381

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 24, 2018, 02:44:05 AM »

That is completely true, however the model outlined in the dissertation was actually employed to send the GENESIS satellite to collect solar wind samples and return it to the earth.  That project was completed.  You have to do more research to realize that fact. 

Do more research on what 'restricted' means.  Your definition is incorrect.  A 3 body restricted mission was completed a long time ago.  What that means is Earth, Moon, spacecraft.  The restricted part means that one of the bodies doesn't affect the other two.  Anytime you have gravitational force between two bodies each body will affect the other.  The earth rotates around the sun, but it could also be said that the sun rotates around the earth.  The sun is a lot more massive so the orbit is quite small in relation to the orbit of the earth.  The same goes for the Earth Moon relationship.  If you send a spacecraft into the gravitational field of the earth, moon, or sun those bodies will also move, but it's like pissing in the ocean, you won't be able to measure it.  The effect on the spacecraft is completely different because of the ratio of the masses. The masses of any of the objects involved don't have to be the same.  Each can be different. 

In the case of the GENESIS mission the problem solved and demonstrated to work was the restricted 4 body problem.  Earth, Moon, Sun, and spacecraft.  Each with a completely different mass.  Example shown and demonstrated to work.  I don't think a caveman could have completed the project.

382

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 24, 2018, 02:28:47 AM »

https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/kathleen.howell.1/Publications/Dissertations/1998_Wilson.pdf

Here is a 3 body problem plus spacecraft.  The 3 main bodies are Earth, Moon, and Sun.  All the motions and gravitational field vectors are calculated so the spacecraft can successfully navigate it's mission.  The spacecraft did complete the mission and verified all the calculations of the 3 body problem.  Now you have a calculation and an actual verification of the accuracy.  The problem is no longer theory, it's fact.

383

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 23, 2018, 10:31:05 PM »

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf

Here's another paper on the 3 body problem.  Just what kind of specification are you looking for in the 3 body problem?  What exactly would it prove to you if a solution was available?

384

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?

« on: November 23, 2018, 09:49:35 PM »

The main problem is that the sun has to change orbits throughout the year.  Anytime you do this will require that the Sun has some kind of retro-rocket that can fire to get it into a different orbit.  As far as that goes, it will need a retro-rocket to fire just to stay in orbit.  Of course the Sun and Moon will have to stay above the earth that's being constantly accelerated (no gravity).  That means they will have to figure out how to move vertically as well. The FET paradigm doesn't work.

385

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 23, 2018, 09:42:42 PM »

http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1991CeMDA..50...73W/0000073.000.html

Here's a good place to start.  Of course it may be completely fake as NASA is involved.  All you would have to do is prove all the equations are fake.

386

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Oceans & Clouds

« on: November 22, 2018, 07:03:35 PM »

The upward movement of air itself can hold stuff airborne.  Just try to fly thru a thunderstorm and you will quickly realize that your aircraft can easily get sucked up thousands of feet and then just as quickly get thrown back down.  Hail stones get bigger on every up & down cycle until they are so heavy that they fall to the ground.  Look at a cumulonimbus cloud.  Vertical air currents carry the water vapor higher & higher into the sky.  If you find yourself in a tornado you & your whole car can be sucked up and carried aloft for quite a distance before coming back to earth.  Never underestimate what strong air currents can do even to heavier objects.  Just think of what they can do to something so small and light as a molecule of water.

387

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator

« on: November 22, 2018, 06:50:51 PM »

Of course you are trying to be sneaky and compare the accuracy of the eotovos experiment with the results of a gravimeter.  Two different test objectives, two different test results.  You will have to get up a bit earlier to fool and old sailor.  It was a nice attempted diversion though. All the results in the links were over 20 years ago done with equipment that has been greatly improved.  The newer results still indicate the same thing.  Gravity of the earth varies by latitude indicating that the earth is an oblate spheroid.  Trying to argue with the results of 1000s of readings that all agree with the hypothesis doesn't bode well with anyone's credibility. 

388

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth Theory Unification Project - The Universal Accelerator

« on: November 22, 2018, 05:42:13 PM »

There are commercially made absolute gravimeters available that can measure gravitational force with accuracy in parts per million now.  All the external factors are accounted for.  The gravitational force of the earth itself does vary some.  Anytime a large mass moves around either at ground level, above ground level, or below ground level the gravitational attraction will change.  Gravitational force is a vector.  The largest factor is the attraction of the earth itself.  However the mass inside the earth isn't homogeneous.  Much of the internal mass of the earth is molten and can flow around inside the earth.  Sometimes it comes out as lava.  The water on the earth is in constant motion as evidenced by tides. The force of gravity is well documented in the formulas.  The only variables are the masses and the distances.  If you could get all the variables to hold still for a short while the readings would be steady.  The earth is a very dynamic Oblate Spheroid and anytime you measure a dynamic object the readings will vary with time.  That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the theory or the measurement equipment. The bottom line is that gravity works, accurate measurements can be made, and the earth is a body undergoing constant random changes.  Any objections to this assessment?

389

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Oceans & Clouds

« on: November 22, 2018, 03:53:19 PM »

Clouds are just fog only higher in the sky.  A pilot can climb up thru a layer of clouds just like a bus driver can drive thru the fog.  The 'chem trails' are just nothing but clouds formed by rapidly moving aircraft. 
 

390

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 22, 2018, 01:07:36 AM »

Some of the arguments are interesting.  I see that sources like Jacques Laskar are used to make a point that the solar system is in chaos.  Actually, my research seemed to yield that Laskar did claim that stability was possible up to around 10 million years.  After that things may get shaky. What little I saw of a book of his certainly had an illustration of the solar system with the sun at the center and all the traditional planets orbiting them.  Maybe Laskar was making all the wrong assumptions in the first place and should have had the Sun orbiting above the flat Earth.  I see that the scientists so far that have worked on the 3-body problem have all been working under the assumption that the earth is a sphere and the center of the solar system is the sun.  I want to see some authoritarian works (with lots of equations of motion) showing that the 3-body problem can’t be solved using the FET paradigm.  That way, at least, I can get a handle on what the masses, orbits, and diameters of all the bodies happen to be.  You can’t seem to get any of that from the Wiki on this site.     

391

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 21, 2018, 07:12:16 PM »

Reply #63 was interesting.  The curves showed how an Arenstorf Orbit goes awry after a limited number of iterations.  What was interesting was the use of the work of Arenstorf to illustrate a point.  The Apollo program used the Arenstorf Orbits to successfully get men to the moon.   Of course, if you do a little research the orbits needed depended upon the recognized figures for the earths and moons gravity.  Also, the recognized distances were used.  In FET the earth’s gravity is greatly reduced and the Arenstorf Orbit wouldn’t even be possible in the given circumstances.  It is totally illogical to use an example based upon something that is unrecognized by FET.  It would a better idea to show why the 3-body problem won’t work using an example based upon the Flat Earth paradigm with a ‘greatly diminished’ force of gravity postulated by FET.   

392

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 21, 2018, 06:36:38 PM »

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-11172009000100003#tab1

Well, there's been another loop in the discussion.  The OP Bobby was hypothesizing that you would need more than just pattern based descriptions to accurately predict eclipses.  My link points to a researcher that has all the equations using strictly Newtonian mechanics that accomplishes that objective.  Is this an infinite loop?  Where is the exit?

393

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 21, 2018, 06:04:27 PM »

I am thinking that the whole universe is just an example of Brownian motion on a galactic scale.  The earth is just a minute part of that universe and we are all just moving thru time tying to make sense out of the limited observations we can make.  It has been observed that certain laws of motion do apply and can predict where an object will go if all the variables can be measured in advance and don’t change along the way.  I would agree that there probably isn’t an explicit equation of motion for the entire known solar system.  If there was that equation would have to have an infinite number of terms to fully describe every little thing.  I don’t think that you need to know everything about everything to calculate something useful.   Newtonian equations of motion can calculate the positions of the known bodies in the solar system with enough accuracy to be useful.  There will always be some previously unknown factor that can change things, but then the equation can be adjusted.  Brownian motion only accounts for the statistical, not the absolute.  I can fully agree that the solar system must contend with a certain amount of chaos.  That chaos so far only requires small changes in the overall scheme of things.  It’s like driving to work in the morning.  You know exactly where you will end up, but there may be some small delays or detours along the way that you didn’t know about when you left the house.  Eventually the sun will supernova, it has been said, and the earth, flat or round, will be consumed.  When that happens, it will just be another example of the chaotic nature of the galaxy and ashes to ashes and dust to dust for us all.

394

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 21, 2018, 04:26:52 AM »

I did some research on statistics and chaos theory a while back.  Just because there’s chaos doesn’t mean a solution can’t be found.  Scientists studying planetary motion have already figured this out.  Last year I was able to calculate Pi to about 4 figures to the right of the decimal place just using about 100 million random numbers generated by my Python program.  Talk about chaos!  My program did require about 8 hours of run time to complete.

The research papers I read had a program that could calculate planetary motions of the entire known solar system including the moon and accounting for 5 different asteroids.  It took over a year of processing time on a desk top computer, but the results modeled everything back for millions of years. Yes, they did say that the accuracy of the data started to decline the further out they went. My other readings did indicate that the Lyapunov time for a solar system was about 50 million years so the results I read about were not too surprising.

Now maybe you have come across an example of what doesn’t work, but there are examples of what does work out there.  Yes, the Newtonian equations do work.  Yes, multi-body solutions can be accurately calculated.  Eclipses can be predicted accurately using just Newtonian equations.  All the information is at your disposal if you choose to access it.  Of course, you can also access all the failures as well and use them to your advantage.  I fully understand that you have the flat earth ball & chain firmly wrapped around your neck and that limits your options.  At least this response will put another mark on the wall for you, and that’s the good news.

395

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 21, 2018, 01:26:03 AM »

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-11172009000100003#tab1

Well the discussion subroutine has come full circle back to near the start again.  The OP Bobby was hypothesizing that you would need more than just pattern based descriptions to accurately predict eclipses.  My link points to a researcher that has all the equations using strictly Newtonian mechanics that accomplishes that objective.  The three body diversion was tried. It didn't fly far.  Now it's time to 'square yourself in the hatch' and illustrate just what the problems are with the equations proffered in the paper pointed to in the link.  They sure look OK to me.  Can I expect another diversionary tactic or a useful criticism that can be objectively discussed?   

396

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 10:15:44 PM »

What I see here is the implementation of the successive approximation model.  The first step is to gather all the information you have about something you need to investigate.  Next is the formulate a theory about what needs to be done.  After that you take some actions based upon your theory and see what happens.  You expect to make errors.  Very few do something new perfectly the first time.  After you analyze the errors maybe it will point you to some new information you didn't have previously.  Using that new information you can modify your theory and again take some actions.  You keep repeating this process until you are successful.  In the link provided I did read the story about Le Verrier.  This was an application of the successive approximation model.  Le Verrier probably did apply the principles of Newtonian mechanics and did locate the planet but made some errors in the paths.  These errors probably were not a problem with the theory, but more likely a problem with the initial assumptions made.  Maybe Le Verrier used some data from another source that wasn't quite accurate.  Maybe he didn't quite understand something about Newtonian mechanics correctly, or maybe he made a stupid error in calculation.  I think it wasn't a problem with the theory, it more likely was a problem with best guess data.  Sometimes a theory just doesn't work at all no matter what you try.  At that point nothing at all will make sense.  All I can say about that is some theories are from Mars, and other are from Uranus.   

397

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 07:37:36 PM »

Probably you continue to be confused (maybe intentionally) about what is happening.  Patterns tend to emerge from the data but those patterns are the result NOT the cause of any prediction. The cause of the predictions are the application of the basic laws of motion of bodies containing mass NOT the application of patterns that were noticed in the past.  It's like saying that there is a pattern for how you put a nut on a bolt.  'Righty Tighty / Lefty Loosie' is definitely a pattern that applies to a mechanical device but doesn't have much to do with how it actually operates.  The Fourier series is the application of the Sine Wave pattern (like a nut / bolt) that is useful for describing a lot of things that can happen in a cycle, like an orbital cycle.  It's just a tool that can be used to describe the overall motion of a body.  You can use a wrench to fix your car, but that doesn't have much to do with the laws of motion that are in force when you go around a curve.  It looks like there is a pattern in your ideas and replies and I'm thinking I may be able to base a prediction on your response.     

398

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 05:16:18 PM »

More modern sources aren't really needed, just more accurate ones.  Look at the works of Nathaniel Bowditch and Issac Newton for a better idea of how things actually work in the real world.  Observe and compare those observations to what the theory says.  If there's a difference adjust accordingly.  When one theory had a plethora of problems it usually is better to consider something else.  Apply Occam's razor, that usually is best. 

399

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

« on: November 20, 2018, 05:03:29 PM »

It looks like there is confusion in the word 'perturbations'.  Charles Lane Poor seemed to use that word in one context and the modern-day scientists seem to be using the same word to describe something altogether different.  In any event, the modern-day folks take the bodies and put them into an initial condition.  Then all the Newtonian laws are applied with a computer program.  Perturbations are then the difference between what the first approximation to the predicted motion and the actual observed motion happens to be.  The first approximation is the result of the classic 3 body problem based upon the nominal condition of all the bodies.  After the results of the first approximation are in then the program is amended to adjust the orbits for the perturbations (differences) due to all smaller effects on the orbital bodies.  In each case the model is adjusted using the standard Newtonian laws of motion to calculate the ever-smaller adjustments needed.  The whole process is a mixture of the old and the new.  Newtonian laws of motion are the underlying theme to everything and the modern computers are just a means to accomplish all the calculations. At heart of everything is the mathematics that was needed to fine tune the Newtonian laws to choreograph everything. 
At no time are any historical data used in any of these calculations.  All the orbital data is newly calculated with the computer program.

400

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does Earth get between the Moon & Sun in FET?

« on: November 20, 2018, 02:29:31 PM »

All the math with the moon and sun above the earth really can't work no matter what they do unless it has an energy source to change the orbits.  Without gravity, which isn't possible in this arrangement, the sun and moon would require a retro-rocket to keep them in a circular orbit and would also be needed to change orbits.  Since the earth is under constant acceleration upwards (in place of gravity) the sun and moon have to move in this manner also.  I've speculated that the dark energy supplies this but have gotten no answer on this subject.  Dark energy above the earths surface would obviously be detectable as a force that could accelerate mass.  How could this be explained?  If somehow dark energy is the force that keeps the sun and moon in orbit it would also have to be smart.  It would have to know when to change the orbits of the sun and moon on a regular basis and not just supply a constant push.  All of this is a tall order.  The math for all this would be an interesting sight.