The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Code-Beta on April 11, 2020, 01:00:48 PM
-
Hello. I am persionaly Globe Earther, but I found one odd thing. Modern Astronomy claims that Earth and other planeds were created form asteroids colliding. More specificly, asteroids came form gases form Nebula, and then they collided and made planets. But, if you hit something in motion, it will lose some of its speed.A Planet needs a constant/near constant speed to otbit somenting. But according to modern astronomy, earh was made by millions of asteroids hitting. So why didn't original Earth slow up just lose its orbit?
And did we mananged to get rebbutal to N-body problem?
-
Hello. I am persionaly Globe Earther, but I found one odd thing. Modern Astronomy claims that Earth and other planeds were created form asteroids colliding. More specificly, asteroids came form gases form Nebula, and then they collided and made planets. But, if you hit something in motion, it will lose some of its speed.A Planet needs a constant/near constant speed to otbit somenting. But according to modern astronomy, earh was made by millions of asteroids hitting. So why didn't original Earth slow up just lose its orbit?
The solar system began as a large gas cloud, where all the particles were moving randomly. Once the cloud started to condense, everything began to rotate as the overall gravity of the cloud pulled the random motions into curves. You can see this process when draining a sink or bathtub, the water starts to rotate as everything is pulled inward.
That's where the rotation comes from, and small bits collect into larger ones and larger ones are pulled into smaller.
By the time a planetoid starts to form, everything is all rotating in the same general direction, so you don't have a lot of head on collisions. Especially early on, things are not smashing at all, just nearby clumps slowly drifting closer and forming larger clumps.
Once you have the Earth mostly formed, the impacts are more violent due to the gravity of the planet involved. Even if some asteroids slam into it head on, it won't slow it down much.
But you are right, there is some rotational velocity lost if two asteroids hit head on, but the amount of rotational energy in the entire system is so massive that it only loses a tiny fraction to collisions.
And did we mananged to get rebbutal to N-body problem?
I've written n-body simulations before as a hobby so I've got direct experience with them and have answered a few questions on that here, but in a nutshell it's not a problem.
Every measurement in reality is going to limited in it's accuracy. You can measure a length of wood with a ruler, then use a micrometer and more and more specialized tools but you will never, ever know it's EXACT length. No matter how accurate you get, there is always going to be some margin of error.
But if you measured a piece of wood and found it was 100.00001 cm long, nobody is going to convince you it's actually 2,000 cm long just because you can't measure it down to a trillionth of a cm.
Same with Newtons and Einsteins laws of gravity. The math is easy with just two bodies or point fields, and we can calculate those perfectly. But when you add in more, we simply don't have the math to solve it perfectly. It's still an open question of there is a solution to n-body like math problems, or if they just have to be iterated.
But it in no way can be said that those laws are wrong. Every demonstration proves them correct. The Voyager probes were launched and traveled via gravitational slingshots to all the outer planets. We landed probes on moons of Jupiter, landed robots on Mars, can calculate in advance the orbit of planets at very high precision.
All of that is strong evidence gravity exists, and we understand how it works to a very high degree.
Do we know EVERYTHING about gravity? No, of course not. There are still many mysteries, and one day someone will come up with an even better theory than Einstein. But to claim that all those accomplishments and all our knowledge is 100% wrong just because there are still unknowns is just silly.
If you throw out every bit of knowledge that still has unanswered questions, you are left with NOTHING AT ALL because we will never know EVERYTHING.
It's what makes searching for answers so fun and rewarding.
-
If the solar system can be simulated with Newton's laws alone, then why does New Scientist say the opposite?
See the New Scientist article at the bottom of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators
-
If the solar system can be simulated with Newton's laws alone, then why does New Scientist say the opposite?
See the New Scientist article at the bottom of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators
Thanks for proving my point. From that article: "Consequently, the calculations a computer makes are not absolutely precise, so it can only provide us with an approximate picture of what will happen in the real world. Normally the errors are so small that they go unnoticed, but when computers are set to work on the enormously long string of calculations needed to simulate the movement of the planets round the Sun, tiny errors in each step can build up to make the final result wildly inaccurate."
Yes, trying to simulate the solar system over a large enough time scale will introduce errors due to the limits of the computing power we have. More computer power will reduce those problems but no matter how accurate your simulation, if you run it long enough errors will creep in. Lots of clever math has been developed to try and improve accuracy.
Still, it's accurate enough to land probes on asteroids, comets, other planets and decades long trips through the solar system. It's accurate enough that you can't find one planet that has ever moved in a way not predicted or explained by the current laws of gravity.
Again, just because there are limits to how accurate we can measure or calculate or simulate something doesn't mean it's wrong. This is the real world, we can't ever measure it perfectly.
Thinking you found 'proof' that a theory is wrong just because it has limits only proves you don't understand how science, or the real world works.
-
The article says in the first sentence in the byline "Conventional calculations of the future of the Solar System quickly degenerate into disarray as computer errors build up."
So, the people thinking that it could be done were wrong. They can't do it. The simulations quickly degenerate into disarray. Science cannot simulate the Solar System or even keep the Sun, Earth, and Moon together with Newton's laws. It cannot be simulated. How embarrassing for science.
-
The article says in the first sentence in the byline "Conventional calculations of the future of the Solar System quickly degenerate into disarray as computer errors build up."
So, the people thinking that it could be done were wrong. They can't do it. The simulations quickly degenerate into disarray. Science cannot simulate the Solar System or even keep the Sun, Earth, and Moon together with Newton's laws. It cannot be simulated. How embarrassing for science.
Please quote where they defined the term ''quickly', thank you. Quickly in astronomical terms can be a million years. What are you assuming they mean by quickly? Five minutes? A day? A hundred years? You are making some big assumptions and leaps of faith here.
Again, we land robots on other planets and send probes on twenty year tours through the solar systems with these simulations you claim don't work at all. There are multiple spacecraft moving through the solar system RIGHT NOW using Newtons laws and simulations that are not perfect, but are perfect enough to visit dozens of moons of Jupiter 500 million miles away. Good enough to land people on the moon and return them safely to Earth. Clearly, Newton is good enough for decades long predictions. I don't consider any of those achievements embarrassing.
You can claim the math doesn't work, but reality proves you wrong.
-
The article says in the first sentence in the byline "Conventional calculations of the future of the Solar System quickly degenerate into disarray as computer errors build up."
So, the people thinking that it could be done were wrong. They can't do it. The simulations quickly degenerate into disarray. Science cannot simulate the Solar System or even keep the Sun, Earth, and Moon together with Newton's laws. It cannot be simulated. How embarrassing for science.
Have you actually read and understood the article? It degenerates "quickly" when you simulate a million years every second. The article textually says that for a "short" duration of a few hundreds of thousands of years, simulations using conventional computer methods are accurate.
Doesn't look very embarrassing to me.
-
"Quickly doesn't mean quickly"
"Newton is good enough for decades long predictions." - Source: Myself
Not very convincing, guys.
-
"Quickly doesn't mean quickly"
"Newton is good enough for decades long predictions." - Source: Myself
Not very convincing, guys.
Source : https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators
"The Earth’s ellipse, for example, takes 112 000 years to rotate once—the sort of period that conventional computer methods can easily simulate".
Sure, it's not decades - it's much more than that.
-
That's talking about the Earth's ellipse.
Here is the full quote: "The first thing you notice is that the planets’ perihelia—the points at which their elliptical orbits are closest to the Sun—are not fixed, but rotate slowly. This phenomenon, which is known as perihelion precession, has been known for around a century. The Earth’s ellipse, for example, takes 112 000 years to rotate once—the sort of period that conventional computer methods can easily simulate."
If the Moon can't rotate around the Earth more than a few times before shooting off into space, why should we assume that Newton's laws can keep the Solar System together for years?
https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators
Computing the long term evolution of the solar system with geometric numerical integrators (https://publications.mfo.de/handle/mfo/1355)
Abstract
“ Simulating the dynamics of the Sun–Earth–Moon system with a standard algorithm yields a dramatically wrong solution, predicting that the Moon is ejected from its orbit. In contrast, a well chosen algorithm with the same initial data yields the correct behavior. We explain the main ideas of how the evolution of the solar system can be computed over long times by taking advantage of so-called geometric numerical methods. Short sample codes are provided for the Sun–Earth–Moon system. ”
The standard algorithms produce 'wrong solution' because the Moon is ejected from its orbit. A different algorithm is necessary to keep it together, and produces the 'correct' behavior. The paper describes that the algorithm which keeps it together is the symplectic integrator.
Figure 7 from the paper shows a comparison between a non-symplectic and symplectic integrator:
The Sun-Earth-Moon System
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/3/3e/Sun-Earth-Moon-Integrators.png/800px-Sun-Earth-Moon-Integrators.png)
“ Figure 7: Comparison of the explicit Euler method (left) and the symplectic Euler method (right) for the Sun-Earth-Moon system simulated over one year. The distance between the Moon (blue trajectory) and the Earth (black trajectory) is scaled by a factor of 100 in the plots, to better distinguish the Earth and the Moon. ”
-
"Quickly doesn't mean quickly"
"Newton is good enough for decades long predictions." - Source: Myself
Not very convincing, guys.
You avoided answering my questions I see. Luckily someone else answered it for you. You also avoided commenting on the fact we use Newtons math to explore the solar system. It's easy to be convinced when you simply ignore entire responses. It shows you have no actual rebuttal to make.
Source : https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators
"The Earth’s ellipse, for example, takes 112 000 years to rotate once—the sort of period that conventional computer methods can easily simulate".
Sure, it's not decades - it's much more than that.
So conventional computer methods can easily simulate 112,000 years of orbital calculations.
So what's quickly mean in the context used in that paper? You still haven't answered the question.
You uncovered math meant to help push calculations past a hundred centuries worth of predictions. And claim that somehow, it doesn't work at all?
-
Your quote says that they can simulate perihelion precession out to that amount of time. It says nothing about a full gravitational model of the Solar System.
To simulate the precession you only need two bodies, the Earth and Sun. Two body orbit simulations are possible, whereas three or more body simulations are not.
You have provided literally no sources, and are shouting that Newton's laws can simulate the solar system with no other sources except for yourself and whatever can be misinterpreted.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
A dozen physicists telling you that the Three Body Problem falls apart, and you can find no sources in favor of your position except for your own self.
Lets see ONE physicist or astrophyscist who says that the Three Body Problem can simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
-
Your quote says that they can simulate perihelion precession out to that amount of time. It says nothing about a full gravitational model of the Solar System.
I assume you are replying to me?
Would you like to move the goalposts out any further right away, or wait before demanding we simulate all the bodies in the galaxy, and then the entire universe before you will accept that these laws work?
At least it's progress you can accept that some parts of the solar system can be simulated for long periods of time. Just a little more open-mindedness might get you to accept that we can simulate the major bodies for long periods as well, in enough precision to do real work.
You also still have yet to comment on the fact we use these formula to explore the solar system, and how that squares with your insistence that they are completely wrong and don't work?
-
I know that Moon gets away form earth few centimenters each year. But shoudn't Gravity of Sun pull it much, much more drasticly? Any calculations of Moon's orbit and Sun's effects on it?
-
You also still have yet to comment on the fact we use these formula to explore the solar system, and how that squares with your insistence that they are completely wrong and don't work?
FE'rs don't believe in any space exploration. ::)
-
Your quote says that they can simulate perihelion precession out to that amount of time. It says nothing about a full gravitational model of the Solar System.
To simulate the precession you only need two bodies, the Earth and Sun.
Wrong. With only two bodies, there is no precession : http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html ("if we neglect the relatively weak interplanetary gravitational interactions then the perihelia of the various planets (i.e., the points on their orbits at which they are closest to the Sun) remain fixed in space. However, once these interactions are taken into account, it turns out that the planetary perihelia all slowly precess around the Sun")
Also, the paragraph explicitly mentions a "model of the Solar System", not just the Earth and Sun.
Not my fault if you try to argue the model doesn't work, quoting an article that says it works extremely well for thousands of centuries.
-
Your quote says that they can simulate perihelion precession out to that amount of time. It says nothing about a full gravitational model of the Solar System.
To simulate the precession you only need two bodies, the Earth and Sun.
Wrong. With only two bodies, there is no precession : http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html ("if we neglect the relatively weak interplanetary gravitational interactions then the perihelia of the various planets (i.e., the points on their orbits at which they are closest to the Sun) remain fixed in space. However, once these interactions are taken into account, it turns out that the planetary perihelia all slowly precess around the Sun")
Also, the paragraph explicitly mentions a "model of the Solar System", not just the Earth and Sun.
Not my fault if you try to argue the model doesn't work, quoting an article that says it works extremely well for thousands of centuries.
From your link: "Thus, by treating the other planets as rings, we can calculate the mean gravitational perturbation due to these planets, and, thereby, determine the desired precession rate."
If the other planets are rings and only the mean gravitational perturbation is calculated then there are only two orbiting bodies. That's not a full simulation of gravity. It's a limited simulation. If this is your idea of a full gravity simulation, it fails.
From a vague sentence you found about simulating a precession you conclude that there is, somewhere out there, a fully working dynamical gravitational simulation of the solar system in which the four hundred year old three body and n-body problems are working fine.
You guys act as if there are simulations, but no physcists ever talk about them and only confine their discussions to how the three body problem does not work.
Once again, please provide ONE quote from a Physcist who says that the three body problem can simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
-
Your quote says that they can simulate perihelion precession out to that amount of time. It says nothing about a full gravitational model of the Solar System.
To simulate the precession you only need two bodies, the Earth and Sun.
Wrong. With only two bodies, there is no precession : http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newtonhtml/node115.html ("if we neglect the relatively weak interplanetary gravitational interactions then the perihelia of the various planets (i.e., the points on their orbits at which they are closest to the Sun) remain fixed in space. However, once these interactions are taken into account, it turns out that the planetary perihelia all slowly precess around the Sun")
Also, the paragraph explicitly mentions a "model of the Solar System", not just the Earth and Sun.
Not my fault if you try to argue the model doesn't work, quoting an article that says it works extremely well for thousands of centuries.
From your link: "Thus, by treating the other planets as rings, we can calculate the mean gravitational perturbation due to these planets, and, thereby, determine the desired precession rate."
If the other planets are rings and only the mean gravitational perturbation is calculated then there are only two orbiting bodies. That's not a full simulation of gravity. It's a limited simulation. If this is your idea of a full gravity simulation, it fails.
From a vague sentence you found about simulating a precession you conclude that there is, somewhere out there, a fully working dynamical gravitational simulation of the solar system in which the four hundred year old three body and n-body problems are working fine.
The sentence is not vague at all, it clearly says that your statement "To simulate the precession you only need two bodies, the Earth and Sun" is wrong.
You guys act as if there are simulations, but no physcists ever talk about them and only confine their discussions to how the three body problem does not work.
Once again, please provide ONE quote from a Physcist who says that the three body problem can simulate the Sun-Earth-Moon system.
Once again, you fail to understand that the fact the n-body doesn't have a formal, analytical closed-form solution doesn't mean it cannot be solved with numerical methods. Just repeating it does not work will not make that true.
In this article (http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/N-body_simulations) astrophysicists Michele Tenti (https://findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/profile/608343-michele-trenti) and Piet Hut (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Hut) tell us "gravitational N-body simulations, that is numerical solutions of the equations of motions for N particles interacting gravitationally, are widely used tools in astrophysics, with applications from few body or solar system like systems all the way up to galactic and cosmological scales". Not only Sun-Earth-Moon, but much more complex systems.
-
I genuinely don’t know if Tom really doesn’t understand this stuff or whether he just pretends to, but it’s a common tactic of his.
It amounts to “your model isn’t perfect, ergo you don’t have one that works”.
It’s a common FE argument and a silly one. A model doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be useful.
It’s obvious to anyone who understands how things work in real life that masses and velocities and distances are not going to be integers. And they’re not going to be known exactly. Small errors, or limits in accuracy of representation, will build up over time, especially if you’re going to try and model something over huge timespans. And there are more subtle things like how some fractions cannot be represented perfectly in binary which is how computers represent numbers under the bonnet. A for example is 0.1 which in binary can’t be represented perfectly because it’s a recurring decimal in that base.
The point is our models are good and accurate enough to send craft to the outer planets or to land them on Mars or land men on the moon. And they were good enough to lead to the discovery of Neptune. I’d say that’s a pretty impressive validation of our models. The only FE rebuttal to any of that is “didn’t”, just denial. Not a strong counter argument.
And this line of argument is particularly silly when you think that while FE are pointing out the speck in the eye of RE models they are ignoring the plank in the eye of FE ones which is that there IS no FE model that has any predictive power.
-
[...]It's a limited simulation.[...]
I've realised that this discussion is actually a non-discussion. So reality isn't analytically solvable: so what? This doesn't provide an argument for or against either the globe or the flat earth as both are equally not analytically solvable.
It's a chance for all of us (myself included) to show how much we know about numeric solvers but that's about it in terms of actual content.
-
[...]It's a limited simulation.[...]
I've realised that this discussion is actually a non-discussion. So reality isn't analytically solvable: so what? This doesn't provide an argument for or against either the globe or the flat earth as both are equally not analytically solvable.
It's a chance for all of us (myself included) to show how much we know about numeric solvers but that's about it in terms of actual content.
It's no longer arguing for a flat or globe earth no. Most discussions tend to go down some rabbit hole like this. Can't imagine why. ::)
It's an argument against people who think that any solution that isn't analytically solvable means the solution is somehow invalid and can't represent reality.
It's like trying to argue with someone who claims because we don't know ALL the digits of pi, the shape of a circle is actually a triangle.
It's good debating practice at the very least. :)
-
That is an incorrect understanding. It is not understood that the existing special solutions of the Three Body Problem requiring symmetry and bodies of equal masses are the numerical solutions.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Analytical_Vs._Numerical
Analytical Vs. Numerical
Q. I think those quotes are talking about analytical solutions. There are working numerical solutions...
A. This is a misconception which stems from some sources which state that there are no analytical solutions, only numerical solutions. This might cause a casual reader to assume that there must be solutions in which the conventional systems of astronomy work. While it is true that the analytical approach of creating an equation to predict future positions based on initial conditions is much more difficult, the working 'numerical solutions' are the special cases described above -- the figure eight and other highly symmetric configurations.
The "numerical solutions" are symmetrical and require at least two of the three bodies to be of the same mass.
Over a Thousand New Solutions - New Scientist
From the New Scientist article Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions (https://web.archive.org/web/20191010222522/https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148074-infamous-three-body-problem-has-over-a-thousand-new-solutions/) we read:
“ Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.
But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane. ”
Clicking on the arxiv.org source at the bottom of the that article takes us to the paper The 1223 new periodic orbits of planar three-body problem with unequal mass and zero angular momentum (https://web.archive.org/web/20191010222453/https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.04775.pdf), where we see at the bottom of p.1:
“ Therefore, without loss of generality, we consider m1 = m2 = 1 and m3 is varied. ”
Elsewhere in the paper it describes:
“ Thus, we further integrate the motion equations by means of “Clean Numerical Simulation” (CNS) [17–20] with negligible numerical noises in a long enough interval of time ”
Over 600 New Orbits
Similarly, the phys.org article Scientists discover more than 600 new periodic orbits of the famous three-body problem (https://phys.org/news/2017-10-scientists-periodic-orbits-famous-three-body.html) describes the discovery of other symmetrical orbits:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/1/18/47-scientistsdi.jpg/600px-47-scientistsdi.jpg)
“ These 695 periodic orbits include the well-known figure-eight family found by Moore in 1993, the 11 families found by Suvakov and Dmitrasinovic in 2013, and more than 600 new families reported for the first time. The two scientists used the so-called clean numerical simulation (CNS), a new numerical strategy for reliable simulations of chaotic dynamic systems proposed by the second author in 2009, which is based on a high order of Taylor series and multiple precision data, plus a convergence/reliability check. ”
Figure Eight
The famous symmetrical Figure Eight problem was discovered numerically:
http://numericaltank.sjtu.edu.cn/three-body/three-body.htm
“ The famous figure-eight family was numerically discovered by Moore [10] in 1993 and rediscovered by Chenciner and Montgomery [11] in 2000. ”
1349 New Families
Over a thousand new periodic orbits of a planar three-body system with unequal masses (https://web.archive.org/save/https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article/70/4/64/4999993)
“ Here, we report 1349 new families of planar periodic orbits of the triple system where two bodies have the same mass and the other has a different mass. ”
Further down in the same paper, in the section "Numerical searching for periodic orbits" we verify that these are numerical simulations:
“ As mentioned by Li and Liao (2017), many periodic orbits might be lost by means of traditional algorithms in double precision. Thus, we further integrate the equations of motion by means of a "clean numerical simulation" ”
We see that these special solutions are the numerical solutions. Just where are the solutions with different masses? Opponents are unable to show that there are solutions with different masses, that there are non-symmetrical configurations, or that the Sun-Earth-Moon system can be simulated by the Three Body Problem.
-
A simulation of the outer Solar System; Euler Forward Method vs. Euler Symplectic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewor7sRfS6w
Description: " On the left the solar system is evolved forward in time using the Forward Euler method while on the right the Symplectic Euler method is used. Both schemes may be evaluated explicitly; however, it should be noted that the Symplectic Euler method is defined implicitly and is only made explicit due to the form of the Hamiltonian being separable into functions of purely the positions and momenta. The Forward Euler scheme does not preserve any properties of the system and is only 1st order accurate. The Symplectic Euler scheme is also only 1st order accurate, but it preserves the structure of the elliptical orbits and Hamiltonian providing the time step is reasonably small. Both methods used the same time step of 200 days with the rest of the parameters being drawn from Hairer, Lubich, and Wanner's text on geometric integration as in my previous video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3J3lDYQRAs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3J3lDYQRAs) "
With the regular Eular method Jupiter flies out of the Solar System after a single orbit. When the simulation starts Jupiter immediately jumps out of its orbit, to beyond Pluto, as does Saturn.
Wikipedia states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_method) that the 'Forward Euler method' is also known as the 'Euler method':
“ In mathematics and computational science, the Euler method (also called forward Euler method) is a first-order numerical procedure for solving ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with a given initial value. ”
Euler Forward is the normal Euler method.
Descriptions from Science Direct abstracts (https://web.archive.org/web/20200413202055/https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/forward-euler) state:
“ Forward Euler is the simplest numerical integrator. ”
The Solar System immediately starts flying apart with the normal methods? Why is that?
Another paper states the same when only the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn system is simulated: (https://web.archive.org/web/20200413182206/http://www.cmap.polytechnique.fr/~massot/MAP551_web_20182019/Notes/MAP551_PC9_3A_MassotSeries_2018_2019.pdf)
“ Following [8, 7], let us consider the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn system, where for simplicity we neglect the other bodies and influences in the solar system. Surprisingly, applying a standard numerical method yields a dramatically wrong solution, where one of the planets is ejected from its orbit. In contrast, a well chosen symplectic integrator with the same initial data yields the correct behavior. ”
Standard methods cause it to fall apart. Symplectic integration is needed. Symplectic integrators are the geometry preserving methods discussed in the New Scientist article at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators
A quote from rosettacode:
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/N-body_problem
“ The slightest perturbation from symmetry causes the system to become unstable. ”
Funny. Neither the Sun Earth Moon system or the Solar System are symmetrical systems. Lets see some demonstration that these systems actually work. And please don't claim that it's stable for x timespan with only yourself as the source. We can see experimental demonstration in the video above that it's not stable, and that it immediately degrades.
-
That is an incorrect understanding. It is not understood that the only existing special solutions of the Three Body Problem requiring symmetry and bodies of equal masses are the numerical solutions, not the analytical solutions.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Analytical_Vs._Numerical
This entire copy of the Wiki page which is mostly a copy of a New Scientist article is simply talking about various three-body orbits that have been discovered and mathematically proven to be stable.
It says nothing about the ability to use iterative numerical solutions to predict orbits, which work fine, see Voyager I and Voyager II.
Once again, we have sent ROBOTS TO OTHER PLANETS using n-body simulators. They work fine. How does the above article disprove the pictures we got back from Neptune?
“ The slightest perturbation from symmetry causes the system to become unstable. ”
Funny. Neither the Sun Earth Moon system or the Solar System are symmetrical systems. Lets see some demonstration that these systems actually work. And please don't say that it's stable and quote yourself as a source like others here have.
Funny, neither the Sun Earth Moon system or the Solar System are stable in the long term. Eventually the moon will escape the Earth, eventually the Earth will be swallowed by the sun or be ejected from the Solar System, given enough time.
No orbit is stable in the real world, given enough time. Even those proven in the earlier post about New Scientist wouldn't' be stable forever.
Please try and remember the difference between pure math and the actual world. The real world is a messy place. You can have stable orbits in math, you can't have them in reality.
You asked "Lets see some demonstration that these systems actually work."
Voyager 1 and 2 (Grand tours of the solar system)
Viking 1 and 2 (Mars landers)
Pathfinder (Another Mars lander)
Opportunity (Yet more Mars)
Cassani (Orbited Saturn and visited lots of moons)
Moon Landings (People walked around)
DSCOVR (Parked at the L1 point, predicted by Newtons laws)
Hundreds of others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes
Here, this lets you look up missions and see the plotted courses and all the math. https://trajbrowser.arc.nasa.gov/traj_browser.php
How did they get there? Scientists used n-body simulators and a lot of math. If we couldn't simulate the orbits of planets and moons we could never get stuff to them.
-
Funny, neither the Sun Earth Moon system or the Solar System are stable in the long term.
Is your definition of "long term" more than a few of orbits?
I ran the discussed Sun-Earth-Moon model (https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators#Sun-Earth-Moon_System) in Scilab and got the same results:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3b/Sun-Earth-Moon.gif)
The Moon was quickly ejected from the system.
Doesn't look like this works, sorry.
NASA
The inherent instability of these problems is more evidence against those claims. The space probes would need to be constantly and endlessly correcting, whereas NASA is claiming to simply put them into stable orbits with only brief and minor corrections.
-
Funny, neither the Sun Earth Moon system or the Solar System are stable in the long term.
Is your definition of "long term" more than a few of orbits?
I ran the discussed Sun-Earth-Moon model (https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators#Sun-Earth-Moon_System) in Scilab and got the same results:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/3/3b/Sun-Earth-Moon.gif)
The Moon was quickly ejected from the system.
Doesn't look like this works, sorry.
NASA
The instability of these problems is more evidence against those claims. The space probes would need to be constantly and endlessly correcting, whereas NASA is claiming to simply put them into stable orbits with only brief and minor corrections.
So your failure to correctly understand a math paper proves that all the space probes we launched aren't real?
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's impossible.
You need to understand the paper you got that simulation from.
They are discussing various ways of using Newtons methods to simulate the solar system, and are showing one method works better than another method.
Did you miss this part of that papers summary?
"In contrast, a well chosen algorithm with the
same initial data yields the correct behavior.
We explain the main ideas of how the evolution of
the solar system can be computed over long times"
They are saying VERY clearly that they can simulate the system correctly over long times.
So you are basically copy-pasting a method which is known to have problems, and ignoring the solution in THE SAME PAPER that solves it.
Also, you say NASA is "claiming" to put them into stable orbits. Can we clarify this? Are you saying NASA is lying about the hundreds of probes and people that have been put into space?
-
Did you miss this part of that papers summary?
"In contrast, a well chosen algorithm with the
same initial data yields the correct behavior.
We explain the main ideas of how the evolution of
the solar system can be computed over long times"
They are saying VERY clearly that they can simulate the system correctly over long times.
Right, only if they use a geometry-preserving method with a symplectic integrator. It's an admission that it doesn't come about naturally and that they have to use work-arounds.
-
Did you miss this part of that papers summary?
"In contrast, a well chosen algorithm with the
same initial data yields the correct behavior.
We explain the main ideas of how the evolution of
the solar system can be computed over long times"
They are saying VERY clearly that they can simulate the system correctly over long times.
Right, only if they use a geometry-preserving method with a symplectic integrator. It's an admission that it doesn't come about naturally and that they have to use work-arounds.
It's called math. Sometimes it's complex.
Wait, are you saying only 'natural math' is valid? As opposed to unnatural math? Is that like homeopathic math?
Regardless, right there in the paper you are quoting it says that yes, they can simulate solar system dynamics accurately and over the long term. That is very clear.
So they can simulate the solar system correctly, but it doesn't count because they use methods you disapprove of?
What math in particular do you object to, and what is your proof for finding it invalid? What is is about symplectic integrators that you can prove are incorrect? Please explain.
-
I asked before, and I didn't get answer. Moon moves few centimeters by year form Earth. Is that predicted by Heliocentric model. I have feeling it shoud be bigger?
-
I asked before, and I didn't get answer. Moon moves few centimeters by year form Earth. Is that predicted by Heliocentric model. I have feeling it shoud be bigger?
It's predicted by current physics, yes. It will continue to get further away, but slower and slower until it will reach it's maximum distance in about 50 billion years.
If we use nothing but Newton's laws, the orbit would not change. But tidal forces between the Moon and the Earth are also at work here, it's what caused the Moon to become tidally locked so one side always faces us. Currently the Moons gravity is slowing down the Earth, but energy must be conserved so that gravitational exchange adds energy to the Moons orbital speed and pushes it outward.
Read up on 'tidal locking' for some interesting science. I find it fascinating how all these effects balance out in ways that seem strange at first but then make perfect sense when you follow the flow of energy.
-
I asked before, and I didn't get answer. Moon moves few centimeters by year form Earth. Is that predicted by Heliocentric model. I have feeling it shoud be bigger?
It's predicted by current physics, yes. It will continue to get further away, but slower and slower until it will reach it's maximum distance in about 50 billion years.
The Sun will put a stop to it. In about 5 billion years when it swells to a red giant and swallows the Earth and moon. ;)
-
The Sun will put a stop to it. In about 5 billion years when it swells to a red giant and swallows the Earth and moon. ;)
Not if we move the Earth first. Sure, it might be easier to just move the people but humans are stubborn. I'm confident moving a planet will be easier than moving grandpa who lived in the same house for the past billion year and STILL calls level 7 AI intelligences "those damn square heads" every Thanksgiving at dinner and embarrasses everyone.
Of course the Andromeda galaxy will 'hit' ours in 4.5 billion years so we might get super unlucky and have a close encounter with another star first and not need to worry about what happens to our sun as we are ejected into empty space.
-
Not if we move the Earth first. Sure, it might be easier to just move the people but humans are stubborn. I'm confident moving a planet will be easier than moving grandpa who lived in the same house for the past billion year and STILL calls level 7 AI intelligences "those damn square heads" every Thanksgiving at dinner and embarrasses everyone.
Well, since the Earth is accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, then it shouldn't take us to long to find a suitable star system. :) (sorry couldn't help it)
I take it you meant move the Earth farther out as the Sun swells, and keeping us in the 'Goldilocks zone'.
-
Well, since the Earth is accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, then it shouldn't take us to long to find a suitable star system. :) (sorry couldn't help it)
I take it you meant move the Earth farther out as the Sun swells, and keeping us in the 'Goldilocks zone'.
Yes, it would be quite the engineering problem. Of course, if we survive as a species that long then I'd consider that even MORE impressive. Even more impressive than accelerating the earth at 9.81 m/s^2.
-
What about Jupiter's Moons. Orbital rezonances? Why don't they throw each other out of stable orbit?
-
Well, since the Earth is accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2, then it shouldn't take us to long to find a suitable star system. :) (sorry couldn't help it)
I take it you meant move the Earth farther out as the Sun swells, and keeping us in the 'Goldilocks zone'.
Yes, it would be quite the engineering problem. Of course, if we survive as a species that long then I'd consider that even MORE impressive. Even more impressive than accelerating the earth at 9.81 m/s^2.
Interesting idea. Is there a corresponding Goldilocks zone for red giants? The surface temperature actually goes DOWN in this phase, giving the red spectrum. I worry that the Goldilocks zone would be inside the envelope!
-
Hello. I am persionaly Globe Earther, but I found one odd thing. Modern Astronomy claims that Earth and other planeds were created form asteroids colliding. More specificly, asteroids came form gases form Nebula, and then they collided and made planets. But, if you hit something in motion, it will lose some of its speed.A Planet needs a constant/near constant speed to otbit somenting. But according to modern astronomy, earh was made by millions of asteroids hitting. So why didn't original Earth slow up just lose its orbit?
And did we mananged to get rebbutal to N-body problem?
Are there any personal accounts of this happening? Shouldn't I be able to look up and see planets formed today? With billions of these things must happen repeatedly, thousands of times a day.
-
Hello. I am persionaly Globe Earther, but I found one odd thing. Modern Astronomy claims that Earth and other planeds were created form asteroids colliding. More specificly, asteroids came form gases form Nebula, and then they collided and made planets. But, if you hit something in motion, it will lose some of its speed.A Planet needs a constant/near constant speed to otbit somenting. But according to modern astronomy, earh was made by millions of asteroids hitting. So why didn't original Earth slow up just lose its orbit?
And did we mananged to get rebbutal to N-body problem?
Are there any personal accounts of this happening? Shouldn't I be able to look up and see planets formed today? With billions of these things must happen repeatedly, thousands of times a day.
I don't know what you're expecting to see in a process that takes millions of years...
-
Code-Beta,
The word planets comes from the Greek "planetes asteres", that literally means wandering stars. All stars were created by God around 6,000 years ago (from Genesis 1:16).
This world is flat, with Antarctica slightly rising toward the four corners of the earth from it's circular coast (from Ecclesiastes 1:7). The word universe is not in the King James Bible, as there is no universe, and the word planets is only in there once, in 2 Kings 23:5. That verse means that the idolatrous priests burnt incense to wandering stars, along with other things, that were correctly known to be the lights of heavenly bodies.
Code-Beta, stars are the size of figs (Revelation 1:16,20, 2:1, 6:13, 12:1, Isaiah 34:4). And they are lights, inside of what would be the rib cage of heavenly bodies (Job 38:7, Genesis 37:9 (Genesis 15:5), Judges 5:20, Revelation 1:20, 9:1, Daniel 8:10).
The sun and the moon are both around 6 feet wide (Genesis 37:9,10, Revelation 12:1), a few inches thick (Isaiah 3:18, Revelation 12:1), and are equal in size as they are both "great lights" (from Genesis 1:16).
Jerusalem is the center of the world (Ezekiel 5:5, Revelation 20:9), and the stars, along with the sun and the moon rise in the firmament (from Genesis 1:17), where God placed them at the creation of the world, as they pass over the world - being the highest they will ever be, due south of the geographic North Pole, on the longitude line of Jerusalem. From there they go down in the west (except for a few stars that do not rise or go down), being the lowest they will ever be as they pass over the north (Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12,13, Judges 5:20).
Glory to God.
-
Code-Beta,
The word planets comes from the Greek "planetes asteres", that literally means wandering stars. All stars were created by God around 6,000 years ago (from Genesis 1:16).
This world is flat, with Antarctica slightly rising toward the four corners of the earth from it's circular coast (from Ecclesiastes 1:7). The word universe is not in the King James Bible, as there is no universe, and the word planets is only in there once, in 2 Kings 23:5. That verse means that the idolatrous priests burnt incense to wandering stars, along with other things, that were correctly known to be the lights of heavenly bodies.
Code-Beta, stars are the size of figs (Revelation 1:16,20, 2:1, 6:13, 12:1, Isaiah 34:4). And they are lights, inside of what would be the rib cage of heavenly bodies (Job 38:7, Genesis 37:9 (Genesis 15:5), Judges 5:20, Revelation 1:20, 9:1, Daniel 8:10).
The sun and the moon are both around 6 feet wide (Genesis 37:9,10, Revelation 12:1), a few inches thick (Isaiah 3:18, Revelation 12:1), and are equal in size as they are both "great lights" (from Genesis 1:16).
Jerusalem is the center of the world (Ezekiel 5:5, Revelation 20:9), and the stars, along with the sun and the moon rise in the firmament (from Genesis 1:17), where God placed them at the creation of the world, as they pass over the world - being the highest they will ever be, due south of the geographic North Pole, on the longitude line of Jerusalem. From there they go down in the west (except for a few stars that do not rise or go down), being the lowest they will ever be as they pass over the north (Ecclesiastes 1:5, Joshua 10:12,13, Judges 5:20).
Glory to God.
It's a good thing this thread has nothing to do with religion otherwise this might have been solid evidence for your point.
-
ChrisTP, Bible verses are the only solid evidence for anything, because the word of God is truth.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17
And we should all be worshipping Jesus Christ who is God, all of the time, because He is the only truth.
Code-Beta is talking about the stars, moon, and sun, as if they were gigantic, and far, far away. The truth is in the word of God. All of these experiments, and all of this information people think they know are nothing but lies leading them to hell. Read Romans 10:9, do what it says, and remain in that salvation forever, that is Jesus Christ.
-
ChrisTP, Bible verses are the only solid evidence for anything, because the word of God is truth.
Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17
And we should all be worshipping Jesus Christ who is God, all of the time, because He is the only truth.
Code-Beta is talking about the stars, moon, and sun, as if they were gigantic, and far, far away. The truth is in the word of God. All of these experiments, and all of this information people think they know are nothing but lies leading them to hell. Read Romans 10:9, do what it says, and remain in that salvation forever, that is Jesus Christ.
You can believe in whatever religion you want and I won't judge you for that, but this thread really has nothing to do with that. I'm no moderator it bugs me when religious folk jump into these threads with this kinda stuff, derailing the topic.
-
ChrisTP, Bible verses are the only solid evidence for anything, because the word of God is truth.
But not necessarily scientific truth.
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" - Galileo
-
But not necessarily scientific truth.
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" - Galileo
That's not what American Scientist has to say about Galileo's thoughts of scriptural support for astronomical beliefs: (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/galileo%E2%80%99s-discoveries-after-400-years)
Galileo set out his own views of Scripture and science, offering an ingenious interpretation of Joshua’s making the Sun stand still to show that not only does Holy Scripture not oppose Copernican theory, it actually supports it.
Also:
much of Galileo’s own work is defective
-
But not necessarily scientific truth.
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" - Galileo
That's not what American Scientist has to say about Galileo's thoughts of scriptural support for astronomical beliefs: (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/galileo%E2%80%99s-discoveries-after-400-years)
Galileo set out his own views of Scripture and science, offering an ingenious interpretation of Joshua’s making the Sun stand still to show that not only does Holy Scripture not oppose Copernican theory, it actually supports it.
Your quote was from 1613 when he was trying to fit his discoveries into the Bible, and the quote above from "Letter to Christina" was after he had given up (partially due to the Church's threats) but also as he decided that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, that it was a spiritual instruction guide, not literal view of how the universe works.
Either way, the Bible (whichever version you choose to believe) has little to do with the math of comets and Jupiters orbits and can't be used to support or refute those calculations.
-
Galileo: The Bible supports heliocentrism!
Also Galileo: The Bible doesn't tell us how astronomy works.
I see. Not really the best source there. Galileo seems to only accept the Bible's support of astronomy when it supports his view.
-
Galileo: The Bible supports heliocentrism!
Also Galileo: The Bible doesn't tell us how astronomy works.
I see. Not really the best source there. Galileo seems to only accept the Bible's support of astronomy when it supports his view.
Yeah I’d doubt anything Galileo said about Christianity as genuine, given the religious zealotry of the time and the pressures involved. He seemed like a smart enough guy to say what folks wanted to hear, at least part of the time.
-
But not necessarily scientific truth.
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" - Galileo
That's not what American Scientist has to say about Galileo's thoughts of scriptural support for astronomical beliefs: (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/galileo%E2%80%99s-discoveries-after-400-years)
Galileo set out his own views of Scripture and science, offering an ingenious interpretation of Joshua’s making the Sun stand still to show that not only does Holy Scripture not oppose Copernican theory, it actually supports it.
Also:
much of Galileo’s own work is defective
Tom, in Joshua 10:12,13, you either believe "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon" and "And the sun stood still" and "So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day", or you do not. It is written very plainly for you to see. I don't care what anybody said in the past, or in the future, about what their interpretation of that is, because you are talking about elementary, simple right/wrong logic. Those two verses, simply, clearly, mean the sun and the moon are physically moving above us. They mean the sun clearly was already starting to go down, as Gibeon is slightly to the northwest of Jerusalem, meaning that it is west of the longitude line of Jerusalem, one of only four longitude lines that are perfectly straight, in the lying system of Latitude and Longitude that is used today.
But not necessarily scientific truth.
"The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go" - Galileo
That's not what American Scientist has to say about Galileo's thoughts of scriptural support for astronomical beliefs: (https://www.americanscientist.org/article/galileo%E2%80%99s-discoveries-after-400-years)
Galileo set out his own views of Scripture and science, offering an ingenious interpretation of Joshua’s making the Sun stand still to show that not only does Holy Scripture not oppose Copernican theory, it actually supports it.
Your quote was from 1613 when he was trying to fit his discoveries into the Bible, and the quote above from "Letter to Christina" was after he had given up (partially due to the Church's threats) but also as he decided that the Bible was not meant to be taken literally, that it was a spiritual instruction guide, not literal view of how the universe works.
Either way, the Bible (whichever version you choose to believe) has little to do with the math of comets and Jupiters orbits and can't be used to support or refute those calculations.
And JSS, when you talk about comets and Jupiter, the word of God is the only thing that supports or refutes anything, because it is the word of God. Glory to God.
The word of God says:
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 1 Corinthians 15:41
That is why when you think you are looking "so deep" into the universe, what you are seeing is a star that is giving off far less light than the others, that are all basically on the same level, inside of the firmament where God placed them (from Genesis 1:17), at the creation of the world around 6,000 years ago.
There is no universe. And those calculations that are made are "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" - exactly what it says in the word of God in Genesis 1:14. Glory to God.
And remember what you are seeing when you look up at the heaven above, the firmament, depends on where you are in the world, as it is like one gigantic kaleidoscope above us, a "molten lookingglass" (from Job 37:18), a mirror than bends the view of the sun, the moon, and the stars as we see them, constantly causing them to be presented at a high elevation angle, up from the horizon, to be magnified, so that we can see them, and to appear in a direction that makes it appear as if we were on a globe. That is why all of the bending lines of longitude above South America, New Zealand, and Australia will bring you to the north geographic South Pole, and most of the lines of longitude above Africa will bring you to the south geographic South Pole (all except those above far west Africa).
Glory to God.
-
And JSS, when you talk about comets and Jupiter, the word of God is the only thing that supports or refutes anything, because it is the word of God. Glory to God.
The word of God says:
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 1 Corinthians 15:41
That is why when you think you are looking "so deep" into the universe, what you are seeing is a star that is giving off far less light than the others, that are all basically on the same level, inside of the firmament where God placed them (from Genesis 1:17), at the creation of the world around 6,000 years ago.
There is no universe. And those calculations that are made are "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" - exactly what it says in the word of God in Genesis 1:14. Glory to God.
And remember what you are seeing when you look up at the heaven above, the firmament, depends on where you are in the world, as it is like one gigantic kaleidoscope above us, a "molten lookingglass" (from Job 37:18), a mirror than bends the view of the sun, the moon, and the stars as we see them, constantly causing them to be presented at a high elevation angle, up from the horizon, to be magnified, so that we can see them, and to appear in a direction that makes it appear as if we were on a globe. That is why all of the bending lines of longitude above South America, New Zealand, and Australia will bring you to the north geographic South Pole, and most of the lines of longitude above Africa will bring you to the south geographic South Pole (all except those above far west Africa).
Glory to God.
According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Book of Mormon, Chapter 12 of the Almna states the following.
15 And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun.
So surely the Earth obits the Sun, supporting Copernicanism and a round Earth.
Should this be moved to Philosophy, Religion & Society?
-
Galileo seems to only accept the Bible's support of astronomy when it supports his view.
It’s annoying when people cherry pick and accept sources when they think they back up their viewpoint and dismiss them when they do not, isn’t it...?
It actually doesn’t matter what Galileo believed or whether that quote is even his (I have heard it has been misattributed to him or, if he did say it, he was quoting someone).
What matters is it’s a quote I agree with
I like this quote too:
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”
- Pope John Paul II.
I’m not Catholic and, again, I don’t care who said it, it’s a sentiment I agree with.
Your error - and the error of all Bible literalists - is to believe that the Bible is trying to teach us scientific truths. You create a false dichotomy where Scripture is either “true” - and by that you mean scientifically accurate - or false. You believe it to be true and thus you conclude that any science which you believe to contradict Scripture must be false.
I’d like to gently suggest your understanding of Scripture is wrong. Scripture may be infallible but your (and my) understanding of it is not.
I do not expect to find scientific truths in Scripture. In fact, it tells us what it is for:
2 Timothy 3:16-17
“16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”
It is not Scripture’s intention to teach us scientific truths any more than it is science’s intention (or should not be) to teach us about our purpose or what (if anything) happens after why die.
Believing in modern science doesn’t mean rejecting Scripture, it just means understanding it differently and understanding what it is trying to teach us.
-
I believe Scripture to be fallible, and I think this testifies to the power of God rather than detract from it.
God used imperfect beings to spread his glory, often making concessions to meet them on their terms.
-
What about Jupiter's Moons. Orbital rezonances? Why don't they throw each other out of stable orbit?
Answer?
-
What about Jupiter's Moons. Orbital rezonances? Why don't they throw each other out of stable orbit?
Answer?
Jupiter can and does throw moons out of orbit, and even rip them apart. That's where Jupiter's rings come from, moons that it's already torn apart. Same with Saturn's much more impressive display. But this takes a long time.
Jupiter's moons are stable over our short human timescales, but not over a billion years. When you read 'stable' it matters what context they are talking about.
-
JSS, that passage you quoted from the book of Mormon is a lie from the pit of hell, and is not the word of God. It is the devil who wrote that, because it obviously goes against the word of God. The word of God is the King James Bible, and further the original Hebrew manuscripts that made the old testament and the Greek manuscripts that made the new testament, that is it.
And Code-Beta Jupiter does not have moons, as first of all Jupiter is the size of a fig, and is the light inside of what would be the rib cage area of a heavenly body, just like humans have bodies, but as my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ tells us flesh is of no use, we as humans have a soul the size of a fig floating (habitating) inside of our rib cage that is either black, on it's way to hell, or white, like a star, in Jesus Christ, on it's way to heaven.
This goes the same for all of the planets - they are all the size of figs. And all of the moons you think you see are also stars, also the size of figs, only giving off much less light.
And BRrollin, the word of God is not fallible. That is blasphemous to say that. The word of God is living. And his name is Jesus Christ. And he is able to save your soul for eternity, if you believe him.
I have told you exactly how the flat world is, and I know what I am dealing with here. But you either believe the word of God or you do not.
And AllAroundTheWorld, in that scripture from the word of God you quoted, 2 Timothy 3:16,17, "thoroughly furnished unto all good works." includes teaching about the flat world, and all of God's creation we live in as it is only history and tradition that has caused you to put science against "religion" as you quote it, and vice versa, and is the reason those weak in the faith in the past have tried to merge the two together, giving concessions to the word of God instead of standing strong and firm in it - through everything.
I gave my life to Jesus Christ four years ago. And just as sure as I am about the scriptures that save my soul forever, in my belief in Jesus Christ, glory to God, I am sure about planets being the size of figs. And I will not back down, because it is the truth.
-
JSS, that passage you quoted from the book of Mormon is a lie from the pit of hell, and is not the word of God. It is the devil who wrote that, because it obviously goes against the word of God. The word of God is the King James Bible, and further the original Hebrew manuscripts that made the old testament and the Greek manuscripts that made the new testament, that is it.
This is why religious arguments have no place in scientific discussion. I can't convince you that your faith is wrong, and why would I even want to try? You and only you get to decide what your faith is. I have no business telling you what to believe.
Just as you don't have any in telling anyone else that either.
It's just not anything we can use as proof of anything as it all comes down to "My book is better than your book" and nobody is going to win that argument.
-
Yes, it's already been said that scripture isn't a data from observations and experimentations and has no place in this topic. I'd be happy with debating religion in the correct place but this isn't it.
-
This is why religious arguments have no place in scientific discussion.
That's not what your constantly cited hero and authority of heliocentrism, Galileo, says. He says that if the Bible supports heliocentrism then we can point to the Bible as scriptual support for astronomy. And if it doesn't support heliocentrism then we can't use it.
And I think that Galileo is a greater authority on heliocentric astronomy than you are.
-
This is why religious arguments have no place in scientific discussion.
That's not what your constantly cited hero and authority of heliocentrism, Galileo, says. He says that if the Bible supports heliocentrism then we can point to the Bible as scriptural support for astronomy and use it in discussion. And of it doesn't support heliocentrism then we can't use it.
And I think that Galileo is a greater authority on heliocentric astronomy than you are.
This is a perfect example of derailing a discussion.
If you want to argue religion, there is a whole board for it. Go down there and feel free to discuss Galileo's views on the Bible.
I'm not a mod, but as far as I understand the rules, this isn't the place to discuss ones religious faith.
I'll agree with one thing you said, Galileo was certainly way smarter than I am and I envy his knowledge and intelligence. But he also never got to see close up pictures of Pluto or watch man walk on the Moon, so he would certainly envy me.