The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: totallackey on January 21, 2018, 12:51:05 AM
-
Newton's Laws of Motion/The Laws of Thermodynamics/etc.
Given that science claims the Sun is speeding along at roughly 483,000 MPH, with planets, their moons, asteroids, comets, etc., dutifully in tow, and given that science claims that Kepler and Newton have all the math figured out and that is what allowed for the discoveries of planets and their orbits to begin with:
Please present a correct CGI rendering of the Solar System in its travels throughout the galaxy.
The coding for the CGI must be demonstrated to have references to Newton and make account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.
The model should have the ability to render the visual movement of the Solar System at a speed similar to this (already demonstrated to be inaccurate)one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0jHsq36_NTU
Please note the topic of this thread is not up for debate.
I will open up a debate thread for that purpose.
-
The coding for the CGI must be demonstrated to have references to Newton and make account for the Laws of Thermodynamics.
You'll likely have to build your own. Below is a link to source code for making orbital animations.
https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/ (https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/)
This book may also assist you in your effort.
https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false)
-
Snipped
I placed you entire reply along with an answer in the "Debate," forum, so I could maintain thread integrity and purpose.
I appreciate you taking the time to recognize the thread and topic and your effort and time it took to make a reply.
Thanks!
-
In this video he starts showing animations of the sun's motion through the Galaxy at about 8:00 minutes in. The first one has solar motion slowed down, but at 10:30 he discusses the next animation where motion is to scale.
You can watch the whole video to satisfy yourself that it's based on Newton and Kepler.
https://youtu.be/F5Sk0zPOnkI
-
In this video he starts showing animations of the sun's motion through the Galaxy at about 8:00 minutes in. The first one has solar motion slowed down, but at 10:30 he discusses the next animation where motion is to scale.
You can watch the whole video to satisfy yourself that it's based on Newton and Kepler.
https://youtu.be/F5Sk0zPOnkI
Thank you for your submission!
-
Oh hey look:
https://youtu.be/OVLX432acYQ
This uses a game I've never heard of called Universe Sandbox 2.
http://universesandbox.com
Quote from the website:
Simulate Gravity
N-body simulation at almost any speed using Newtonian mechanics. Real science, real physics, no supercomputer required.
I assume we're done here?
-
Oh hey look:
https://youtu.be/OVLX432acYQ
This uses a game I've never heard of called Universe Sandbox 2.
http://universesandbox.com
Quote from the website:
Simulate Gravity
N-body simulation at almost any speed using Newtonian mechanics. Real science, real physics, no supercomputer required.
I assume we're done here?
It seems to me when you place the Sun in motion in your submission, the planets adopt a vortex pattern of orbits, something definitely not accepted by science and something certainly not supported by Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc...
You take a look and let me know what you think.
-
Oh hey look:
https://youtu.be/OVLX432acYQ
This uses a game I've never heard of called Universe Sandbox 2.
http://universesandbox.com
Quote from the website:
Simulate Gravity
N-body simulation at almost any speed using Newtonian mechanics. Real science, real physics, no supercomputer required.
I assume we're done here?
It seems to me when you place the Sun in motion in your submission, the planets adopt a vortex pattern of orbits, something definitely not accepted by science and something certainly not supported by Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc...
You take a look and let me know what you think.
It forms a helix, not a vortex.
-
It seems to me when you place the Sun in motion in your submission, the planets adopt a vortex pattern of orbits, something definitely not accepted by science and something certainly not supported by Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc...
You take a look and let me know what you think.
Why would helical motion be not accepted by science?
With respect to the sun, the motion is an ellipse.
With respect to the galactic center, the motion is a weird helix due to the inclination of the ecliptic vs. the plane of the galaxy.
With respect to some other observer going some other velocity, the path will be something different. Why would this not be accepted by science?
-
It seems to me when you place the Sun in motion in your submission, the planets adopt a vortex pattern of orbits, something definitely not accepted by science and something certainly not supported by Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc...
You take a look and let me know what you think.
Why would helical motion be not accepted by science?
Actually, it is called a helical motion, so it was an issue of me misunderstanding the presence of semantics. And as to why this would not be accepted to science, it appears to do with the correct angle of planetary orbits around the Sun, relative to the galactic plane.
With respect to the sun, the motion is an ellipse.
Yes.
With respect to the galactic center, the motion is a weird helix due to the inclination of the ecliptic vs. the plane of the galaxy.
Addressed above.
With respect to some other observer going some other velocity, the path will be something different. Why would this not be accepted by science?
Again, I think it has to do with the rendered orbital tilt relative to the galactic plane.
-
Celestia.space has what you're looking for, largely. I don't know if they say what equations they use, but one can assume it's the standard kepler laws, Newton's equations for gravity, etc.
-
It seems to me when you place the Sun in motion in your submission, the planets adopt a vortex pattern of orbits, something definitely not accepted by science and something certainly not supported by Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc...
You take a look and let me know what you think.
Why would helical motion be not accepted by science?
Actually, it is called a helical motion, so it was an issue of me misunderstanding the presence of semantics. And as to why this would not be accepted to science, it appears to do with the correct angle of planetary orbits around the Sun, relative to the galactic plane.
What?
The "correct angle of planetary orbits around the sun" and "relative to the galactic plane" don't go together. The acceleration due to the galactic-centric acceleration is 7 orders of magnitude smaller than that from the orbit of the Earth.
It doesn't matter what the planets are doing with respect to the galactic-centric plane - Kepler only applies to the planets orbit sounds the sun, and separately to the orbit of the sun around the Galaxy. What shape the planets end up drawing around the Galaxy makes no difference.
With respect to the sun, the motion is an ellipse.
Yes.
With respect to the galactic center, the motion is a weird helix due to the inclination of the ecliptic vs. the plane of the galaxy.
Addressed above.
Not in a way that I understand.
-
Celestia.space has what you're looking for, largely. I don't know if they say what equations they use, but one can assume it's the standard kepler laws, Newton's equations for gravity, etc.
The best part is that it is open source. I was looking through some of the source code today on github. It also uses Eigen for some of it's math processing. Totallackey - I think this is as close as you're going to get. You can create your own animation on the fly. Hard to beat that.
-
It seems to me when you place the Sun in motion in your submission, the planets adopt a vortex pattern of orbits, something definitely not accepted by science and something certainly not supported by Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc...
You take a look and let me know what you think.
Why would helical motion be not accepted by science?
Actually, it is called a helical motion, so it was an issue of me misunderstanding the presence of semantics. And as to why this would not be accepted to science, it appears to do with the correct angle of planetary orbits around the Sun, relative to the galactic plane.
What?
The "correct angle of planetary orbits around the sun" and "relative to the galactic plane" don't go together. The acceleration due to the galactic-centric acceleration is 7 orders of magnitude smaller than that from the orbit of the Earth.
It doesn't matter what the planets are doing with respect to the galactic-centric plane - Kepler only applies to the planets orbit sounds the sun, and separately to the orbit of the sun around the Galaxy. What shape the planets end up drawing around the Galaxy makes no difference.
With respect to the sun, the motion is an ellipse.
Yes.
With respect to the galactic center, the motion is a weird helix due to the inclination of the ecliptic vs. the plane of the galaxy.
Addressed above.
Not in a way that I understand.
Please take a look at this article.
Read it, and see if universe sandbox would be considered a legitimate rendering...
It may very well be a misunderstanding on my part, but it seems to me it is inaccurate based on how the orbital paths tilt in relation to the galactic plane.