einstein proposed the equivalency.

What do you think “incorporates in a natural way” means?  By proposing that gravity should no longer be regarded as  “force”, removes the distinction between gravitational and inertial mass. It’s called drawing a logical conclusion.   But you know what they say...there are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can draw a logical conclusion.

Quote
It is astonishing that it should be that way, yes.

And solving that astonishing fact was Einstein’s motivation (at least one of them) to develop GR.  Which he did.  The fact that you don’t realize that only exposes how superficial your understanding of the theory is.

Quote
You aren't a physicist, either. Your opinion is also of little value in comparison.

It isn’t  my opinion that a non-force can’t effect the motion of mass, it’s pretty much the foundational principle of all known physics.  Are you suggesting that a non-force can effect the motion of mass or are you suggesting that gravity is a force?

My explanation as to why GR solves the mystery  is of course very simplified.  If you want a further understanding you might try reading “The Evolution of Physics”, and get the full explanation directly from the person who developed the explanation, Einstein himself. (Only of course, if you consider him a reliable authority on his own theory.).

The whole book is basically an explanation as to why the equality of gravitational and inertial mass is not a coincidence in GR.   It is very reader friendly and targeted to the general public. 

Quote
In our world it happens that they are equal, but we can well imagine that this should not have been the case at all. Another question arises immediately: is this identity of the two kinds of mass purely accidental, or does it have a deeper significance? The answer, from the point of view o f classical physics, is: the identity of the two masses is accidental and no deeper significance should be attached to it. The answer of modern physics is just the opposite: the identity of the two masses is fundamental and forms a new and essential clue leading to a more profound understanding.  This was, in fact, one of the most important clues from which the so-called general theory of relativity was developed.

 A mystery story seems inferior if it explains strange events as accidents. It is certainly more satisfying to
have the story follow a rational pattern. In exactly the same way a theory which offers an explanation for the identity of gravitational and inertial mass is superior to one which interprets their identity as accidental, provided, of course, that the two theories are equally consistent with observed facts. p.36

Quote
The theory attacks the problem o f gravitation and formulates new structure laws for the gravitational field. It forces us to analyse the role played by geometry in the description o f the physical world. It regards the fact that gravitational and inertial mass are equal, as essential and not merely accidental, as in classical mechanics. (p.260)

Or try “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”.  Also, written for the general public, it is the closest thing Einstein wrote to a textbook on GR.

 
Quote
Guided by this example, we see that our extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Thus we have obtained a physical interpretation of this law.p. 80

Quote
The theory of gravitation derived in this way from the general postulate of relativity excels not only in its beauty; nor in removing the defect attaching to classical mechanics which was brought to light in Section XXI; nor in interpreting the empirical law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass; but it has also already explained a result of observation in astronomy, against which classical mechanics is powerless. p. 121

Quote
We then have the following law: The gravitational mass of a body is equal to its inertial mass. It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we recognise the following fact: The same quality of a body manifests itself according to circumstances as “inertia” or as “weight” (lit. “heaviness”).  In the following section we shall show to what extent this is actually the case, and how this question is connected with the general postulate of relativity. p. 77

This guy, I think states it most succinctly.

Quote
In classical physics, it’s not clear why (passive) gravitational and inertial mass should be the same. In Einstein’s theory of gravity, general relativity, the situation is different. There, the reaction of small bodies to gravitational attraction is purely geometrical: Massive bodies will distort space and time, and moving bodies follow the straightest paths possible in such a distorted spacetime. The artificial distinction connected with the concept of a force – inertial mass on the one hand, gravitational mass on the other – is replaced by a law that has the equality of all bodies built-in at the lowest level: That, in a given situation, all bodies experience the same gravitational acceleration is due to the fact that their motion is directly governed by the properties of their spacetime environment; the object’s intrinsic properties play no role at all.

https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/inertial-and-gravitational-mass/

Frankly I don’t understand your resistance to the concept.  It fits right into UA.  In UA, there is no distinction between gravitational and inertial mass either.

Quote
As previously stated, a historian can be quoted on a point about physics, but if a physicist disagrees with him, that opinion is of little value. A historian isn't as credible as a physicist, sorry.


That doesn’t answer the question.  If you were of the opinion that physicists disagreed with him (which you should have been if you read and understood the paper) why did you quote him? Or did you quote him knowing that he fundamentally disagreed with your premise? To be clear, your choices here are "I didn't realize he disagreed" or "I realized he disagreed and cited him anyway".

EDIT: There is of course a third choice. "Physicists agree with him."

If you think his opinion is garbage, then you should remove the citation.  It leaves the impression that he agrees with your premise, which he doesn’t. And we all know you don’t want to be deceptive.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: existoid on April 05, 2021, 07:35:36 PM
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

I think this comment and my reply probably belong on that other thread....(I only linked it to suggest it can be added to the OP list of this thread).  But I'll reply here anyway:

The plotting boards being flat doesn't disprove my WW2 argument any more than an azimuthal projection of the globe disproves that the earth is a globe.

What matters for the plotting boards is that they had to have highly accurate measurements for the distances of longitude south of the Equator. If their measurements were off by as much as the monopole FE map suggests, then virtually none of the WW2 pilots who fought in carrier battles south of the Equator would have survived - they all would have failed to return to their carriers and been lost at sea. (EDIT: WW2 carrier planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles and fought over spaces far far beyond sight of any land or their carrier groups - which is why failing to navigate properly literally was a life or death proposition for them).

As I wrote in that post, 60% (3 of the 5) major carrier battles of the war occurred south of the Equator - Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz. These three battles involved tens of thousands of pilots from Japan and the US. Without accurate distances between lines of longitude on their plotting boards these men would have all died. But they didn't. (EDIT: the two battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz were both part of Guadalcanal, a six month campaign that involved more sorties of naval planes than the entire rest of the war put together. In other words, the overwhelming majority of carrier fighter combat in WW2 occurred south of the Equator!

We can conclude that the plotting boards had accurate distances between the lines of longitude between each given segment of the lines of latitude. And those plotting boards were based on RE.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 06, 2021, 10:39:12 AM
To again try to get this back on track  ;D

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0
Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

I think this comment and my reply probably belong on that other thread....(I only linked it to suggest it can be added to the OP list of this thread).  But I'll reply here anyway:

The plotting boards being flat doesn't disprove my WW2 argument any more than an azimuthal projection of the globe disproves that the earth is a globe.

What matters for the plotting boards is that they had to have highly accurate measurements for the distances of longitude south of the Equator. If their measurements were off by as much as the monopole FE map suggests, then virtually none of the WW2 pilots who fought in carrier battles south of the Equator would have survived - they all would have failed to return to their carriers and been lost at sea. (EDIT: WW2 carrier planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles and fought over spaces far far beyond sight of any land or their carrier groups - which is why failing to navigate properly literally was a life or death proposition for them).

As I wrote in that post, 60% (3 of the 5) major carrier battles of the war occurred south of the Equator - Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Santa Cruz. These three battles involved tens of thousands of pilots from Japan and the US. Without accurate distances between lines of longitude on their plotting boards these men would have all died. But they didn't. (EDIT: the two battles of the Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz were both part of Guadalcanal, a six month campaign that involved more sorties of naval planes than the entire rest of the war put together. In other words, the overwhelming majority of carrier fighter combat in WW2 occurred south of the Equator!

We can conclude that the plotting boards had accurate distances between the lines of longitude between each given segment of the lines of latitude. And those plotting boards were based on RE.
The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 06, 2021, 10:57:41 AM
Quote from: Action80 link=topic=17884.msg236096#msg236096 date=.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

And the Falklands? Your thoughts on that conflict please. Is it in fact a lot more than 400nm from the east coast of Argentina to the islands, for example?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Longtitube on April 06, 2021, 02:22:20 PM
The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

If you got back to within 10 miles of your carrier group you stand a chance of spotting them and landing back aboard. But at 20 or even 50 miles ;D you stand an excellent chance of missing them altogether at a 200+knot airspeed. They’re not going to talk you in either, strict radio silence is the order of the day lest others are listening too. Unless visibility is perfect and you have a peregrine falcon’s eyesight you’re due a long swim.

The ocean is a vast place, accurate navigation was essential and still is. FE maps are as useful as a jelly sandwich.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 06, 2021, 03:30:56 PM
Quote from: Action80 link=topic=17884.msg236096#msg236096 date=.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

And the Falklands? Your thoughts on that conflict please. Is it in fact a lot more than 400nm from the east coast of Argentina to the islands, for example?
What about the Falklands?

It does not matter where your point of reference lies.

If you are familiar with the lay of the territory and have markers placed in the ocean, you are going to know where you are at, regardless.

This whole RET stuff is for the birds.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 06, 2021, 03:33:19 PM
The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

If you got back to within 10 miles of your carrier group you stand a chance of spotting them and landing back aboard. But at 20 or even 50 miles ;D you stand an excellent chance of missing them altogether at a 200+knot airspeed. They’re not going to talk you in either, strict radio silence is the order of the day lest others are listening too. Unless visibility is perfect and you have a peregrine falcon’s eyesight you’re due a long swim.

The ocean is a vast place, accurate navigation was essential and still is. FE maps are as useful as a jelly sandwich.
Considering all the maps on a ship are flat, it seems your point is moot.

Marker buoys are utilized frequently.

And they are not based on a globe.

They are based on the celestial sphere.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: WTF_Seriously on April 06, 2021, 04:10:25 PM

Marker buoys are utilized frequently.


Are you actually proposing that in WW2 in the south pacific there were marker buoys and that naval pilots used them in order to safely return to their carriers?  I would love to see your citation for this.


And they are not based on a globe.

They are based on the celestial sphere.

Again, would love to see a citation for how marker buoys utilize the celestial sphere in order to work.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 06, 2021, 07:17:56 PM

What about the Falklands?

It does not matter where your point of reference lies.

If you are familiar with the lay of the territory and have markers placed in the ocean, you are going to know where you are at, regardless.

This whole RET stuff is for the birds.

Ok, since it doesn't seem to have sunk in, let's try this again, with pictures.

Here's Argentina and the Falkland islands, as shown on Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9D2wzj2j/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-17-24-11.png) (https://postimg.cc/9D2wzj2j)

Here's a zoomed in view, showing the distance from a representative spot on the east coast of the mainland, where the Argentine strike bases were located:

(https://i.postimg.cc/JHBHHrtR/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-18-10-12.png) (https://postimg.cc/JHBHHrtR)

For comparison, here's the UK:

(https://i.postimg.cc/8sq6Q6nc/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-17-22-52.png) (https://postimg.cc/8sq6Q6nc)

So the UK is quite a bit bigger, north-south, than the distance from the mainland of Argentina to the Falklands.

Here's the monopole FE map, showing the same area, with the UK (shown in the red box), taken from the same map at the same scale, transposed to the same location and rotated so you can compare the distances:

(https://i.postimg.cc/3WyvcB1z/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-18-07-21.png) (https://postimg.cc/3WyvcB1z)

So according to the monopole FE map, the Falkland islands are quite a bit further from the Argentinian mainland - quite a bit further than the north-south size of the UK, in fact. Hard to say exactly from the map, but I'd say about twice the length if we measure to the 60 degree west line of longitude - around 1000nm.

So, it's not so much the pilots getting lost I'm talking about - I'm sure it's pretty to easy to find the islands and then head west to get home again. However, if the range is wrong, you'd simply run out of fuel. So...how far is it from the Falklands to the east coast of Argentina around where I've drawn the arrow? Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm? You don't think they might, for example, have a pretty good understanding of speed - distance - time calculations, and their aircraft's performance figures? 

And that of course is just one example. We could talk about the Black Buck raids, flown from Ascension Island all the way to the Falklands and back - a masterpiece of air to air refuelling planning. All done based on round earth ranges and bearings. Or we could just talk about the obvious massive width distortion of Argentina - is it really so much wider than people who live there think it is?

 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2021, 07:19:30 PM
Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.
Why?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 06, 2021, 07:40:43 PM
Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.
Why?

Why not?

I'm sure it's not inch-perfect (indeed there are papers written by surveyors challenging its detailed precision), but its a good enough representation of the globe. I've driven and flown aircraft the length and breadth of the UK, so the size indicated by Google Earth seems reasonable compared to the journey distances and durations I've experienced. Moreover, a gross-error check simply by observing that the UK sits between the 50th and 59 northings, and therefore must be around 9 x 60 = 540nm long (my map measurement was a bit shorter than this, but then I started a bit further up the south coast).

Helpfully, the monopole FET map in the wiki still retains the lat/long grids, albeit clearly hugely distorted, particularly in the southern hemisphere, and we can see that the lat/long relationships of the key features of both the UK and Argentina / Falklands have been retained. The Falklands, for example, are still at around 52S 60W.

So yes, the figures from Google Earth look reasonable, whereas the ranges shown on the southern half of the monopole FET map appear to be completely at odds with the consensus. 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: existoid on April 06, 2021, 08:05:15 PM

The plotting boards did not need to have highly accurate measurements, any more than your travel atlas.

Get me within 10 or 20or even 50 miles and it will be just fine.

So. to sum it up the carrier battles took place within the 10th parallel.

Wow.

Kind of lays waste to your observation.

Not at all.

Firstly, the lines of longitude are going to be off by a lot more than 20 miles, even 50 miles. Sadly, we can't really measure that because the wiki proposes zero maps with actual scale for the expanding distance between each line of latitude the further south you go beyond the equator. But we should be able to dispense with the notion that we're talking a small difference.

The massive six month Guadalcanal campaign, which comprised the two biggest carrier battles of the war - Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz - was fought in this area over tens of thousands of square miles (yes, tens of thousands of square miles) in the area of the Solomon Islands and other archipelagos nearby.

Google tells us that the Solomon Islands are 666 miles south of the Equator. So, yes, a huge number of carrier fighters were flying around on the open ocean in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 (or more) lines of latitude south. At that point, according to the FE monopole map as displayed in the wiki, it's pretty clear the lines are quite divergent. If each line of longitude began (at the equator) at about 69 miles apart (something I assume no one disagrees with, FE or RE), then by the time those lines reach the Solomon Islands they're quite a bit off. The error is not going to be a few dozen miles apart, but over a hundred. This means death to the pilots. And that didn't happen.

Furthermore, even if the discrepancy were only, say, 10 miles off, there's the fact that these planes sometimes failed to find their carriers and survive (a minority overall, to be sure), but this means that even with accurate plotting boards mistakes can happen. The visibility of the scouting planes were only about 25 miles out on a clear day. Fighters, whose cockpit had different designs (for different needs) could see even less than that. A deviation of 10 miles, against a ship that is also moving (carriers didn't sit still during any battles, but always moved), often meant the fighters had to circle around looking for their ships even with highly accurate plotting boards. An error of 10 miles likely translates into mistakes of dozens of miles off, which would have resulted in far more sea deaths than recorded. These planes had ranges in the hundreds of miles, but they had to go to the enemy, fight, then return, and didn't usually have the luxury of being able to spending another hour looking for their carrier group. They had to find it fast.

And finally, what about all the other battles in other places further or closer to the equator? There is no record or indication that planes were fitted with different plotting boards for each battle. In fact, carriers and their fighter pilots often didn't know where/when they would be fighting. The plotting boards had to work for any part of the ocean. So, are you arguing that the plotting boards were off by 10 in some places, 20 in others, and 50 in even others? If the pilots didn't even know the margin of error that sounds like a recipe for sea landing disasters almost universally.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2021, 08:53:35 PM
Why not?
Because if you presuppose that RET is correct before debating whether RET is correct, the latter debate becomes rather useless.

If you're here to assert that you preferred model is correct through circular reasoning, you should quite bluntly stop being here.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 06, 2021, 09:07:34 PM
Why not?
Because if you presuppose that RET is correct before debating whether RET is correct, the latter debate becomes rather useless.

If you're here to assert that you preferred model is correct through circular reasoning, you should quite bluntly stop being here.

I didn't do that though, did I? I gave you some good reasons why I've assumed GE to be correct. Moreover, if you read my post carefully, you'll see I don't actually need the GE distances to be correct in isolation. The point is that I've removed distances from the equation and introduced a new 'ruler' - the distance from end to end of the UK from north-south. The RE consensus, Google included, would suggest that the distance flown by the Argentinian pilots in 1982 was around 50% of that distance, each way. The FET monopole map suggests a much, much larger distance. They can't both be right. If the UK is much shorter than we think it is, then every long car journey in the UK must be wrong. That cannot be the case - I've driven from the south of England all the way to Inverness, and the distance on my odo was entirely consistent with Google, and my car's sat nav, and indeed one of the old-school distance tables in a road atlas. Unless anybody is seriously challenging the size of the UK, can we move on from this one?

So if the UK is correctly measured, that leaves one or two other options. For the monopole FE map to be correct, the Argentine pilots must have been flying far, far faster than they realised - impressive in, for example, a subsonic A4. You'd think they might notice if it suddenly became possible to fly way in excess of Mach 1 in a subsonic aircraft. Or maybe they flew at subsonic speeds and just didn't notice that their missions took way longer than they'd planned, and miraculously didn't need any more fuel? Don't you think this is perhaps just a little ridiculous?

Could we entertain the possibility that maybe the monopole FET map isn't correct?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2021, 09:14:22 PM
Why not?
Because if you presuppose that RET is correct before debating whether RET is correct, the latter debate becomes rather useless.

One could state;

"If we assume FE is correct, then ..." (then proposition and argument follows based on that stated assumption)

OR

"If we assume RE is correct, then ..." (proposition and argument follows based on stated assumption)

Each is equally valid as a starting point. Not necessarily presumption that one or the other is correct, but the basis on which further argument and discussion is based. Each is equally valid, surely?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2021, 09:43:43 PM
Each is equally valid as a starting point.
Indeed - both are equally worthless.

However, this is not what happened here - what happened here is even less useful. Rather than saying "If we assume RET/FET, then [...]", we've gone straight for "[RET assumptions] are reality, therefore [...]"
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 06, 2021, 09:52:45 PM
Each is equally valid as a starting point.
Indeed - both are equally worthless.

However, this is not what happened here - what happened here is even less useful. Rather than saying "If we assume RET/FET, then [...]", we've gone straight for "[RET assumptions] are reality, therefore [...]"

No, we have not done that at all. I've simply provided a source for my data. You don't have to accept it as truthful for the argument that follows to make sense, although I have provided several good reasons why I do consider it to be true. You're welcome to disagree with my treatment of google earth dimensions as truthful - it doesn't change the fundamental point that follows, which is that the FET monopole map shows a particular distance, in this case that between eastern Argentina and the Falkland islands, to be far greater than shown on conventional globes.

I think the debate would be far more interesting if you would come off the fence and say what you think about the southern hemisphere dimensions. I've made a pretty good point about a big discrepancy between the FET monopole map and the general consensus RE globe dimensions. What do you think? Is the distance from the Falkland islands to the east coast of Argentina greater or less than the distance from the southern to northern tip of mainland UK?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 06, 2021, 09:58:04 PM
I think the debate would be far more interesting if you would come off the fence and say what you think about the southern hemisphere dimensions.
Sadly, I'm not particularly interested in what you find interesting. My concern is with what is true and verifiable. I asked you a question to see if you have anything of value to offer for the veracity of your data, but it's all personal credulity. So be it.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 06, 2021, 10:10:42 PM
My concern is with what is true and verifiable.
And the distances between the southern and northern extremities of the UK aren't verifiable? Or the distance from Argentina to the Falkland islands isn't verifiable?

I asked you a question to see if you have anything of value to offer for the veracity of your data, but it's all personal credulity. So be it.

Me driving around the country and looking at an odo isn't solely personal credulity - it's backed up by millions of people making use of the same data sources, without complaint, every day. Likewise, that the pilots in the Falklands conflict were operating at the extremes of their aircraft's ranges is well documented and studied. And everything lines up with the distances Google Earth, and indeed every atlas and globe I've ever looked at, comes out with. The mission times, capabilities of their aircraft, speeds, interviews, everything - it all stacks up.

I can't claim to know your motivations here, but I'm offering up a very clear, verifiable discrepancy between the consensus view on the size and shape of the earth and a proposed alternative claimed by the wiki on this site. That you don't find this 'interesting' seems very odd indeed. 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on April 06, 2021, 11:09:09 PM
Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.
Why?

... because it's used every day by millions upon millions, and if there were any major issues with its accuracy, someone, somewhere would have noticed by now?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: RazaTD on April 07, 2021, 02:05:24 AM
My concern is with what is true and verifiable.
And the distances between the southern and northern extremities of the UK aren't verifiable? Or the distance from Argentina to the Falkland islands isn't verifiable?

Planet Earth is fairly well explored by now. Regardless of what shape you think it is, there is no doubt about the distances between certain points especially if they aren’t just some random points in the ocean. These distances are verified everyday by millions of people and thousands of industries that consume this information. The fact that some people are casting doubt on this basic information in such a modern world suggests they are unwilling to have an open mind or are being disingenuous.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on April 07, 2021, 07:53:52 AM
Each is equally valid as a starting point.
Indeed - both are equally worthless.

Why?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 07, 2021, 09:03:13 AM
Why?
I just finished explaining that. You'll read it if you're interested.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2021, 10:27:05 AM

Marker buoys are utilized frequently.


Are you actually proposing that in WW2 in the south pacific there were marker buoys and that naval pilots used them in order to safely return to their carriers?  I would love to see your citation for this.


And they are not based on a globe.

They are based on the celestial sphere.

Again, would love to see a citation for how marker buoys utilize the celestial sphere in order to work.
The marker buoys aren't based on the celestial sphere. Their placement is and was simply based on theatre of operations which was and is determined by seagoing charts and maps which is based on the celestial sphere.

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Jul/09/2001940267/-1/-1/0/H_BUOYS.PDF (https://media.defense.gov/2018/Jul/09/2001940267/-1/-1/0/H_BUOYS.PDF)

The maps used by sailors are based on historic seagoing navigation, which was performed based on the celestial sphere from the very beginning. None of it has anything to do with a fictional globe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoy#:~:text=Marker%20buoys%20%E2%80%93%20used%20in%20naval,provide%20the%20flare%20and%20smoke. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoy#:~:text=Marker%20buoys%20%E2%80%93%20used%20in%20naval,provide%20the%20flare%20and%20smoke.)
"Military  - Marker buoys – used in naval warfare, particularly anti-submarine warfare, is a light-emitting or smoke-emitting, or both, marker using some kind of pyrotechnic to provide the flare and smoke. It is commonly a 3-inch (76 mm) diameter device about 20 inches (500 mm) long that is set off by contact with seawater and floats on the surface. Some markers extinguish after a set period and others are made to sink.
 
Sonobuoy – used by anti-submarine warfare aircraft to detect submarines by SONAR
 
Target buoy – used to simulate target (like small boat) in live fire exercise by naval and coastal forces, usually
targeted by weapons (medium size) like HMG's, rapid fire cannons (20 or so mm), autocannons (bigger ones up
to 40 and 57mm) and also anti-tank rockets."
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2021, 12:39:26 PM

What about the Falklands?

It does not matter where your point of reference lies.

If you are familiar with the lay of the territory and have markers placed in the ocean, you are going to know where you are at, regardless.

This whole RET stuff is for the birds.

Ok, since it doesn't seem to have sunk in, let's try this again, with pictures.

Here's Argentina and the Falkland islands, as shown on Google Earth, which I'm taking to be accurate.

(https://i.postimg.cc/9D2wzj2j/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-17-24-11.png) (https://postimg.cc/9D2wzj2j)

Here's a zoomed in view, showing the distance from a representative spot on the east coast of the mainland, where the Argentine strike bases were located:

(https://i.postimg.cc/JHBHHrtR/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-18-10-12.png) (https://postimg.cc/JHBHHrtR)

For comparison, here's the UK:

(https://i.postimg.cc/8sq6Q6nc/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-17-22-52.png) (https://postimg.cc/8sq6Q6nc)

So the UK is quite a bit bigger, north-south, than the distance from the mainland of Argentina to the Falklands.

Here's the monopole FE map, showing the same area, with the UK (shown in the red box), taken from the same map at the same scale, transposed to the same location and rotated so you can compare the distances:

(https://i.postimg.cc/3WyvcB1z/Screenshot-2021-04-06-at-18-07-21.png) (https://postimg.cc/3WyvcB1z)

So according to the monopole FE map, the Falkland islands are quite a bit further from the Argentinian mainland - quite a bit further than the north-south size of the UK, in fact. Hard to say exactly from the map, but I'd say about twice the length if we measure to the 60 degree west line of longitude - around 1000nm.

So, it's not so much the pilots getting lost I'm talking about - I'm sure it's pretty to easy to find the islands and then head west to get home again. However, if the range is wrong, you'd simply run out of fuel. So...how far is it from the Falklands to the east coast of Argentina around where I've drawn the arrow? Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm? You don't think they might, for example, have a pretty good understanding of speed - distance - time calculations, and their aircraft's performance figures? 

And that of course is just one example. We could talk about the Black Buck raids, flown from Ascension Island all the way to the Falklands and back - a masterpiece of air to air refuelling planning. All done based on round earth ranges and bearings. Or we could just talk about the obvious massive width distortion of Argentina - is it really so much wider than people who live there think it is?
I do not see your pictures, for one.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 07, 2021, 02:07:40 PM

I do not see your pictures, for one.
Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing. 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 07, 2021, 03:18:13 PM

I do not see your pictures, for one.
Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.
I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 07, 2021, 04:11:11 PM
I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

The monopole FET map is though, isn't it? It says the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is a lot bigger than the size of the UK from north to south. Do you disagree with the monopole FET map?

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

To borrow a phrase from the youth of today...what does this even mean?

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

Yes, I am.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.
Do tell. Which bit am I misinterpreting?

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Perhaps. But if you're running an air force, it's awfully handy to get your jets back after their first combat mission. If they all crash into the sea after running out of fuel the war tends to end very quickly.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on April 07, 2021, 08:46:17 PM

I do not see your pictures, for one.
Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.
I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.


Ok; so lets suppose the warmongers are content with sacrificing their aircrews in one-off suicide missions.  Civil airlines are generally a little more considerate of their passengers.  Pop across to the other side of South America for a moment and, whilst I have been reading this, I've also been tracking LAN-Chile flight LAN 9578 (aircraft Registration CC-BBI if you want to look it up) which is just touching down in Sidney after leaving Santiago this morning.  It took a little over 14 hours.  Google Maps shows a global-distance of just over 7000 miles; ie, around 500 mph.  Seems about right for a 787.  Its notional maximum range, incidentally, is 7355 miles. 

The Monopole Map suggest that the distance from Santiago, Chile, to Sidney, Australia, is about 4-times the North-South size of South America, around 18,000 miles.  Lets round it down to 14,000 miles to keep it simple.  Any thoughts on how it could travel twice its maximum range, at supersonic speed of 1000 mph?  (Remember this is a 2-way service, so today's "anomalous" tailwind would be tomorrow's headwind).

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 10:50:14 AM
I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

The monopole FET map is though, isn't it? It says the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is a lot bigger than the size of the UK from north to south. Do you disagree with the monopole FET map?

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

To borrow a phrase from the youth of today...what does this even mean?

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

Yes, I am.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.
Do tell. Which bit am I misinterpreting?

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Perhaps. But if you're running an air force, it's awfully handy to get your jets back after their first combat mission. If they all crash into the sea after running out of fuel the war tends to end very quickly.
Perhaps you are misinterpreting all of it. I have no clue.

For instance, I do not see a scale on the FE monopole map that would specifically inform you or anyone else the Falkland islands "are depicted to be 1000 nm further out of place" than a map purported to be be based on a globe.

Theatre of operations is what concerns those fighting.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 11:19:37 AM

I do not see your pictures, for one.
Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Quote
Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.
I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.


Ok; so lets suppose the warmongers are content with sacrificing their aircrews in one-off suicide missions.  Civil airlines are generally a little more considerate of their passengers.  Pop across to the other side of South America for a moment and, whilst I have been reading this, I've also been tracking LAN-Chile flight LAN 9578 (aircraft Registration CC-BBI if you want to look it up) which is just touching down in Sidney after leaving Santiago this morning.  It took a little over 14 hours.  Google Maps shows a global-distance of just over 7000 miles; ie, around 500 mph.  Seems about right for a 787.  Its notional maximum range, incidentally, is 7355 miles. 

The Monopole Map suggest that the distance from Santiago, Chile, to Sidney, Australia, is about 4-times the North-South size of South America, around 18,000 miles.  Lets round it down to 14,000 miles to keep it simple.  Any thoughts on how it could travel twice its maximum range, at supersonic speed of 1000 mph?  (Remember this is a 2-way service, so today's "anomalous" tailwind would be tomorrow's headwind).
Why suppose it?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/kamikaze

Ah, the good ole, "I happen to be tracking a flight from Sydney to South America at the moment. I only have a moment to track it because the flight only shows up on the tracker after long periods of absent flight path tracking information on the screen, but trust me, it's exciting! I love science fiction!" line.

Get real.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 08, 2021, 11:53:50 AM
Theatre of operations is what concerns those fighting.

Yes, it does indeed. So for the Argentinian pilots, the theatre was the area from their bases on the east coast over to the islands. So how far is it from the east coast of the Falklands to the islands?

If we spend a bit more time on it, we can actually work the distortion more accurately. Let's model the earth as a sphere (ignoring its slightly squashed shape - won't make a huge difference for the kind of calculation here) we can say it is a ball with a radius of  about 3440nm. The circumference of any given circle of latitude is equal to the cosine of the latitude multiplied by 2 x pi x spherical radius. So at the Falklands, we have a latitude of around 52 degrees, so our circle of latitude is cos 52, or around 62%, of the equatorial circumference. The flat earth monopole model obviously sees the latitude circles growing all the way to the antarctic. If we take the standard 60nm per degree of latitude, then our circle of latitude at 52S would be a radius of 142 x 60 = 8520nm, giving a circumference of over 53,000nm. Compare that to the globe, where we reckon our 52S latitude circle to be a circumference of around 21,000nm. So at the Falkland's latitude, monopole FET has east-west distances of around 2.5 times those of RE. Which is why Argentina is so expanded, and why I was able to fit the UK in between the islands and the mainland. If it's about 350nm from google earth, your monopole FET map would probably have it at around 875nm. That's a massive, massive difference.

Are you seriously suggesting it's 875nm from the east coast of Argentina to the Falklands? At the same latitude, where RE maps have continental South America as being about 240nm, are you seriously suggesting it's actually more like 600nm? Do you not think the Argentinians and Chileans might have noticed this? Or would you like to counter with some different maths?

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on April 08, 2021, 11:58:20 AM
Ah, the good ole, "I happen to be tracking a flight from Sydney to South America at the moment. I only have a moment to track it because the flight only shows up on the tracker after long periods of absent flight path tracking information on the screen, but trust me, it's exciting! I love science fiction!" line.

You appear to be hinting that the flight operators, the booking agencies, the maker of flight trackers such as flightradar24, flightaware, and others, along with all the members of the public who provide data to the flight trackers, are all conspiring to conjure up some "science fiction". Improbable, at the very least.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 12:07:55 PM
Ah, the good ole, "I happen to be tracking a flight from Sydney to South America at the moment. I only have a moment to track it because the flight only shows up on the tracker after long periods of absent flight path tracking information on the screen, but trust me, it's exciting! I love science fiction!" line.

You appear to be hinting that the flight operators, the booking agencies, the maker of flight trackers such as flightradar24, flightaware, and others, along with all the members of the public who provide data to the flight trackers, are all conspiring to conjure up some "science fiction". Improbable, at the very least.
No, I appear to be relating factual data concerning the reliability of these publicly available flight tracking software applications.

And these flights are listed as being available, no doubt. But in threads that have addressed these flights, it has been pointed out these flights cost an exorbitant amount of money (which is non-refundable) and everyone here has yet to actually purchase and take such a flight.

Tell you what though.

I will take that flight, provided one of you go with.

Anyone willing to splash for their cost of the trip to get to Australia, then get to South America from Australia, go ahead and let me know. You buy your ticket first and reserve the booking for two years out. I will need two years to put together that kind of scratch. I will foot the bill from South America back to your home port.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 12:16:12 PM
Theatre of operations is what concerns those fighting.

Yes, it does indeed. So for the Argentinian pilots, the theatre was the area from their bases on the east coast over to the islands. So how far is it from the east coast of the Falklands to the islands?

If we spend a bit more time on it, we can actually work the distortion more accurately. Let's model the earth as a sphere (ignoring its slightly squashed shape - won't make a huge difference for the kind of calculation here) we can say it is a ball with a radius of  about 3440nm. The circumference of any given circle of latitude is equal to the cosine of the latitude multiplied by 2 x pi x spherical radius. So at the Falklands, we have a latitude of around 52 degrees, so our circle of latitude is cos 52, or around 62%, of the equatorial circumference. The flat earth monopole model obviously sees the latitude circles growing all the way to the antarctic. If we take the standard 60nm per degree of latitude, then our circle of latitude at 52S would be a radius of 142 x 60 = 8520nm, giving a circumference of over 53,000nm. Compare that to the globe, where we reckon our 52S latitude circle to be a circumference of around 21,000nm. So at the Falkland's latitude, monopole FET has east-west distances of around 2.5 times those of RE. Which is why Argentina is so expanded, and why I was able to fit the UK in between the islands and the mainland. If it's about 350nm from google earth, your monopole FET map would probably have it at around 875nm. That's a massive, massive difference.

Are you seriously suggesting it's 875nm from the east coast of Argentina to the Falklands? At the same latitude, where RE maps have continental South America as being about 240nm, are you seriously suggesting it's actually more like 600nm? Do you not think the Argentinians and Chileans might have noticed this? Or would you like to counter with some different maths?
No, you are the one seriously suggesting everything.

Further, you have no scale presented on which to base your distances, supposed RE or FE, on which to make any serious suggestions. You just spout off numbers like you have a clue, when in fact, you do not. Highly irresponsible of you.

Further, you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on April 08, 2021, 12:50:21 PM
... you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.

Are you seriously suggesting or hinting that every historical account of every world event that took place should be disregarded if the person relating that account was not there?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on April 08, 2021, 01:31:33 PM
As a former member of the UK's Royal Air Force, I'm sure my former comrades, and indeed their Argentinian adversaries, will be pleased to know that the Falklands War "only lasted a couple of months and not many sorties were flown".  I'm surprised by your breadth of knowledge on this subject, but you may want to note that Chile was not a belligerent. 

With regard to yesterday's LAN-Chile flight, which horse are you backing; either that it wasn't in Chile, or that it didn't go to Australia? 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/cc-bbi 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 08, 2021, 01:33:25 PM
No, you are the one seriously suggesting everything.
Well, if you're suggesting the earth is flat, everything that follows that is coming from you.

Further, you have no scale presented on which to base your distances, supposed RE or FE, on which to make any serious suggestions. You just spout off numbers like you have a clue, when in fact, you do not. Highly irresponsible of you.
An absurd accusation. The radius of the earth is based on the consensus model. 60nm per degree of latitude is based on the known size of actual countries. The UK, as I said before in a previous post that you are completely ignoring or just didn't understand, spans roughly 9 degrees of latitude - 540nm, which tallies well with road journeys and generally agreed distances in the UK. Are you challenging these, or do you accept that this is indeed the size of the UK?

Following on from that, the UK you have on the monopole FE map spans the same rough latitude range, so scaling up from that gives the numbers I've used. If you're suggesting that the monopole FET map is a different size, then fine - let's hear it, but bear in mind that means you're then challenging well-established distances like the size of the UK etc.

Further, you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and
How do you know they were only short conflict(s)? Were you there? Or can we agree that, in fact, forming a consensus view based on aggregated reports from an era is in fact ok?

And the Chileans didn't take part in 1982, so no, they didn't fly any missions.

The number of sorties flown by the Argentinians is also not particularly relevant - they flew, and that's all we need. As it happens, they flew a great deal, and lost a lot of aircraft. Although none, as far as I know, due to their maps being wrong by a factor of 2.5 .

I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.

If you're demanding that level of personal verification for everything, then you aren't going to get anywhere, are you? How do you even know the Falklands exists? Do you doubt the existence of every country unless you have personally been there? Or do you place some degree of trust in the consensus view? You can't have it both ways - if you are only permitting personally experienced views, then you can't yourself discuss anything or anywhere that you haven't got personal knowledge of. I'd suggest that's a pretty ridiculous way to go about things, but it's your call.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 03:38:43 PM
... you were not there to verify anything about either of the conflicts related to the Falklands. Neither conflict lasted for much more than a couple of months and there were very few sorties flown by either the Argentines or Chileans. Much bluster about nothing and I doubt you have ever been there at all, for that matter.

Are you seriously suggesting or hinting that every historical account of every world event that took place should be disregarded if the person relating that account was not there?
Yeah, not everything and not totally disregarded so can that specious approach so typical of your many posts. It's ridiculous.

I am seriously suggesting that history, even yesterday, is not as accurate you and others of your ilk like to portray.

Tell me exactly what you know regarding the US Civil War for instance.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Iceman on April 08, 2021, 03:44:47 PM
That is a very poor attempt at diverting from the central question of the matter. The details may be lost, but whether or not planes flew battles around the Falklands, and the round trip distances involved in those battles for Argentinan pilots and craft, is the matter at hand.

If you want to talk about history and the civil war, start a new topic.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 03:45:11 PM
As a former member of the UK's Royal Air Force, I'm sure my former comrades, and indeed their Argentinian adversaries, will be pleased to know that the Falklands War "only lasted a couple of months and not many sorties were flown".  I'm surprised by your breadth of knowledge on this subject, but you may want to note that Chile was not a belligerent.
The Falklands War did last only a couple of months, for one.

Two, I didn't state Chile was a belligerent.

With regard to yesterday's LAN-Chile flight, which horse are you backing; either that it wasn't in Chile, or that it didn't go to Australia? 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/cc-bbi
I am backing the horse named "DuncanDoenitz did not actually watch the entirety of of the flight on the flight tracker app. He only watched an hour or two at most and therefore cannot verify or deny the flight actually went the route portrayed on the app and cannot verify or confirm the flight actually took place as depicted."
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 03:47:19 PM
That is a very poor attempt at diverting from the central question of the matter. The details may be lost, but whether or not planes flew battles around the Falklands, and the round trip distances involved in those battles for Argentinan pilots and craft, is the matter at hand.

If you want to talk about history and the civil war, start a new topic.
The central question of the matter happens to be "explanations." Explanations are part of history whether you like it or not.

So, a very poor attempt at dismissing something you know to be fact.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Tumeni on April 08, 2021, 04:16:56 PM
I am seriously suggesting that history, even yesterday, is not as accurate you and others of your ilk like to portray.

.. but unless you can specify the inaccuracies, you're not really in a position to cast doubt on those who "weren't there" as holding an inaccurate picture ...
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 08, 2021, 06:58:52 PM

The central question of the matter happens to be "explanations." Explanations are part of history whether you like it or not.

So, a very poor attempt at dismissing something you know to be fact.

Argentinians flew jets that can only just fly the RE distance from their bases to and from the Falklands in 1982. They did this lots of times. How long the war was, and how many times they did it, is not relevant at all. It makes no difference. If you are suggesting that this didn't happen, then where did all those jets come from? And don't say 'an aircraft carrier', because most of them weren't capable of that, so let's put that to bed right away. That inaccuracies occur in the recording of warfare is not in dispute. But there is no possible misinterpretation of events here - both sides agree that the events that are central to our discussion actually happened.

You either need to explain how it could have occurred if the distance was so much greater, or redesign the monopole FET map, or some other FET map, in a way you agree with that eliminates this problem.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 07:10:08 PM
I am seriously suggesting that history, even yesterday, is not as accurate you and others of your ilk like to portray.

.. but unless you can specify the inaccuracies, you're not really in a position to cast doubt on those who "weren't there" as holding an inaccurate picture ...
And unless you were there, you are not able to hold it as accurate, any more than any other belief.

And that is what it boils down to.

Belief.

There is more evidence for my belief in the inaccuracy of reports than there are for accuracy of reports, especially in today's "wag the dog," circus.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 08, 2021, 07:12:43 PM

The central question of the matter happens to be "explanations." Explanations are part of history whether you like it or not.

So, a very poor attempt at dismissing something you know to be fact.

Argentinians flew jets that can only just fly the RE distance from their bases to and from the Falklands in 1982. They did this lots of times. How long the war was, and how many times they did it, is not relevant at all. It makes no difference. If you are suggesting that this didn't happen, then where did all those jets come from? And don't say 'an aircraft carrier', because most of them weren't capable of that, so let's put that to bed right away. That inaccuracies occur in the recording of warfare is not in dispute. But there is no possible misinterpretation of events here - both sides agree that the events that are central to our discussion actually happened.

You either need to explain how it could have occurred if the distance was so much greater, or redesign the monopole FET map, or some other FET map, in a way you agree with that eliminates this problem.
See, you don't know that. You have no clue as to whether or not that took place.

You also have no personal idea of the distance involved in the flight.

Here it is apparent you have looked at some maps and tried to intertwine a scale associated with one set of maps and apply to multiple maps.

Things don't work that way.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on April 08, 2021, 07:38:18 PM
So your interpretation of history then is that a Skyhawk of the Argentine armed forces didn't actually (for instance) attack the British RFA Sir Galahad, killing many of the troops on board?  The link is to the Wikipedia page on one of the survivors, Simon Weston:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston

I don't know your age, nationality or political affiliations, but I do know that I, and some of the posters on this thread, remember these events happening, and know some of the personnel involved. 
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 08, 2021, 08:00:19 PM
See, you don't know that. You have no clue as to whether or not that took place.

You also have no personal idea of the distance involved in the flight.

Here it is apparent you have looked at some maps and tried to intertwine a scale associated with one set of maps and apply to multiple maps.

Things don't work that way.

Well, it seems you agree that the 1982 conflict happened. I'm assuming you agree that the video footage of Argentine aircraft bombing Royal Navy ships around the islands isn't faked, so we have to assume those jets came from somewhere. I'm also sure Simon Weston, as Duncan quite rightly points out, would strongly agree that they were definitely dropping bombs. And then we have accounts like this - https://goefoundation.org/eagles/gonzalez-horacio-mir/ (https://goefoundation.org/eagles/gonzalez-horacio-mir/)

Quote
During May 1982, he led 20 combat missions across the nearly 400 miles of open, frigid water to the Malvinas. Facing a lethal British air defense system, they used a very low-level, high-speed attack profile as protection against surface-to-air missiles and relied on speed to evade the British Sea Harriers.
A typical mission consisted of a 45-minute overwater flight to the Malvinas, less than 4 minutes in the target area, and then a 45-minute flight home. Without air refueling capability, the Daggers routinely landed with only 4 minutes fuel remaining.

This is by no means unique - it lines up perfectly with every other account I've seen. 400 statute miles is about 350nm, so entirely in line with my previous posts, and consistent with a high speed subsonic transit at around 450kts for 45 minutes. The monopole FET map, and my calculations above (which you haven't rebutted or attempted to correct - so I guess you agree?) would have that same journey measuring 875nm.

So the distance being quoted are in complete agreement with those from google earth and other maps. But the monopole FET map reckons they're wrong by a factor of 2.5. And the best you've got is 'you weren't there so how would you know'?
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2021, 03:28:11 PM
So your interpretation of history then is that a Skyhawk of the Argentine armed forces didn't actually (for instance) attack the British RFA Sir Galahad, killing many of the troops on board?  The link is to the Wikipedia page on one of the survivors, Simon Weston:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston

I don't know your age, nationality or political affiliations, but I do know that I, and some of the posters on this thread, remember these events happening, and know some of the personnel involved.
I am about as sure any of this actually happened as much as the new head of the ATF here in the states is positive that residents at Waco, TX, fired on government helicopters during the FBI/ATF assault in April of 1993.

I am positive people died then as they die now, but exact cause/perpetrator in this case?

Unknown as far as I am concerned.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2021, 03:37:13 PM
See, you don't know that. You have no clue as to whether or not that took place.

You also have no personal idea of the distance involved in the flight.

Here it is apparent you have looked at some maps and tried to intertwine a scale associated with one set of maps and apply to multiple maps.

Things don't work that way.

Well, it seems you agree that the 1982 conflict happened. I'm assuming you agree that the video footage of Argentine aircraft bombing Royal Navy ships around the islands isn't faked, so we have to assume those jets came from somewhere. I'm also sure Simon Weston, as Duncan quite rightly points out, would strongly agree that they were definitely dropping bombs. And then we have accounts like this - https://goefoundation.org/eagles/gonzalez-horacio-mir/ (https://goefoundation.org/eagles/gonzalez-horacio-mir/)

Quote
During May 1982, he led 20 combat missions across the nearly 400 miles of open, frigid water to the Malvinas. Facing a lethal British air defense system, they used a very low-level, high-speed attack profile as protection against surface-to-air missiles and relied on speed to evade the British Sea Harriers.
A typical mission consisted of a 45-minute overwater flight to the Malvinas, less than 4 minutes in the target area, and then a 45-minute flight home. Without air refueling capability, the Daggers routinely landed with only 4 minutes fuel remaining.

This is by no means unique - it lines up perfectly with every other account I've seen. 400 statute miles is about 350nm, so entirely in line with my previous posts, and consistent with a high speed subsonic transit at around 450kts for 45 minutes. The monopole FET map, and my calculations above (which you haven't rebutted or attempted to correct - so I guess you agree?) would have that same journey measuring 875nm.

So the distance being quoted are in complete agreement with those from google earth and other maps. But the monopole FET map reckons they're wrong by a factor of 2.5. And the best you've got is 'you weren't there so how would you know'?
Again, you are applying one scale provided on one map to a different map.

That is a faulty approach.

As for your accounts, combat missions aren't fought at cruising, subsonic speeds.

Quick in, quick out, particularly if you're not stealths.

Further, refueling is always an option. As in Duncan's contribution.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 09, 2021, 03:52:28 PM
Again, you are applying one scale provided on one map to a different map.
What on earth(!) are you talking about? Which maps are you talking about? The monopole FET map is just one map, with one scale, and on it the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is quite clearly a lot larger than the UK's north-south distance. This aligns perfectly with the calculation I showed, which you haven't rebutted, that shows a distortion ratio of around 2.5 at the Falklands' latitude.
 
As for your accounts, combat missions aren't fought at cruising, subsonic speeds.

Oh, this should be good.

Do you have source for that statement? Or is it just wild, wild, baseless speculation? Because, and I could be wrong of course, I was always under the impression that for the kind of early gen fighter that the Dagger is that super cruise was not an option and reheat was therefore needed for supersonic flight, meaning that supersonic excursions were extremely costly in terms of fuel. So 90 minutes+ of supersonic flight would be completely unrealistic, particularly at low level. Also bomb delivery is not viable at supersonic speeds, although again, always happy to be put back in my place with informed sources.

And of course, you still have the slightly awkward issue that our man there mentioned a range and a duration, so you're essentially saying he didn't know how far he was flying.

Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: Action80 on April 09, 2021, 04:29:43 PM
Again, you are applying one scale provided on one map to a different map.
What on earth(!) are you talking about? Which maps are you talking about? The monopole FET map is just one map, with one scale, and on it the distance between Argentina and the Falklands is quite clearly a lot larger than the UK's north-south distance. This aligns perfectly with the calculation I showed, which you haven't rebutted, that shows a distortion ratio of around 2.5 at the Falklands' latitude.
 
As for your accounts, combat missions aren't fought at cruising, subsonic speeds.

Oh, this should be good.

Do you have source for that statement? Or is it just wild, wild, baseless speculation? Because, and I could be wrong of course, I was always under the impression that for the kind of early gen fighter that the Dagger is that super cruise was not an option and reheat was therefore needed for supersonic flight, meaning that supersonic excursions were extremely costly in terms of fuel. So 90 minutes+ of supersonic flight would be completely unrealistic, particularly at low level. Also bomb delivery is not viable at supersonic speeds, although again, always happy to be put back in my place with informed sources.

And of course, you still have the slightly awkward issue that our man there mentioned a range and a duration, so you're essentially saying he didn't know how far he was flying.
I would love to see your FE monopole map that has a scale listed.

I don't have the problem with range and speed here for the times you offered.

You do.

With the times offered for the distance you claim.

The times and performance of the plane more closely match FE (as claimed by you) than RE (as claimed by you).

Given that fighters will not simply cruise to targets at normal operating speed.

The source  you offered distances and times that do not match RE, given the Israeli plane performance envelope.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: SteelyBob on April 09, 2021, 07:21:52 PM

I would love to see your FE monopole map that has a scale listed.

It doesn't need a scale does it?! It's a flat (allegedly) earth, and I'm comparing the relative size of one country (which I know, because I live here), with another country. Now don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love it if one of the FE community would be brave enough to do a more detailed map, and perhaps put a scale on it, but that never seems to happen.

I don't have the problem with range and speed here for the times you offered.

You do.

With the times offered for the distance you claim.

The times and performance of the plane more closely match FE (as claimed by you) than RE (as claimed by you).

Given that fighters will not simply cruise to targets at normal operating speed.

The source  you offered distances and times that do not match RE, given the Israeli plane performance envelope.

That just makes no sense at all.

The man in that quote describes a distance of 400 miles. Your FE monopole map has that same distance at around 1000 miles. One of them is right. I'm banking on the man whose life depended on getting it right. You're very welcome to disagree.
Title: Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
Post by: sirtomato on April 10, 2021, 05:32:56 PM
Oh, this could absolutely be done without a scale. Just look at the map and see the relative size. A scale would just make it even more painfully obvious that these sizes don't match up with real measurements.

This gave me a thought though, I've never seen a FE map with a scale. Maybe I just haven't been looking hard enough