The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: RazaTD on March 28, 2021, 12:28:08 PM
-
If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.
What is the best prediction that the Flat Earth can make?
-
If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.
This premise is false.
-
If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.
This premise is false.
How so? If you think that the earth is flat then surely that model should replace the globe earth model, like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.
-
If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.
This premise is false.
No.
-
If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.
This premise is false.
Why?
-
like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.
That isn't what happened. They argued and ultimately convinced the pope to ignore physics and science to switch to the "new model". It was not a "better model of reality".
-
like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.
That isn't what happened. They argued and ultimately convinced the pope to ignore physics and science to switch to the "new model". It was not a "better model of reality".
None of that is true.
Can you provide a source which backs up any of that?
-
How so? If you think that the earth is flat then surely that model should replace the globe earth model, like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.
We've discussed this many times, and I dou t repeating myself yet again will help, but hey ho. We care about what is true, and not what is currently more complete. Using known incorrect answers to fill the gaps in what would otherwise be unknowns is not a healthy approach, and has pretty much got us into the mess we're in as a society.
No.
Refrain from creating posts which do not contribute to the discussion at hand.
-
You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.
-
How so? If you think that the earth is flat then surely that model should replace the globe earth model, like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.
We've discussed this many times, and I dou t repeating myself yet again will help, but hey ho. We care about what is true, and not what is currently more complete. Using known incorrect answers to fill the gaps in what would otherwise be unknowns is not a healthy approach, and has pretty much got us into the mess we're in as a society.
No.
Refrain from creating posts which do not contribute to the discussion at hand.
What predictions can the Flat Earth model make so far that can be observed in reality? Derive only with Flat Earth equations
-
You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.
Just demonstrably not true.
Your inability to understand it - or your flat our unwillingness to accept the evidence you've been shown - doesn't make it true.
It has been explained that the n body problem can be split into multiple 2 body problems - thus clearly using the underlying laws.
We have sent probes to every planet, there's a rover sitting on Mars as we speak. There's an ISS which you can see from the ground.
The eclipse path was predicted down to the block level, you can't do that with a Saros cycle.
None of this was achieved with a FE model.
-
You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.
Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools
-
You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.
Just demonstrably not true.
Your inability to understand it - or your flat our unwillingness to accept the evidence you've been shown - doesn't make it true.
It has been explained that the n body problem can be split into multiple 2 body problems - thus clearly using the underlying laws.
We have sent probes to every planet, there's a rover sitting on Mars as we speak. There's an ISS which you can see from the ground.
The eclipse path was predicted down to the block level, you can't do that with a Saros cycle.
None of this was achieved with a FE model.
Multiple two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under the laws of gravity and motion, but that you can't get it to work.
You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.
Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools
The Ancient Babylonians were a Flat Earth civilization and they are known to have predicted the position of the planets just fine.
Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.
-
You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.
Just demonstrably not true.
Your inability to understand it - or your flat our unwillingness to accept the evidence you've been shown - doesn't make it true.
It has been explained that the n body problem can be split into multiple 2 body problems - thus clearly using the underlying laws.
We have sent probes to every planet, there's a rover sitting on Mars as we speak. There's an ISS which you can see from the ground.
The eclipse path was predicted down to the block level, you can't do that with a Saros cycle.
None of this was achieved with a FE model.
Multiple Two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under those laws, but that you can't get it to work.
You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.
Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools
The Ancient Babylonians were a Flat Earth civilization and they are known to have predicted the position of the planets just fine.
Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.
What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?
-
What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
Ancient Babylonians
Astronomy for Physical Science - Cal State Long Beach (http://web.csulb.edu/~htahsiri/physicalscience/Astronomy%20for%20112/astrochapt%204.html)
“ The Babylonians accumulated records of astronomical observations for many centuries. The records enabled them to see repeated patterns in the motions of the celestial objects. They used the patterns to predict the positions of the Moon and planets. ”
From Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times: Volume One (https://books.google.com/books?id=wKsYrT691yIC&lpg=PA12&dq=babylonians%20polynomials%20astronomy%20prediction&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Professor Morris Kline (bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Kline)) we see:
“ Babylonians calculated the first and second differences of successive data, observed the consistency of the first or second differences, and extrapolated or interpolated data. Their procedure was equivalent to using the fact that the data can be fit by polynomial functions and enabled them to predict the daily positions of the planets. They knew the periods of the planets with some accuracy, and also used eclipses as a basis for calculation. There was, however, no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion in Babylonian astronomy. ”
-
Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.
In Stellarium, if you change the observer position to the Moon or Mars and then look back on earth, what do you see?
From Mars:
(https://i.imgur.com/L3kgQ3L.png)
From the Moon:
(https://i.imgur.com/AYzokJF.png)
I'm pretty sure Stellarium is Globe centric.
Not to mention from the Stellarium User Guide:
"By default, Stellarium uses the VSOP87 planetary theory, an analytical solution which is able todeliver planetary positions for any input date (P. Bretagnon and Francou, 1988)."
http://priede.bf.lu.lv/ftp/pub/TIS/astronomija/Stellarium/stellarium_user_guide-0.18.0-1.pdf
VSOP87:
"The semi-analytic planetary theory VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a mathematical model describing long-term changes (secular variation) in the orbits of the planets Mercury to Neptune. The earliest modern scientific model considered only the gravitational attraction between the Sun and each planet, with the resulting orbits being unvarying Keplerian ellipses. In reality, all the planets exert slight forces on each other, causing slow changes in the shape and orientation of these ellipses. Increasingly complex analytical models have been made of these deviations, as well as efficient and accurate numerical approximation methods.
VSOP87 comes in six tables:
VSOP87 Heliocentric ecliptic orbital elements for the equinox J2000.0; the 6 orbital elements, ideal to get an idea of how the orbits are changing over time
VSOP87A Heliocentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox J2000.0; the most useful when converting to geocentric positions and later plot the position on a star chart
VSOP87B Heliocentric ecliptic spherical coordinates for the equinox J2000.0
VSOP87C Heliocentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox of the day; the most useful when converting to geocentric positions and later compute e.g. rise/set/culmination times, or the altitude and azimuth relative to your local horizon
VSOP87D Heliocentric ecliptic spherical coordinates for the equinox of the day
VSOP87E Barycentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox J2000.0, relative to the barycentre of the solar system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets)
So, you are incorrect, Stellarium uses mathematical models based upon a heliocentric globe earth. It is not Babylonian patterned-based as you would prefer.
-
The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read and address the arguments in the Wiki, since you know that it is just going to be quoted anyway as a response. The system is based on epicycles:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#VSOP
VSOP
VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a popular software package used to generate planetary ephemeris, which are the positions of the planetary objects in the sky. It is used in astronomy software such as Stellarium and Celestia. It has been alleged that VSOP uses a geometric RET model to make its predictions, and so VSOP and the astronomy software which uses it is therefore a validation of the theory. On assessment we find, however, that VSOP is based on the ancient epicyclic methods:
Comparing VSOP to the Ptolemaic System
The following is left by an editor on VSOP's Wikipedia Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VSOP_(planets)&oldid=610626270)(Archive):
“ Modelling VSOP on a ubiquitous PC computer program, starting with only one element for each of the three parameters (L, B R) and then slowly incrementing the number of elements, gives a sense of irony that it is in fact nothing more than a more complex development of the ancient deferent / epicycle system used by Ptolemy. A system that despite being totally dismissed out of hand for being intellectually "wrong", was able to provide a prediction service accurate enough to match the observational resolution available (naked eye, with no reliable mechanical timekeeping). A system that, astoundingly to this author, was able to detect and measure, accurately, the lunar evection, one of the still-used perturbations of the Earth-Moon system. Summing powers of sines and cosines is certainly tantamount to circles upon (or perhaps within) circles; recursing, or perhaps simply nesting, almost endlessly. Whilst of course this is totally irrelevant to the mathematics, it perhaps behoves Wikipedia's wider terms of reference to include this as a philosophical point. ”
Comments from Celestia Developers
Celestia Developers comment on the large number of planet-specific terms used in computing positions:
https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8285 (Archive)
“ VSOP87 is a set of polynomials describing the orbits of the major planets. There are over 1000 terms in each series. ”
https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2592 (Archive)
“ I could add more terms to the VSOP-87 series, but there are already over 1000 per major planet ”
The rest of the page explains how epicycles are used to predict patterns of events and are still used in Astronomy, but now with a gravitational twist, because the three body problem can't be solved.
-
What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
Ancient Babylonians
Astronomy for Physical Science - Cal State Long Beach (http://web.csulb.edu/~htahsiri/physicalscience/Astronomy%20for%20112/astrochapt%204.html)
“ The Babylonians accumulated records of astronomical observations for many centuries. The records enabled them to see repeated patterns in the motions of the celestial objects. They used the patterns to predict the positions of the Moon and planets. ”
From Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times: Volume One (https://books.google.com/books?id=wKsYrT691yIC&lpg=PA12&dq=babylonians%20polynomials%20astronomy%20prediction&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Professor Morris Kline (bio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Kline)) we see:
“ Babylonians calculated the first and second differences of successive data, observed the consistency of the first or second differences, and extrapolated or interpolated data. Their procedure was equivalent to using the fact that the data can be fit by polynomial functions and enabled them to predict the daily positions of the planets. They knew the periods of the planets with some accuracy, and also used eclipses as a basis for calculation. There was, however, no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion in Babylonian astronomy. ”
I agree with the point that if there is repeating then it’s state can be accurately predicted without understanding mechanics that drive it.
The Ancient Babylonians did not understand why planets were moving but they observed the motion and understood it to be repeating. From there, they were able to make their prediction.
However, the problem is that their “model” is just memorizing a pattern and is too simplistic. Since then science has developed a lot and we have a greater predictability with our model where we don’t necessarily have to observe something before we can predict it. In other words, we are able to understand the mechanics of how things work.
The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.
Understand here that the Ancient Babylonians could not have done this because their model was purely observation with no mechanics. They would have seen Uranus’ quirk and overtime, due to its repetition, become able to predict it. But they couldn’t give a reason as to why this happens.
So I guess I should ask, has Flat Earth developed since the time on Ancient Babylon’s? If so how will a FE scientist calculate the position of Mars? Would they rely on patterns or will they introduce some mechanics?
The Round Earth has introduced a lot of mechanics which is one of the reasons why Neptune was found.
-
The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read all of it. It is bases on epicycles:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#VSOP
VSOP
VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a popular software package used to generate planetary ephemeris, which are the positions of the planetary objects in the sky. It is used in astronomy software such as Stellarium and Celestia. It has been alleged that VSOP uses a geometric RET model to make its predictions, and so VSOP and the astronomy software which uses it is therefore a validation of the theory. On assessment we find, however, that VSOP is based on the ancient epicyclic methods:
Comparing VSOP to the Ptolemaic System
The following is left by an editor on VSOP's Wikipedia Talk Page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VSOP_(planets)&oldid=610626270)(Archive):
“ Modelling VSOP on a ubiquitous PC computer program, starting with only one element for each of the three parameters (L, B R) and then slowly incrementing the number of elements, gives a sense of irony that it is in fact nothing more than a more complex development of the ancient deferent / epicycle system used by Ptolemy. A system that despite being totally dismissed out of hand for being intellectually "wrong", was able to provide a prediction service accurate enough to match the observational resolution available (naked eye, with no reliable mechanical timekeeping). A system that, astoundingly to this author, was able to detect and measure, accurately, the lunar evection, one of the still-used perturbations of the Earth-Moon system. Summing powers of sines and cosines is certainly tantamount to circles upon (or perhaps within) circles; recursing, or perhaps simply nesting, almost endlessly. Whilst of course this is totally irrelevant to the mathematics, it perhaps behoves Wikipedia's wider terms of reference to include this as a philosophical point. ”
Comments from Celestia Developers
Celestia Developers comment on the large number of planet-specific terms used in computing positions:
https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8285 (Archive)
“ VSOP87 is a set of polynomials describing the orbits of the major planets. There are over 1000 terms in each series. ”
https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2592 (Archive)
“ I could add more terms to the VSOP-87 series, but there are already over 1000 per major planet ”
The rest of the page explains how epicycles are used to predict patterns of events and are still used in Astronomy because the three body problem can't be solved.
So what? That whole passage from someone has been in "Talk" since 2014. It certainly doesn't take away from the fact that you are wrong about Stellarium. And I have no idea why it's significant that a poster says the VSOP has over 1000 terms per planet. That poster also says they should use JPL DE405 for greater accuracy. Which is completely heliocentrically based as well like VSOP. And Stellarium has a feature in the client version to toggle over to DE405 if you desire.
The bottomline, Stellarium and the like use heliocentric mathematical models for planetary movement/tracking. Not your Babylonian pattern-based stuff. Sorry, I guess you'll have to find an FE based celestial program to use instead.
-
The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.
There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune
So what?
Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.
From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -
(https://i.imgur.com/tKL9662.jpg)
-
The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.
There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune
So what?
Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.
From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -
(https://i.imgur.com/tKL9662.jpg)
Again, so what? And enter stage right about 70 years later, Johannes Kepler (no more epicycles), and so on:
(https://baezortega.github.io/images/kepler-orbits_files/figure-markdown_github/kepler.gif)
Do you think the study of heliocentrism came to a dead stop 450 years ago? Do you think we've learned nothing since Babylonian times?
-
Incorrect. Those are just simplified explanations. There were still epicycles in Kepler's version. He just reduced it a little more. You can see that Jupiter is on an epicycle in his version:
Dr. Samuel Herrick - https://ia802909.us.archive.org/18/items/the-foundations-of-astrodynamics/The%20Foundations%20of%20Astrodynamics.pdf
(https://i.imgur.com/4jIumNC.png)
“ Physical celestial mechanics may be said to have begun with Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and the laws of force and gravitation. Astrodynamics and mathematical celestial mechanics, on the other hand, date back at least to Heracleides of Pontus in the fourth century B.C. The Greek invention of epicycles and eccentrics was developed into a system by Apollonius of Perga in the third century and Hipparchus of Alexandria in the second century B.C. It was refined and published by Ptolemy of Alexandria in the second century A.D., and came to be known as the Ptolemaic system. It is generally assumed that the epicycle was discredited by Johannes Kepler some 1500 years later, but in point of fact epicycles have persisted in astrodynamics down to the present day, and have extended their domain into other areas of science under the guise of Fourier series! ”
“ In modern perturbation theory we actually take account of the original epicyclic concept by combining several Fourier series that have arguments based upon different angular variables. ”
-
Multiple two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under the laws of gravity and motion, but that you can't get it to work.
You're going to have to tell the rover sitting on Mars that it doesn't work.
I've listed some of the achievements our models have enabled. You're increasingly sounding like a Monty Python sketch again "What has the RE Model ever done for us?"
-
The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read and address the arguments in the Wiki ...
The Wiki includes this graphic, showing a number of curved and almost semi-circular paths for the eclipses, and paths which are wider at the poles.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/61/Eclipse_saros.png/600px-Eclipse_saros.png)
They take these paths, and have differing path widths because the eclipse shadow is passing over a curved surface, i.e. the surface of a globe. The path is more semi-circular at the poles, less so in equatorial regions.
What possible reason is there for the path to be anything other than a straight line on a flat earth?
-
The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read and address the arguments in the Wiki ...
The Wiki includes this graphic, showing a number of curved and almost semi-circular paths for the eclipses, and paths which are wider at the poles.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/61/Eclipse_saros.png/600px-Eclipse_saros.png)
They take these paths, and have differing path widths because the eclipse shadow is passing over a curved surface, i.e. the surface of a globe. The path is more semi-circular at the poles, less so in equatorial regions.
What possible reason is there for the path to be anything other than a straight line on a flat earth?
When converting the Mercator Map to either the Monopole or Bi-Polar FE model the North and South is either compressed or stretched. Both of those models expect those areas to be modified too.
Multiple two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under the laws of gravity and motion, but that you can't get it to work.
You're going to have to tell the rover sitting on Mars that it doesn't work.
I've listed some of the achievements our models have enabled. You're increasingly sounding like a Monty Python sketch again "What has the RE Model ever done for us?"
This is a math and model problem which does not involve NASA. You are embarrassed about your math, and your solar system, and so you are invoking an argument which requires increasingly more dependencies.
Your system doesn't work on paper. This is evidence against it. Claiming that NASA saw it is poor evidence for this failure.
NASA is ultimately the thing in doubt and under skepicism here. Assuming the theory that NASA explored the solar system is not confirming that it occured, but is assuming it to support another failing argument of yours. You are practically declaring that you have lost the discussion when you need to admit to the inherent model failures and try to argue that your model exists by telling us that NASA saw it.
-
Claiming that NASA saw it is poor evidence for this failure.
NASA is ultimately the thing in doubt and under skepicism here. Assuming the theory that NASA explored the solar system is not confirming that it occured, but is assuming it to support another failing argument of yours. You are practically declaring that you have lost the discussion when you need to admit to the inherent model failures and try to argue that your model exists by telling us that NASA saw it.
First orbital spacecraft - Sputnik, launched by Roscosmos, or the equivalent Russian space agency of the day.
Other agencies deploying orbital craft include ESA, SpaceX, JAXA and others.
First picture of Earth from space was a Russian one.
Pictures of Earth looking back from the surface, or the vicinity of the Moon, have been taken by Japanese, Chinese and American craft.
Multiple space agencies, not just NASA. Doubting only NASA's account is insufficient doubt.
-
Other agencies deploying orbital craft include ESA, SpaceX, JAXA and others.
There are doubts on the independence of these space programs. See these quotes:
https://www.planetary.org/explore/the-planetary-report/australia-space-program.html
Why Start A Space Program? Watching Australia Take A Bold Step Forward
Casey Dreier is director of space policy for The Planetary Society.
“ The fact that so many countries seem to want a space program implies an inherent value to exploring space, but what is it? Last year, Australia became the latest country to announce the formation of its own space agency. The process took a significant step forward in March with a new report recommending goals and focus for its space agency.
The report also provides insight about why Australia sees space as a valuable enterprise. The report highlights several areas where the country could leapfrog others by strategically investing in specific capabilities (for example, artificial intelligence or quantum computing) and sets out a goal of tripling the size of the Australian space industry by 2030. One of the keys to succeeding in this new effort, the report declares, will be international partnerships.
International partnerships provide the means for countries to participate in the exploration of space without having to create expensive, enabling infrastructure from the ground up. They can leverage the space capabilities of other nations while providing unique contributions to the benefit of their own industry and scientific base. This is the opposite of a zero-sum, competitive mentality of international relations; a rising rocket lifts all spacecraft, if you will. The European Space Agency’s very existence relies on this model. Its BepiColombo mission—as you will read in this issue—includes contributions from 13 European member states, the United States, and Japan. This coalition of nations is deeply invested in the success of the mission, spreading out the cost and also the political support. ”
https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/science-data
Science Data Archives
“ The purpose of the Science Data Archives list is to provide NASA Science data stakeholders with a comprehensive list of NASA Science data archives to increase data accessibility. Earth, heliophysics, planetary, and astrophysics observations and data are freely accessible to all, including NASA’s many partners in the United States, international organizations and governments, the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. These partners rely on NASA’s expertise in developing and launching missions, analyzing the data, and calibrating and validating results to ensure that the information is accurate. ”
https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/international-space-activities/
NASA AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SPACE
“ International cooperation has been a hallmark of NASA’s programs throughout its history. The law that created NASA, the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act, included Section 205 that encouraged NASA to cooperate with other countries. A 2014 report by NASA’s Office of International and Interagency Relations states that NASA has signed over 3,000 international agreements since its inception. The report, Global Reach: A View of NASA’s International Cooperation, lists international cooperative projects ongoing at NASA at the time of publication.
The majority of NASA space science programs involve international cooperation and the most far-reaching international space program today is the International Space Station. The U.S.-led ISS was built by the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, and 11 members of ESA (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom). Crews that rotate on roughly 6-month schedules have been living aboard the ISS continuously since November 2000. The ISS is operated jointly by NASA and its Russian counterpart, Roscosmos, and all the partners utilize its scientific facilities. ”
About the old space shuttle program:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/space-shuttles
“ Plans call for the shuttles to ferry component parts to the station at least through its completion, and later deliver food, water, and other supplies to station crews. With involvement in the International Space Station, NASA's shuttle program is likely to extend its role as the foundation of the U.S. space program and become a cornerstone of the combined world space program. ”
NASA's "large presence" in Moscow:
https://ru.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/moscow/sections-offices/nasa/
“ The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a large presence in the Moscow area, with offices at the U.S. Embassy, Star City, the Mission Control Center-Moscow, and the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos). ”
-
There are doubts on the independence of these space programs.
None of which disproves the photos, nor the data from the flights, nor the anecdotal evidence from the participants.
-
We care about what is true, and not what is currently more complete.
Fairly reasonable, but you don't have a monopoly on that.
And don't you think there is likely to be a correlation between those two things?
I mean, if a model is good enough to, say, built an ISS, accurately predict a solar eclipse path or land something in Mars then I'd suggest that gives pretty good confidence that the model reflects the underlying reality.
I'm not saying physics has it all sorted out - in some ways it would be disappointing if it did, there would be nothing left to discover. But the models we have demonstrably work for most practical purposes.
The leap you guys seem to be making is that you make observations which don't match your understanding of the RE model and concluding that the entire model must be wrong rather than your understanding is. Given the consequences of the RE model being wrong - every scientist in history (or over 2000 years, certainly) being wrong, the myriad conspiracies that have to be in play, all the technologies which don't work as we've been led to believe...it seems like quite a leap. Especially when some of your ideas are basically trying to explain why observations do better match what you'd expect on a globe.
Using known incorrect answers to fill the gaps in what would otherwise be unknowns is not a healthy approach, and has pretty much got us into the mess we're in as a society.
Can you elaborate on this?
-
None of that is true.
Can you provide a source which backs up any of that?
Why does that matter when you already "know" it isn't true in your heart?
The source is the historical records of that pope and the astronomers pitching heliocentrism to him.
Contrary to what is commonly (mis)taught, heliocentrism was not chosen to replace geocentrism because it "modeled observation" better. It was argued at the time that physics and science need not be considered, and the "beauty"/simplicity of the equations was all that was needed.
-
None of that is true.
Can you provide a source which backs up any of that?
Why does that matter when you already "know" it isn't true in your heart?
I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but you're just stating things without evidence.
The source is the historical records of that pope and the astronomers pitching heliocentrism to him.
Contrary to what is commonly (mis)taught, heliocentrism was not chosen to replace geocentrism because it "modeled observation" better. It was argued at the time that physics and science need not be considered, and the "beauty"/simplicity of the equations was all that was needed.
Can you provide a source which backs this up?
-
The source is the historical records of that pope and the astronomers pitching heliocentrism to him.
Contrary to what is commonly (mis)taught, heliocentrism was not chosen to replace geocentrism because it "modeled observation" better. It was argued at the time that physics and science need not be considered, and the "beauty"/simplicity of the equations was all that was needed.
... but we've moved on since then. With, amongst other things, over 60 years of manned and un-manned space flight around the Earth. Sixty years. With all the anecdotal, observational, photographic, and data records of such flights. It doesn't matter on what basis such "replacement" was made, we now have better data.
Please don't trot out the "It's all NASA lies" line again, unless you can actually prove as such.
-
Apologies. Had to edit this. Realized I had misread time off of suncalc with relation to UTC. 18:02 UTC is 10:02 UTC-8 which is how sunlcalc displays time. The original picture was incorrect and has been replaced and necessary edits made.
The Wiki includes this graphic, showing a number of curved and almost semi-circular paths for the eclipses, and paths which are wider at the poles.
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/61/Eclipse_saros.png/600px-Eclipse_saros.png)
They take these paths, and have differing path widths because the eclipse shadow is passing over a curved surface, i.e. the surface of a globe. The path is more semi-circular at the poles, less so in equatorial regions.
What possible reason is there for the path to be anything other than a straight line on a flat earth?
Actually, with the sun and moon traveling a circular orbit around the north pole, arcs would not be ruled out. That really makes no difference as to FE geometry and realized eclipse paths not working. My understanding of eclipses on FE is that they occur as the sun passes over the new moon. That being said, if the alignment of sun and moon are such that a shadow is cast on FE, then the maximum eclipse would occur somewhere along the N-S longitude line of the position of sun and moon at the exact time of the new moon. This would occur at a location on the disc where the sun and moon culmination times are equal and would occur at the time of culmination.
So let's look at the 2033 MAR. 30 path shown on your illustration. Here's a picture from Suncalc with the addition of the eclipse details.
(https://i.imgur.com/qvVQTDh.png)
As you can see, the greatest eclipse occurs some 4 1/2 hours before culmination at the point of greatest eclipse. The exact new moon occurs roughly the longitude of Chicago around 17:53. At 18:02 the sun and moon are crossing somewhere the over the central US around 89.5 deg W yet casting a shadow some 60 deg. east. Simply can't happen in the FE model.
-
The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.
There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune
So what?
Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.
From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -
(https://i.imgur.com/tKL9662.jpg)
I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model? I think I will have to research this topic more because I was led to believe (or incorrectly assumed) that the description of Neptune the scientists derived was quite accurate. In fact, I don't know what margin of error would even be fair because I do understand that new developments made by Einstein were able to clarify a lot about how classical physics behaves at a more macro scale.
I guess FE would use epicycles to make predictions about the motion of the planets? Since it does not have a mechanism by which they can move similar to the motion of the Sun and the Moon?
-
I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model?
Tom has completely misunderstood, or is misrepresenting, perturbation theory. You are nearly correct - it's not quite a way of simplifying calculations, because that implies that there is a calculation that could be done. The point with things like the n-body problem is there simply is no way of solving the equations. There's a $1M prize for the person who can, and 20 years later nobody has claimed it. Despite numerous people, including me, pointing out that this fact does not in anyway invalidate the underlying theory, Tom persists in claiming that it does. This clearly ignores the oft-repeated point that numerous scientific problems end up in the form of partial differential equations that cannot be solved without recourse to some kind of approximating technique.
So things like perturbation theory are a way of obtaining an approximate answer - how approximate depends on how horrific the equations are allowed to become. But we should be careful using 'approximation', as it suggests that that there is some superior method that is eluding us. Almost all calculations in science are approximate to some degree - it's the amount of error that matters.
-
I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model?
Tom has completely misunderstood, or is misrepresenting, perturbation theory. You are nearly correct - it's not quite a way of simplifying calculations, because that implies that there is a calculation that could be done. The point with things like the n-body problem is there simply is no way of solving the equations. There's a $1M prize for the person who can, and 20 years later nobody has claimed it. Despite numerous people, including me, pointing out that this fact does not in anyway invalidate the underlying theory, Tom persists in claiming that it does. This clearly ignores the oft-repeated point that numerous scientific problems end up in the form of partial differential equations that cannot be solved without recourse to some kind of approximating technique.
So things like perturbation theory are a way of obtaining an approximate answer - how approximate depends on how horrific the equations are allowed to become. But we should be careful using 'approximation', as it suggests that that there is some superior method that is eluding us. Almost all calculations in science are approximate to some degree - it's the amount of error that matters.
I understand Tom’s misinformation now after reading some of his rants in other threads about how numerical approximations somehow don’t work on the underlying principles 🤣
If I understand correctly, numerical approximation don’t have a meaning without the underlying principles (what is it that you are trying to approximate if not the result of those principles). I hope Tom realizes that most of the people now see through this.
Unless Tom is genuinely confused about this, I apologize. It does seem rather hard though to get confused about it.