totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #20 on: January 21, 2018, 07:43:57 PM »
Let me get this straight - if someone presented you with a "complete" model, you would subscribe to RET?
As long as it stood muster.
Why is that your sticking point?
Because I am actually searching for "truth in advertising."
What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
I can get the math checked and can be taught by several acquaintances to examine it in detail for my own verification.
Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...
Please, I think you should review things prior to typing "Zetetic Method," again...

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #21 on: January 21, 2018, 07:48:18 PM »
Yes. But it still takes many person hours to build them, and with no reason to do so who is going to do it?
So schools, academies, institutions of higher learning, NASA, JPL, etc., have no obligation to present accurate models based on accurate math or accepted science.

Or, you do not view the truth as a valid reason for doing so?
Is that why you brought up WTC 7?
Valid CGI rendering and data inputs are the topic at hand.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 08:07:19 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline PickYerPoison

  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Poor Earth-chan. It's not her fault she's flat.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #22 on: January 21, 2018, 08:06:59 PM »
What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
I can get the math checked and can be taught by several acquaintances to examine it in detail for my own verification.
Why not have them make it for you instead, then? If they have the necessary qualifications and would be willing to help, just ask them. This is a terrible place to ask - you've basically guaranteed your request will never be completed by demanding the FET forum to make it for you.

Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...
Please, I think you should review things prior to typing "Zetetic Method," again...
Zetetic Method Zetetic Method Zetetic Method

It forbids you from starting from a fixed point with something in mind to prove/disprove, so you can't ask for a model of the round earth solar system with intent to disprove it. Which is what you're doing! For the sake of fairness, per the Zetetic Method, you need to ask for every possible model of the solar system and prove/disprove each one to determine which is correct. After all, even if you disprove RET models (somehow), that doesn't make FET models correct. So you'd have to get an equivalent FET model under all the same restrictions. You might as well do that in parallel - you probably have more willing Flat Earthers available to help you than Round Earthers.
Remember that "The truth is out there" as long as you are willing to look!

Offline Ratboy

  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #23 on: January 21, 2018, 08:11:48 PM »
Sorry, Newton being wrong is one of the points of the OP.  I am saying no one in the scientific community believes that Newton's view of physics is the most accurate model, or in other words, he is wrong.  The scientific community to the vast majority will say he is "wrong."  His law of gravity is great for most applications but outside the basic assumptions he is wrong.  He is wrong about F=ma when one gets outside the realm of normal everyday experience.
So I am saying that point 2 of the OP is correct.  Newton is wrong.  Especially if one is building a model to explain the motions of the universe.
I did not think that deserves a warning.  To say that I agree that Newton is wrong.

Rama Set

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #24 on: January 21, 2018, 09:02:03 PM »
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/

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
Your reply does not surprise me.

I find the failure of those who support the heliocentric model to provide an accurate model (with open and honest references to Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc.) to be on par with NIST and their report concerning WTC 7.

A total prevention of open, honest scientific inquiry into reality.

You have been provided with a heliocentric model of the solar system that does reference Newton, Kepler, etc...

The most accurate simulation of the Milky Way to date is the Eris simulation.  It is not going to satisfy your absurdly high standard of evidence because the 1.4M processor hours it took in a supercomputer network to simulation the 13B yrs the Milky Way has been in existence -only- contained 60,000,000 pixels and so was insufficient to model each of the 200-400B stars in the Milky Way.  So, the best you can reasonably claim, is that Newton's and Kepler's laws may not accurately describe galactic evolution to a granular level.  I can concede that.  But that Newton and Kepler is completely wrong, not even just inaccurate and antiquated, but completely wrong, is absurd.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #25 on: January 21, 2018, 09:53:28 PM »
Please, NASA or JPL or any of the other sites have already spent money providing CGI renderings of the Solar System. The fact their renderings are not accurate or based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein, et.al., is damning evidence that either the math is wrong or the model is wrong.
What do you base this assumption on?

Also, I'd be interested in how the flat earth theory allows for 24 hour days, yet whichever latitude it's summer in gets more daylight hours.  Especially in the December-February, which is summer down here (Australia).  Let's assume that the sun moves farther outward from the centre of the disc to give us more warmth in that time.  However, it's now got a greater distance to travel in the same 24 hours.  Say, it's doing 60,000 km instead of the 40,000 km at the equator.  So that's 1.5 times the distance, which means it's travelling 1.5 times as fast to make the distance in the same time.

So far, so good, yeah?

Except that the problem is that just like in Europe and North America, summer in the Southern Hemisphere is typified by longer days.  Which means that the sun can't be travelling faster over any spot on the world.  If anything, days would be much shorter.  1.5 times as short, to be exact.  We'd be getting 8 hours of sunlight instead of 16.

I cordially invite anyone to come to Australia in the summer.  I'll even put you up in my spare bedroom (it's air-conditioned).  You can measure the hours of daylight, and then explain to me that if the sun is passing by faster, how are the days lasting longer.
I look forward to the explanation. It should be a good one.

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #26 on: January 21, 2018, 11:47:45 PM »
What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
I can get the math checked and can be taught by several acquaintances to examine it in detail for my own verification.
Why not have them make it for you instead, then?
Would you hinder my travel in any avenue of discovery?
If they have the necessary qualifications and would be willing to help, just ask them.
As if I have not?
This is a terrible place to ask - you've basically guaranteed your request will never be completed by demanding the FET forum to make it for you.
Last I checked, there are more RE adherents here than any FE'rs.

And where did I "demand," a model.

Zetetic Method Zetetic Method Zetetic Method

It forbids you from starting from a fixed point with something in mind to prove/disprove, so you can't ask for a model of the round earth solar system with intent to disprove it. Which is what you're doing! For the sake of fairness, per the Zetetic Method, you need to ask for every possible model of the solar system and prove/disprove each one to determine which is correct. After all, even if you disprove RET models (somehow), that doesn't make FET models correct. So you'd have to get an equivalent FET model under all the same restrictions. You might as well do that in parallel - you probably have more willing Flat Earthers available to help you than Round Earthers.
"The Zetetic method is a system of scientific inquiry. ... The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved."

I am sorry, but I do not render this definition to be anything similar to the approach you describe.

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #27 on: January 22, 2018, 12:02:53 AM »
Sorry, Newton being wrong is one of the points of the OP.
Okay, you are stating beyond equivocation, Newton is wrong when it comes to the movement of the Solar System.
I am saying no one in the scientific community believes that Newton's view of physics is the most accurate model, or in other words, he is wrong.  The scientific community to the vast majority will say he is "wrong."
Looks unequivocal to me.
His law of gravity is great for most applications but outside the basic assumptions he is wrong.  He is wrong about F=ma when one gets outside the realm of normal everyday experience.
But wait...according to science the Solar System is in, "textbook motion," everyday...right?

And that textbook motion is attributed to...wait for it...

Newton!

Damn equivocation!
So I am saying that point 2 of the OP is correct.  Newton is wrong.  Especially if one is building a model to explain the motions of the universe.
I did not think that deserves a warning.  To say that I agree that Newton is wrong.
Well, I am not going to figuratively, "put any words in your mouth...," because, frankly, I have found those typewritten and ascribed to your username to be confusing to this point.

Thanks for your reply.

Rama Set

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #28 on: January 22, 2018, 12:25:07 AM »
The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.

What is “textbook motion” anyway?

Regardless, the heliocentric solar system has been accurately modeled in digital renderings with open code and a model of the galaxy is in progress, but due to size constraints, it isn’t accurate enough to include our specific solar system yet, as far as I know.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #29 on: January 22, 2018, 01:53:07 AM »
I'm confused by the existence of multiple threads, so I include another post of mine as a quote here:

Oh hey look:



This uses a game I've never heard of called Universe Sandbox 2.

http://universesandbox.com

Quote from the website:
Quote
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?

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #30 on: January 22, 2018, 02:04:57 PM »
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/

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
Your reply does not surprise me.

I find the failure of those who support the heliocentric model to provide an accurate model (with open and honest references to Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc.) to be on par with NIST and their report concerning WTC 7.

A total prevention of open, honest scientific inquiry into reality.

The inability to readily pull up a pretty animation based on your list of demands isn't preventing open scientific inquiry. The problem you run into is that you don't understand the math. There is a wealth of information out there on orbital mechanics, it just isn't in a format that is easy for you to understand. Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy? This thread is pointless and should probably be in complete nonsense.
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #31 on: January 22, 2018, 05:19:20 PM »
I'm confused by the existence of multiple threads, so I include another post of mine as a quote here:

Oh hey look:



This uses a game I've never heard of called Universe Sandbox 2.

http://universesandbox.com

Quote from the website:
Quote
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?
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.

Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.

Verify for yourself.

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2018, 05:20:59 PM »
You have been provided with a heliocentric model of the solar system that does reference Newton, Kepler, etc...
You told me this before...

Please refresh my memory.

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2018, 05:30:35 PM »
The inability to readily pull up a pretty animation based on your list of demands isn't preventing open scientific inquiry. The problem you run into is that you don't understand the math.
My current state of understanding (and for that matter, everyone else) would only be enhanced should the model exist.
There is a wealth of information out there on orbital mechanics, it just isn't in a format that is easy for you to understand.
And given the current ability of computers to easily translate, "math into pictures," all the more reason to bust it down into a rendering...
Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy?
I have friends.

How about you?
This thread is pointless and should probably be in complete nonsense.
LMAO!

Care to self-analyze describe what prompted you to even respond to something you find to be complete nonsense?

*

Offline PickYerPoison

  • *
  • Posts: 41
  • Poor Earth-chan. It's not her fault she's flat.
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2018, 05:32:40 PM »
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.

Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.

Verify for yourself.

Maybe do more than just take a glance.

Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy?
I have friends.

How about you?

Was this really necessary? It was a valid and neutrally-phrased question.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 05:44:41 PM by PickYerPoison »
Remember that "The truth is out there" as long as you are willing to look!

Offline StinkyOne

  • *
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2018, 07:18:26 PM »
I have friends.

How about you?

Given the timeline you've already provided, you are at least in your 50s. You should attempt to act like it. Sadly, you seem content to be a troll. It already got you banned once. I have a feeling it will happen again.

Quote
Care to self-analyze describe what prompted you to even respond to something you find to be complete nonsense?

I'm trying to help you understand the ridiculous nature of your request. It's like if I asked you for a REAL photo or video of the flat Earth with an ice wall around it. Not gonna happen. You put a bunch of demands on something that you couldn't verify even if someone did produce a video. What is the point?
I saw a video where a pilot was flying above the sun.
-Terry50

Macarios

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2018, 07:45:25 PM »
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:

1) The model being a lie; or,

2) Newton is wrong; or,

3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.

The answer is 2) Newton is wrong.

There are anomalies in Mercury orbit that can't fit into Newton's laws.
That's where Einstein's General Realtivity is more accurate.

If you use reference frame tied to Milky way we aren't sure how accurate our formulas could be.
But if you use reference frame tied to Sun and limit scope to Solar system, then Einstein is good.
They say for reference frame tied to Earth with local scope (satellites and orbital vehicles), Newton is good enough.

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2018, 06:43:21 AM »

Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.

Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.

Verify for yourself.
Vortex = tornado. Helix = spiral. You mean helix.

Why would that  not be Newtonian mechanics? From the perspective of the sun, the orbits are ellipses, Newtonian/Keplerian. Just because the entire system is moving doesn't change things.

Centripetal acceleration is v^2/r, so the acceleration from the galactic orbit (radius: 28000 light years, velocity: 828000 km/hr) is something like 2 * 10^-10 m/s^2. That's peanuts compared to the acceleration due to Earth's orbit of the sun (radius: 1 AU, velocity: 30 km/s) at .006 m/s^2.

https://www.google.com/search?q=(828000+km%2Fhour)%5E2+%2F+28000+light+years
https://www.google.com/search?q=(30+km%2Fs)%5E2%2F1AU

So, by comparison, the frame of reference of the sun moving about the galactic core is nearly inertial.

Everything seems fine to me. What's the problem with the helical motion?

What shape do you think the moons of Jupiter inscribe across the solar system?

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2018, 02:52:08 PM »

Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.

Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.

Verify for yourself.
Vortex = tornado. Helix = spiral. You mean helix.
No I do not.

I mean vortex.
EDIT: according to Phil Plait, author of the debunking article, the planets in the false model trace a helix. The modeler of the debunked model, in labeling his model as a vortex model, utilized the wrong terminology.
Why would that  not be Newtonian mechanics?
Because Newtonian mechanics states without equivocation orbits are ellipses. And if Universal Sandbox was indeed using Newtonian mechanics the orbits would ellipses or "helical," not a vortex or a helix.

But the orbits rendered in your submitted model are vortex.
From the perspective of the sun, the orbits are ellipses, Newtonian/Keplerian. Just because the entire system is moving doesn't change things.
Okay. Start with you as an observer on the Sun.

Start the model in motion.

See if your statement holds...
Centripetal acceleration is v^2/r, so the acceleration from the galactic orbit (radius: 28000 light years, velocity: 828000 km/hr) is something like 2 * 10^-10 m/s^2. That's peanuts compared to the acceleration due to Earth's orbit of the sun (radius: 1 AU, velocity: 30 km/s) at .006 m/s^2.

https://www.google.com/search?q=(828000+km%2Fhour)%5E2+%2F+28000+light+years
https://www.google.com/search?q=(30+km%2Fs)%5E2%2F1AU

So, by comparison, the frame of reference of the sun moving about the galactic core is nearly inertial.

Everything seems fine to me. What's the problem with the helical motion?

What shape do you think the moons of Jupiter inscribe across the solar system?
Again, it is not a helical orbit that is displayed here.

It is a vortex EDIT: (actually, helix).

Please see: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 04:25:45 PM by totallackey »

totallackey

Re: The Death of Heliocentricity
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2018, 02:54:24 PM »
The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.

What is “textbook motion” anyway?

Regardless, the heliocentric solar system has been accurately modeled in digital renderings with open code and a model of the galaxy is in progress, but due to size constraints, it isn’t accurate enough to include our specific solar system yet, as far as I know.
An admission he never did submit a model...

WTH RamaSet!?