Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #101 on: July 22, 2018, 09:59:34 AM »
Now, since you do not like quotes attributed to Velikovsky, here is a direct proof that Venus is a very young planet,  a fact which demolishes the claims made by modern astrophysics pertaining to the age of the solar system.

VENUS’ ARGON-36 AND ARGON-40 AGE

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938506#msg1938506

VENUS’ CARBON DIOXIDE AGE

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938793#msg1938793

VENUS’ NEON KRYPTON AGE

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938826#msg1938826

You did mention Mars before, so you are going to have to explain this also:

MARS’ NITROGEN-15 AGE

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938902#msg1938902


VENUS AND EARTH SPIN-ORBIT RESONANCE

P. Goldreich, CalTech

S.J. Peale, UCSB

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232751781_Resonant_Rotation_for_Venus

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1970AJ.....75..273G

Is there evidence, not probability mathematics but actual evidence that argues that Venus must have had a near collision with the Earth? Gravitational theory holds that when celestial bodies come close and interact, then there should remain some lingering remnant in some part of the orbital pattern of both bodies.

“…a discovery was announced by P. Goldreich of CalTech and S.J. Peale of the University of California, and reported at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on April 23, 1966. The surprising discovery dealt with the axial rotation of Venus, already known to be slow and retrograde. Every time Venus passes between the sun and the Earth, it turns the same face to the earth. Gravitationally, this phenomenon cannot be explained even if Venus were lopsided, as some science writers have offered as the explanation, it would have been locked with the very same face toward the sun, whose gravitational pull on Venus is so much stronger than that of the earth; this ‘resonance’ as the discoverers of the phenomenon termed it, if confirmed, is a sure piece of evidence of close contact in the past between Earth and Venus, evidence not erased by the passage of time, in this case time measured in a mere few thousand years.”

An article titled “Venus and Earth: Engaged or Divorced?” in Astronomy (Vol. 7 for Oct. 1979), p. 58, discussed I.I. Shapiro and his colleague’s analysis of the Venus-Earth resonance. They note radar observations gathered over a 14 year period of time has permitted them to nail down Venus’ rotation period with high precision.

“They find it to be 243.01 +- 0.03 days. The 3 1/2 hour difference between this value and the resonance period of exactly 243.16 days; while very small, is statistically significant. On the other hand, the researchers point out that the probability of Venus’ rotation period falling by chance alone within one-fifth of a day of a resonance period is under 1%. Therefore, they suggest that Venus could either now be evolving toward such a resonance, or was once in resonance in the recent past.”

William R. Corliss who reported this article in The Moon and the Planets, (1985), p. 304, adds this remark,

“The possibility of a recent or imminent resonance is redolent of a recent solar system instability. It would be interesting if ‘recent’ means ‘within the time of man’ to that there would after all be astronomical explanations of many legends of celestial turmoil.”

Zdenek Kopal in The Realm of the Terrestrial Planets, (NY 1979) p. 180 informs us that:

“The remarkable resonance…between the synodic orbit of Venus and its axial rotation with respect to the Earth is certainly not accidental. It strongly suggests the existence of tidal coupling [Kopal’s emphasis] between the two neighboring planets, but the specific mechanism which could lead to its establishment is largely obscure…a…coupling between Venus and the Earth—a body much less massive [than the Sun]—constitutes a real challenge to our understanding.”

James Oberg further explains how difficult it is for scientists to account for this phenomenon,

“The best explanation for this close resonance (and for the fact that the Venusian year is within a few hours of being exactly 8/13 of Earth’s year), to appeal to coincidence—an unsatisfactory solution at best. Nagging doubts insist that something vital is missing from the logic involved. The best current theory [for Venus’ retrograde rotation] calls for a large off-centered asteroid impact late in Venus’ formation phase. This presents difficulties. Such an accident could reverse the spin but could not account for the spin axis being at near right angles to the plane of the orbit (an extremely unlikely result in a freak collision). If the spin reversing collision could set up nearly any new axis, but this axis would eventually wander back to its old position because of the planet’s oblateness. Such oblateness could have disappeared over millions of years that passed while the new slow rotation rate no longer provided sufficient centrifugal force. If this explanation sounds like magic its the best there is. Astronomers remain completely baffled.” [Oberg, “Venus” Astronomy (August 1976), p. 16].

Zdenek Kopal, above page 191, puts the problem this way,

“The first problem concerns the rotation of the planets. What made Venus rotate so slowly, and what tilted its axis of rotation almost upside down to give rise to its retrograde rotation. The only probable mechanism would be a very close encounter with another celestial body whose gravitational attraction played havoc with Venus and altered some of its kinematics [motions] and at the same time cause it to lock onto the Earth gravitationally?”

The answer is an interaction with the Earth. Here is what appears to be clear evidence based not on the probability theory, but on gravitational theory.

It indicates that Venus’ axial rotation is locked onto the Earth and not onto the Sun. Hoimar Von Ditfurth in Children of the Universe, (NY 1976), p. 115 remarks that, “the Earth must once have exerted a braking or decelerating effect on Venus until the two planets mutual gravitational attraction brought about the ‘coupling’ we observe today.” To do so, the Earth and Venus had to be quite close to each other for their gravitational fields to be effective in creating this couple effect. If the Earth and Venus never had a near encounter then any gravitational anomaly on Venus would cause it to lock onto the Sun. The Earth’s gravitational field is far too small compared with that of the Sun to nudge Venus into such a resonance.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #102 on: July 22, 2018, 10:15:48 AM »
Now, since you do not like quotes attributed to Velikovsky,
I didn't say that. I was wondering what his sources were.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #103 on: July 22, 2018, 03:40:45 PM »
An article titled “Venus and Earth: Engaged or Divorced?” in Astronomy (Vol. 7 for Oct. 1979), p. 58, discussed I.I. Shapiro and his colleague’s analysis of the Venus-Earth resonance. They note radar observations gathered over a 14 year period of time has permitted them to nail down Venus’ rotation period with high precision.

Doesn’t the radar technique work by focusing a radio beam onto the planet and working out the ‘echo time’?
http://pds-geosciences.wustl.edu/venus/arcb_nrao-v-rtls_gbt-3-delaydoppler-v1/vrm_90xx/document/venus_radar.pdf

Quote
Individual looks are limited to about 5 minutes duration by the round-trip light time for Venus near inferior conjunction.
How fast is the speed of light?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 03:42:31 PM by edby »

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #104 on: July 22, 2018, 04:16:40 PM »
The speed of light is variable: it varies with the density of various layers of aether/ether.

The martian faint young sun paradox defies Laskar's stability of the solar system calculations:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118

There is only one way out, for astronomers to accept that Mars was recently an inner planet (orbiting closer to the Sun); a massive collision lead to the loss of its atmosphere/oceans.

BillO

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #105 on: July 23, 2018, 06:23:45 PM »
The speed of light is variable: it varies with the density of various layers of aether/ether.
Okay, your belief in an aether/ether puts your entire discourse into deep doubt.

There is no evidence for an aether.  There is no test for an aether.  There is no way to observe and aether.

If it walks like nothing, quacks like nothing and smells like nothing - it's nothing.

Next thing is you'll be believing in a flat earth.  ::)
« Last Edit: July 23, 2018, 06:26:30 PM by BillO »

BillO

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #106 on: July 25, 2018, 09:04:08 PM »
Tom is so utterly worng on this, and it can easily be proven.

Back in 1980 when I had just wrapped up community college and got my fist job I rewarded myself with an Apple II+.  One of the fist things I did on that machine was write a celestial mechanics simulation based on an article in Popular Electronics, Byte or Scientific American (back when it was a decent magazine).  All it uses is Newton's law of universal gravitation.  When I saw this thread I remembered it but was sure it had been lost forever, however yesterday I found a few old floppy disks and sure enough my program was there and readable.  Now, this is a dreadfully simple program with no fancy GR or corrections for coarse step-wise calculation approximations, and is further limited by the dismal Applesoft floating point precision yet it will faithfully run a simulation of the Sun, Mercury, Venus and Earth for the equivalent of hundreds of years - without the orbits getting chaotic and looking like knots.  It can handle more than 4 bodies too, but that is stressing it's abilities.  Tom would have us believe that folks with access to the worlds fastest and most precise computers - people with PhDs and in astrophysics and years of experience with numerical methods can't get it to work.  I have no idea where Tom digs this BS up from.

I've been running the program on both real hardware (I have an old Apple //e) and on the AppleWin emulator under Windoze 10 for hours now and no issues whatsoever.  The instance running on the emulator simulates about 211 years per hour (~17 seconds for earth's orbit).  If anyone is interested I will post the code and a couple of samples as well as an explanation on how to run it.  It's pretty simple.  Perhaps someone could port it to C or Python to run natively on a PC so that we can even get more speed and precision.

Just let me know.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 09:15:11 PM by BillO »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10662
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #107 on: July 25, 2018, 09:32:01 PM »
You solved all of the the n-body problems? Amazing. Why not release your wonder to the world?

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #108 on: July 25, 2018, 09:36:08 PM »
You solved all of the the n-body problems? Amazing. Why not release your wonder to the world?
Tom, are you suggesting that a numerical solution to the n-body problem is not a valid solution?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10662
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #109 on: July 25, 2018, 10:21:30 PM »
The numerical solutions are few and far between, are special cases that require bodies of equal mass or no mass, and cannot create heliocentric models, such as a stable heliocentric earth-moon system rotating around the sun.


Super Computing Challenge

Students participate in a programming challenge to simulate n-body orbits and the solar system:

http://www.supercomputingchallenge.org/14-15/finalreports/21.pdf

Quote
Simulation of Planetary Bodies in the Universe (N-Body)
New Mexico Supercomputing Challenge

Our solar system is an N-body system. N-body simulation is the simulation of astral bodies under gravity, using laws of classical mechanics to define how the astral bodies move. The goal of our project is to model the N-body problem in NetLogo. Code defining how astral bodies interact implements the inverse square law and a gravitational constant to calculate gravitational force between them.

Quote
Verification and Validation

Even though our model is not entirely accurate, it recreates with graphical simplicity and mathematical correctness of the N-body simulation. Through many many trials, we realize that normal orbits are incredibly complex and hard to obtain through any normal means, and causes us to conclude that our own solar system is an incredible anomaly of the universe

Who would have thought?

The paper discusses various other speculations surrounding their failure to even create basic orbits through "many many trials." What a special anomaly of the universe our solar system is! It is beyond the understanding of human science to create it! Surely its is the solar system that special, rather than something wrong with the ideas that are trying to be simulated.

The Heliocentric Solar System Cannot be Simulated
« Last Edit: July 25, 2018, 10:44:23 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #110 on: July 25, 2018, 10:51:57 PM »
The numerical solutions cannot create heliocentric models, such as a stable heliocentric earth-moon system rotating around the sun.
What degree of stability are you referring to over what time span?  You do realize that the solar system that we know and love today is far different from its younger, formative years.  It's fairly well accepted that the orbits of the various planets have changed quite a lot over the last few billion years, so your talk of stability is a bit of a red herring.
http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jewitt/kb/migrate.html
https://www.space.com/28901-wandering-jupiter-oddball-solar-system.html
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10662
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #111 on: July 25, 2018, 10:58:37 PM »
What degree of stability are you referring to over what time span?

Any time span. Heliocentric orbits cannot be created in n-body simulations at all.

Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that the bodies are of equal mass or mass-less.

http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/

Rama Set

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #112 on: July 25, 2018, 11:24:01 PM »
Quote
Verification and Validation

Even though our model is not entirely accurate, it recreates with graphical simplicity and mathematical correctness of the N-body simulation.

Hi Tom, why did you ignore the part where they said they recreated the solar system?  That would seem to contradict the thing you are saying. Yet you quoted it. Very, very disturbing b

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10662
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #113 on: July 25, 2018, 11:34:29 PM »
Quote
Verification and Validation

Even though our model is not entirely accurate, it recreates with graphical simplicity and mathematical correctness of the N-body simulation.

Hi Tom, why did you ignore the part where they said they recreated the solar system?  That would seem to contradict the thing you are saying. Yet you quoted it. Very, very disturbing b

FFS, read the paper.

Quote
As orbit hasn't been observed in the model

Quote
The next thing to do with the model is to further research how orbit fits into the n-body problem, and to look at other models in NetLogo that simulate these ideas so that we may identify what ours is missing and why we have not seen orbit.

Rama Set

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #114 on: July 25, 2018, 11:39:34 PM »
Your quote. Regardless, as us been mentioned, numerical solutions aplenty abound for n-body problems and they are solved this way routinely. Furthermore our solar system is modeled very accurately as an aggregate of 2-body systems. To say our solar system cannot be modeled is, at its most generous, an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Rama Set

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #115 on: July 25, 2018, 11:50:26 PM »
Also, I am not sure we should be taking that supercomputing competition too seriously, at the very least with a grain of salt. I thought there was something odd about that report since it’s syntax reads like it was translated to English from another language by Google. Turns out it is a competition for New Mexico high school students to stimulate interest in STEM fields. Not saying they the report should be outright ignored, but there is good reason not to take it as representative of current scientific achievements, to say nothing of authoritative.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #116 on: July 26, 2018, 12:42:55 AM »
What degree of stability are you referring to over what time span?

Any time span. Heliocentric orbits cannot be created in n-body simulations at all.

Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that the bodies are of equal mass or mass-less.

http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/
I'm sorry, but I thought you were talking about modeling our solar system.  You know, a solar system with a number of relatively tiny bodies orbiting one massive body. 

So tell me Tom, where does the n-body problem stipulate that all bodies must be of approximately the same mass?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10662
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #117 on: July 26, 2018, 01:15:32 AM »
The n-body situations with more than two bodies need bodies of the same mass (or some of the bodies mass-less) because that is the only way to bring equilibrium to the system. Otherwise, with unequal masses, the system attempts to kick out the smallest body, and the system often falls apart entirely. Progress can only be made if we assume such wacky scenarios.

Look into George Hill's work on the Three Body Problem and heliocentric orbits. When you add in a third mass to a two body system, it just goes crazy as the system attempts to kick out the smallest body, often tearing apart the system or destroying it in the process. The only way Hill was able to make any progress at all was by using the Restricted Three Body Problem. The Restricted Three Body Problem assumes that the mass of the moon is zero, and even then, the mass-less moon still goes crazy in its orbits around the earth. The only benefit of the Restricted Three Body Problem and the Mass-less moon is that the moon is no longer ejected from the system. It is confined to what is known as "Hill's Region".

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem



As seen above, the moon will go crazy and do random u-turns.

From the text that accompanies the image:

Quote
The simplest case:

It occurs when, the Jacobi constant being negative and big enough, the zero mass body (we shall still call it the Moon) moves in a component of the Hill region which is a disc around one of the massive bodies (the Earth). This fact already implies Hill's rigorous stability result: for all times such a Moon would not be able to escape from this disc. Nevertheless this does not prevent collisions with the Earth.

Other solutions to the Restricted Three Body Problem (which assumes a mass-less moon), as applied to the Sun-Earth-Moon system, are presented here in my article: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Mechanics_Cannot_Predict_The_Solar_System#The_Best_of_the_Best



Do these look like Heliocentric Orbits to you?
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 01:50:21 AM by Tom Bishop »

BillO

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #118 on: July 26, 2018, 01:29:59 AM »
You solved all of the the n-body problems? Amazing. Why not release your wonder to the world?
Typical FE'er exaggeration.  Where exactly did I say I solved all of the n-body problems?

Here is the Applesoft Basic code
Code: [Select]
20  INPUT "ENTER NUMBER OF OBJECTS";N
 30  DIM M(10),A(10,2),S(10,2),V(10,2),LP(10),LQ(10)
 50 G = 6.67E - 11
 60  FOR I = 1 TO N
 70  PRINT : PRINT "FOR OBJECT ";I;", ENTER:"
 90  INPUT "MASS : ";M(I)
 110  INPUT "X    : ";S(I,1)
 130  INPUT "Y    : ";S(I,2)
 150  INPUT "VX   : ";V(I,1)
 170  INPUT "VY   : ";V(I,2)
 180  NEXT I
 190  PRINT
 200  INPUT "SCALE FACTOR FOR X ";SX
 210 SY = SX * .85
 220  INPUT "TIME STEP DURATION ";DT
 240  HGR : POKE  - 16302,0
 250  GOSUB 440
 260  FOR I = 1 TO N
 270 V(I,1) = V(I,1) - .5 * A(I,1) * DT
 280 V(I,2) = V(I,2) - .5 * A(I,2) * DT
 290  NEXT I
 300  FOR I = 1 TO N
 310 CX = .5 * A(I,1) * DT
 320 CY = .5 * A(I,2) * DT
 330 VX = V(I,1) + CX
 340 VY = V(I,2) + CY
 350 S(I,1) = (CX + VX) * DT + S(I,1)
 360 S(I,2) = (CY + VY) * DT + S(I,2)
 370 V(I,1) = VX + CX
 380 V(I,2) = VY + CY
 390  NEXT I
 410  GOSUB 600
 420  GOSUB 440
 430  GOTO 300
 440  FOR I = 1 TO N
 450 A(I,1) = 0:A(I,2) = 0
 470  NEXT I
 480  FOR I = 1 TO N - 1
 490  FOR J = I + 1 TO N
 500 RD = ((S(I,1) - S(J,1)) ^ 2 + (S(I,2) - S(J,2)) ^ 2) ^ 1.5
 510 A1 = G * M(J) * ((S(J,1) - S(I,1)) / RD)
 520 A2 = G * M(J) * (S(J,2) - S(I,2)) / RD
 530 A(I,1) = A(I,1) + A1
 540 A(I,2) = A(I,2) + A2
 550 A(J,1) = A(J,1) - A1 * M(I) / M(J)
 560 A(J,2) = A(J,2) - A2 * M(I) / M(J)
 570  NEXT J
 580  NEXT I
 590  RETURN
 600  FOR I = 1 TO N
 610  IF  ABS (S(I,1)) > SX THEN 690
 620  IF  ABS (S(I,2)) > SY THEN 690
 630 P = 139 +  INT (.5 + 140 * S(I,1) / SX)
 640 Q = 95 +  INT (.5 + 96 * S(I,2) / SY)
 650  HCOLOR= 3: HPLOT P,Q
 660  IF P = LP(I) AND Q = LQ(I) THEN 690
 670  HCOLOR= 0: HPLOT LP(I),LQ(I)
 680 LP(I) = P:LQ(I) = Q
 690  NEXT I
 700  RETURN

Enter masses in kilograms (kg)
Distances in meters (m)
Velocities in meters per second (m/s)


The scale factor should be somewhat greater than the  radius of the largest orbit.
The time step duration is a balance between accuracy and speed the lower the number the more accurate, but the slower the simulation will run.  See the examples and play around with it.

When you enter a body, you need to enter the correct speed that goes with the distance you choose.  I usually enter perihelion and the minimum orbital speed.  Don't try to enter the average distance and average speed as those measurements usually do not align.  For simplicity sake I always line up the bodies along the center axis (Y=0)

Here are two simulations.  The first is the Earth and moon 2 body system, the 2nd is the Sun, Mercury, Venus and Earth 4 body system.
Code: [Select]
Earth-Moon (2 Objects)

Earth
M1 = 5.9723E24
X1 = 0
Y1 = 0
VX1 = 0
VY1 = -10

Moon
M2 = 7.346E22
X2 = 4.055E8
Y2 = 0
VX1 = 0
VY2 = 970

Scale = 1E9
Time Step = 50000


Sun-Mercury-Venus-Earth (4 Objects)

Sun
M1 = 1.9885E30
X1 = 0
Y1 = 0
VX1 = 0
VY1 = 0

Mercury
M2 = 3.3011E23
X2 = 6.983E10
Y2 = 0
VX = 0
VY = 38860

Venus
M3 = 4.8675E24
X3 = -1.0894E11
Y3 = 0
VX3 = 0
VY3 = -34790

Earth
M4 = 5.9724E24
X3 = 1.5210E11
Y3 = 0
VX3 = 0
VY3 = 29290

Scale = 2E11
Time Step = 50000

I've run the 4 body example for 10 hours.  That's 2110 years of time simulated.  I'm going to set it to run overnight.

AS I said, the will run unaltered on a real Apple II with Applesotf Basic, o ron the AppleWIN emulator.   However, feel free to port to something else if you wish.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2018, 10:32:20 AM by BillO »

BillO

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #119 on: July 26, 2018, 01:48:54 AM »

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Mechanics_Cannot_Predict_The_Solar_System#The_Best_of_the_Best

Do these look like Heliocentric Orbits to you?
Neither of these are attempts at numerical solutions/simulations.  They are both the result of trying to find an analytic solution and run the solution on a computer to test it.  The two approaches use computers but are entirely different.  There is no analytic solution (yet), but numerical solutions exist and are deadly accurate.  You've been told this by many people in this thread.  You're mixing things up because you don't understand what your dealing with.

My butt simple numerical solution is there for you or anyone else to try.  I'll give you all the help you need to get it going and to understand it.