1

**Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?**

« **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.