21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.

« on: April 05, 2019, 12:40:49 AM »

That article is talking about the YouTube cold moonlight experiments, where things are left outside at night in moonlight and under the shade of a tree.

Yes, because the claim is that moonlight cools objects.  Are you saying that those are not valid experiments to test the claim?

The scientists I quoted were not leaving tin foil and other things outside. Light is collected and concentrated directly from the moon with lenses and special equipment.

Have you performed any of those experiments yourself to test their veracity, or are you just taking their word for it?

Found the video I was looking for the last time we got into this. He demonstrates the principal involved quite well imo, as well as showing a principal the older experiments posted by Tom will have to explain. Namely that pointing an infrared thermometer at the moon via a reflecting telescope shows an increase in temperature.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.

« on: April 04, 2019, 07:00:46 PM »

Just want to pick at your reference regarding Selenium as it sparked my interest to look into for whatever reason. Reading up on it, there appears to be zero reason to think the moonlight was actually cooling the Selenium. While it indeed deflected in the same direction, any source of light will cause the same deflection. See the 1907 experiment performed by Joel Stebbins and F.C. Brown, who were attempting to find out how far away a candle needed to be in order to change the resistance by the same amount as the moon. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1907ApJ....26..326S Both the light from the candle and from the moon deflected things in the same direction. By the logic given that asserts it as evidence of a cold moon, a candle must be cold as well. Alternatively refer to the work "The Action of Light on Selenium" by Professor W.G. Adams: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstl.1877.0009 In an opening paragraph he refers to the work of Mr. Willoughby Smith in discovering light alone will change the resistance of Selenium.

This in mind, I would suggest the reaction of Selenium to moonlight is not an indicator of moonlight having a cooling effect.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits

« on: April 03, 2019, 01:41:55 AM »

Here you go:

http://universesandbox.com/blog/2016/02/n-body-problem/

By default, the simulations in Universe Sandbox ² try to set an accuracy which prevents orbits from falling apart due to error. This means setting a maximum error tolerance for each step and also making sure the total error doesn’t reach an upper limit.

If you crank up the time step, the simulation then has to take fewer, larger steps. This means the potential for greater error. And the greater the error, the more likely it is that an orbit, which otherwise would be stable, falls apart. Moons crash into planets, Mercury gets thrown out of the solar system — things like that.

This isn’t what most people want in their simulations. But at the same time, most people also don’t want a limit on how fast they can run their simulation. This is a problem.

An imperfect solution

So how can we get around this problem? How can we accurately simulate thousands of objects while still allowing for large steps forward in time? For example, what if you wanted to simulate our solar system on a time scale of millions of years per second so that you could see the evolution of our Sun?

One solution proposed by Thomas, our physics programmer, is to allow for a special mode within simulations running at high time steps. This mode (which of course could be toggled) would collapse the existing n-body simulation into a series of 2-body problems: Moon & Earth, Earth & Sun, Europa & Jupiter, Jupiter & Sun, etc.

Solving a 2-body problem is much easier than solving an n-body problem. Not only is it faster computationally, but there is also a relatively arbitrary difference between figuring out where the two objects will be in one year and where they’ll be in a million years — it still requires just one calculation. So if you collapse an n-body simulation into a series of two-body problems, the simulation could take one big step forward, instead of taking the small steps needed for calculating it as an n-body problem.

The results won’t be entirely accurate, as this method would effectively ignore all gravitational influences outside of the main attractor. As mentioned before, calculating Earth’s orbit by looking at how it interacts with just the Sun is not accurate, as Earth is also affected by every other body. The Sun, however, is the most significant factor by far, because it is much more massive than any other object in our solar system. The other, much smaller forces tend to have little effect overall in non-chaotic systems. So while it’s not correct, it’s close enough when simulating something relatively stable like our solar system.

See bolded. They admit that the methods used are not correct.

I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, it is my opinion that the commonality does not have anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.

Tom, you're cherry picking your information and bending it to suit your own desires. If you're just going to keep doing that don't bother replying to a post please. You've deliberately misread the statement you quote in order to make it appear to support your point. This is one of many reasons I don't both posting much anymore and will once again step away from this discussion as you continue to show you don't discuss in good faith but in the same way as Rowbotham has been said to. A snake-oil salesman looking for any way to twist words to your own advantage.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planetary orbits

« on: April 02, 2019, 09:06:13 PM »

Tom, every time you use that three body problem as an argument it gets more and more tedious and it shows you're being disingenuous. Here's another simulation using actual gravity calculations and you can even interact with it to see what happens if you throw things off course. I've linked this about 3 or 4 times to you now in response to the three body problem since you insist on bringing it up.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

I'd also note that while it doesn't use Relativity because of the processing power required, Universe Sandbox 2 is a fully fledged solar system creator/simulator that runs based on Newtonian physics. I've found one video so far zooming on everything and showing the whole system in motion, and I think it's a default system you can load up with the software. But I'm going to see if I can't find anything a bit longer yet.

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observable Earth events supported by a global earth

« on: March 28, 2019, 02:56:44 PM »

No that’s not the case. It is zero at the poles. If you drop a penny from a building on the North Pole, there will be zero coriolis effect. A penny dropped at the equator will have maximal deflection.

Somewhere one of us has confused terms. Literally every article I can find states the Coriolis effect is strongest at the poles and 0 at the equator.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observable Earth events supported by a global earth

« on: March 28, 2019, 02:00:33 PM »

I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.

The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.

Not quite.  The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude.  Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator.  The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.

15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.

15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.

The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.

Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.

Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.

Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?

Only if you believe in a unipolar map.

How does a dipole or similar map avoid this issue? I already made an allowance about the unipolar/monopole map. It's fastest speed would be above Antarctica (which would at least match measurements in one location sort of) but a multiple pole FE should have exactly the opposite in regards to the linear speed of the stars. Just like a record spun above each pole.

Why? Slower at the poles, faster further away up to the equator, then slower up to the other pole as we observe with the stars. Constant angular, variable linear.

But that's the reverse of what is observed? The Coriolis is STRONGER at the poles and weakest/zero at the equator. The linear speed of the stars is variable in the opposite direction. So how do they explain the Coriolis effect?

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observable Earth events supported by a global earth

« on: March 27, 2019, 02:29:57 PM »

I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.

The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.

Not quite.  The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude.  Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator.  The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.

15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.

15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.

The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.

Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.

Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.

Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?

Only if you believe in a unipolar map.

How does a dipole or similar map avoid this issue? I already made an allowance about the unipolar/monopole map. It's fastest speed would be above Antarctica (which would at least match measurements in one location sort of) but a multiple pole FE should have exactly the opposite in regards to the linear speed of the stars. Just like a record spun above each pole.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Observable Earth events supported by a global earth

« on: March 27, 2019, 01:01:33 PM »

I'm sure someone sooner or later will point you towards the FE Wiki version of the coriolis effect.  In their view the effect doesn't actually exist.

The wiki isn't exhaustive. All the coriolis effect needs to be explained is something to set apart what's above the equator and what's below, DET sees to that. Then it's essentially the same force that causes the stars to rotate acting weaker lower doing, causing deflection.

Not quite.  The magnitude of Coriolis deflection is directly related to latitude.  Maximum deflection is at the poles while there is zero deflection at the equator.  The rotation of the stars is a uniform 15 degrees per hour regardless of latitude.

15 degrees of a circle =/= constant speed.

15 degrees per hour is indeed a constant angular speed.

The linear speed depends on the radius. In FET, all stars lay on the dome, hence all stars rotate at constant angular and linear speeds.

Yes, I'm going to take your word for how the stars behave under what I believe.

Angular speed doesn't matter here. If you go to RET, any point of the Earth is moving with constant angular speed. The linear speed is what defines the magnitude of the Coriolis effect.

Correct, but then how does that match up? The fastest linear speed should occur around the equator (or Antarctica if we discuss the monopole map) and the slowest at the poles. Yet that's the opposite of where the effect is the strongest. How? Why?

29

Flat Earth Community / Re: Logan Paul FE Trailer

« on: March 21, 2019, 12:40:43 PM »

Why? Why us? He didn't do a second suicide forest video. Why is he doubling down on flat earth?

And by the way, I don't like your abuse of the word 'treated'. 

You're absolutely right. Should have been 'subjected'.

My guess is that the narrative will include a love interest, friends gained, friends lost, a dramatic existential crisis, a reckoning and heartfelt admission that though the community was welcoming (aside from Mark Sargent) he must leave and go back to his 18m subs.

I'm not sure about the friend gained/lost, but it's got most of the rest. Enjoy?



*Spoiler*

Logan Paul does not in fact actually believe in a Flat Earth. The video in fact plays more like a mockumentary than anything.

30

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: People have been into space. How have they not discovered that the earth is flat

« on: March 14, 2019, 04:56:46 PM »

The explanation for the Falcon 9 explosion is here:

Subsequent investigation traced the accident to the failure of a strut which secured a high-pressure helium bottle inside the second stage's liquid oxygen tank. With the helium pressurization system integrity breached, excess helium quickly flooded the liquid oxygen tank, causing it to overpressurize and burst.[7]

An independent investigation by NASA concluded that the most probable cause of the strut failure was a design error which, instead of using a stainless steel eye bolt made of aerospace-grade material, SpaceX chose an industrial-grade material without adequate screening and testing, and overlooked the recommended safety margin.

An independent investigation by NASA is not independent at all.
They simply blamed space x.
And they stated  "probable cause"
That is an assumption only with no facts to back their claim.

Did you read the report? If you didn't, how can you claim it has 'no facts' to back it up? Just spewing nonsense.
I'd note both NASA and SpaceX conducted an investigation, which is why it's referred to as an 'independent NASA investigation' as it was conducted without SpaceX involvement. Both reports agree on the same area failing. Where they differ is NASA says this is the most likely error point (the screw) while SpaceX concluded it was just that the part(s) were sort of more generally defective. This was based upon telemetry and other information from the crashed vehicle. Not 'no facts' for either claim.

Do you think all aircraft that crash have "hit the dome"?

Only the ones that are launch straight up and not on an angle over the ocean so they can disappear out of eyes watching.

Great, so what happens with all those rockets that hit nothing and go to or above where the ones that 'crash' reached?

31

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the Earth changes?

« on: February 23, 2019, 07:52:23 PM »

Because people who claim something then dismiss evidence to the contrary, who then walk away from the argument/debate feeling like they won makes those people look like drunken children. Take Tom Bishop for example, when he loses a debate, instead of conceding and becoming a better, more educated person he just stops replying, then continues elsewhere in a different topic with different people spouting the same old stuff, like he was never proven wrong before.

Uh, you guys NEVER prove anything on this forum to contradict the sources given to you. It's like arguing with children who can't grasp the concept of evidence and the need to contradict it with equal or greater power.

Your confirmation bias is showing Tom. Neither side is going to believe the other easily, but you take it to a new level in your disbelief towards anything that contradicts FE. You not comprehending how something works is also not a reason for it to be incorrect. In addition, you have no concept of '..equal or greater power' when it comes to FE. You frequently require far higher standards of evidence for anything involving RE, regardless of if you recognize this fact. But this isn't a very conduce 'discussion' to attempt to have. It never goes anywhere because neither side is willing to give ground in most cases.

How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.

Why on earth would they be visible?

Why *wouldn't* they be visible? What breaks trigonometry such that the sun can set? I know some FEers subscribe to some curious form of perspective. I apologize for not having dug enough into your DE to know offhand how the sun manages to set upon it. But maybe a tl;dr?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sinking Ship Phenomenon

« on: February 21, 2019, 02:12:18 PM »

If light bends upwards, the sinking effect occurs.

Fascinating! What is the formula for that? I imagine if we know the distance we should be able to calculate the obscured height at that distance due to the acceleration of the light.

Would the sinking ship effect be the same for distant mountains? Or is it specific to over water? (I  mean how would a ship sink on a mountain? Unless it was Noah's Ark.)
I guess Moses' ark settled in the Nile and  Elijah's arc sunk into a mountain.)

But honestly, it would be great to have a formula for the sinking ship effect so when a glober says "See?!" we can say "Sure, it's acceleration of light and I have a formula that predicts it."

Hey, who's the chap who has a formula for everything?  That would be a down right handy formula to have.

The phenomenon is called EA: Electromagnetic Acceleration. https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator

Unfortunately I don't believe I've ever seen the 'much longer and nastier expression' posted on these forums however, although it has been asked for. As well last I heard Tom Bishop no longer adhered to EA, preferring instead the somewhat convoluted 'FE Perspective' as I've come to call it, originally championed by Rowbotham. I personally feel EA solves both sunsets and sinking ships much better than does FE Perspective, but it runs into issues in other areas.

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 15, 2019, 02:00:22 PM »

How would this random test in the OP prove whether this earth was really photoshopped behind the moon's horizon or not?

The point of the test isn't to prove whether the Earth was photoshopped in that image. The point of the test is for those of you in the FE community to show you have actual knowledge of how faking a photo is done. Essentially a sort of litmus test. Do you actually have the knowledge to show a photo that is known for a fact to have been tampered with is fake? If you can't manage that, why would your claims on the fakery of NASA photos have a leg to stand upon?

We're back to this dichotomy of you claiming NASA (and others) are perpetuating a hoax of a magnitude unheard of in the history of the world, with billions even trillions of dollars flowing through it. But they can't manage to make a photo that a photoshop amateur can pick apart? So, the challenge is to essentially attempt to provide some legitimacy to the claims.

So, from what I understand, you are arguing that the earth might not be photoshopped behind the moon in the above image, and that NASA's fraudulence all hinges on the ability to detect some random person's random photo manipulation.

That sounds like a farce to me.

That's not at all what I said above, but I suppose I should have expected your reply. For the record, the original image is a composite. So yeah, it's been through Photoshop (or a similar software tool). But that doesn't prove it's fake (as in not put together using real images), nor does it show that the person who posted it can actually tell a real image from a fake image. But I'm pretty sure the point of this challenge is either lost on you or you just enjoy being deliberately obtuse too much.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 15, 2019, 01:42:00 PM »

How would this random test in the OP prove whether this earth was really photoshopped behind the moon's horizon or not?

The point of the test isn't to prove whether the Earth was photoshopped in that image. The point of the test is for those of you in the FE community to show you have actual knowledge of how faking a photo is done. Essentially a sort of litmus test. Do you actually have the knowledge to show a photo that is known for a fact to have been tampered with is fake? If you can't manage that, why would your claims on the fakery of NASA photos have a leg to stand upon?

We're back to this dichotomy of you claiming NASA (and others) are perpetuating a hoax of a magnitude unheard of in the history of the world, with billions even trillions of dollars flowing through it. But they can't manage to make a photo that a photoshop amateur can pick apart? So, the challenge is to essentially attempt to provide some legitimacy to the claims.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 13, 2019, 03:32:46 PM »

... all conveniently caught with the purview of the ISS cupola from a supposed height of just over 250 miles above the earth's surface...

Gimme a break...LOL!

So, are you saying that because you found one camera on the ISS that uses a fish-eye lens that proves that all cameras on the ISS use fish-eye lenses?

I don't care what kind of camera is being used.

I wrote: "I do not believe the compilation of the "information," is correct and much of it is altered to render a false visual."

In response, I received this query from AATW: "OK, and what is your evidence for that belief and what are your qualifications and expertise in this area?
Surely that belief is based on something?"

I am writing the images presented by NASA present a false narrative of a globe earth and I have provided visual evidence they indeed do just that.

OK, and do you by chance have a source for the image you presented? Did you look into it in order to determine that it's actually impossible? Or are you just making an assumption? A quick google on it reveals it's an image taken out of the ISS cupola utilizing a fisheye lens. The cupola extends out beyond the surface of the ISS to provide essentially a 360 degree view with a 'horizon' of the edge of the station. How is it impossible for such a setup to be able to capture the whole of the Earth utilizing a fisheye lens? Sounds more like you need it to be fake, so you've decided it's fake without any investigation. Which is exactly what the video is essentially accusing FE'rs of doing.

You cannot capture the "whole," of the earth (per RE parameters) at the altitude of the ISS.

But the cupola as it's stated to exist on the ISS would allow such an image via the use of a fisheye lens. As I stated. All you've done is go 'nuh-uh' to the information about the image I provided. I'm once again forced to presume you aren't actually interested in any form of legitimate discussion or debate and are here to troll. Good day to you.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: An opportunity to prove NASA images are fake!

« on: February 12, 2019, 02:55:44 PM »

... all conveniently caught with the purview of the ISS cupola from a supposed height of just over 250 miles above the earth's surface...

Gimme a break...LOL!

So, are you saying that because you found one camera on the ISS that uses a fish-eye lens that proves that all cameras on the ISS use fish-eye lenses?

I don't care what kind of camera is being used.

I wrote: "I do not believe the compilation of the "information," is correct and much of it is altered to render a false visual."

In response, I received this query from AATW: "OK, and what is your evidence for that belief and what are your qualifications and expertise in this area?
Surely that belief is based on something?"

I am writing the images presented by NASA present a false narrative of a globe earth and I have provided visual evidence they indeed do just that.

OK, and do you by chance have a source for the image you presented? Did you look into it in order to determine that it's actually impossible? Or are you just making an assumption? A quick google on it reveals it's an image taken out of the ISS cupola utilizing a fisheye lens. The cupola extends out beyond the surface of the ISS to provide essentially a 360 degree view with a 'horizon' of the edge of the station. How is it impossible for such a setup to be able to capture the whole of the Earth utilizing a fisheye lens? Sounds more like you need it to be fake, so you've decided it's fake without any investigation. Which is exactly what the video is essentially accusing FE'rs of doing.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 07, 2019, 09:42:42 PM »

As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)

Nonsense.  The force in question here is the force of the astronauts feet upon the circle thing which produces a linear force perpendicular to the surface of contact.  The point about the bucket is irrelevant:  If what we are told about Skylab is correct there is no centrifugal force acting upon the astronauts except for the minute amount of centrifugal force upon the entire satellite due to orbiting around the Earth; whereas the water is contained by the bucket and moving in unison with it as it is being moved along the circle.  Your argument requires Skylab to be spinning like a gravitron amusement park ride. As far as the "calling into question" stuff:  ad hominem fallacy.

You're ignoring their initial momentum. Again. Also, not Ad Hominem, but a legitimate technique used in court. If a witnesses testimony is unreliable in one respect (in this case your declaration that running around this circle is impossible) how can the testimony be relied upon in another respect (your declaration it looks fake). I'll admit perhaps a bit of a stretch, but proclaiming it shows gaps in fundamental knowledge of physics. So how can I expect you to be a reliable witness/testimony regarding the physics of movement of them through the air that you claim clearly indicates slowed down footage, when you proclaim a far simpler feat impossible?

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab

« on: February 07, 2019, 07:54:41 PM »

Well, stack already handled the 40 second thing, but I'm not seeing how this swimming pool thing works. They're bouncing off the ring and doing flips and stuff. They're obviously exerting themselves quite a bit over the 25 second period and should be exhaling their breath to keep up that much exertion. You really think NASA can edit out the streams of bubbles?

It's way too grainy to make out any bubbles.  Plus, the film is clearly slowed-down so the real-time needed to film it would be significantly less than the time it takes to playback.  Also, notice how the guys run around the circle in Stack's video.  How is that possible?  Where is the normal force coming from that keeps the astronauts feet attached to the surface?  In zero-g, intertia would cause them to move in straight lines opposite the line of force caused by his feet pushing down.  This proves the video is fake.

ADDENDUM:  The claim that it couldn't be faked using wires because they would have gotten tangled is sensible, but using multiple exposures they could have achieved the effect shooting each astronaut one at a time.  If it was choreographed carefully enough the portions where the astronauts appear to come into contact could be made to look natural.

What's your evidence again that it's 'clearly slowed-down'? I don't see it personally, although more because there are bits that look odd at one speed but not the other, and vice versa. Interlaced frames =/= film speed difference. You'll need a better case than that.

As for running around in a circle, do you understand how moving in a circle works? You calling this impossible, imo, calls into question the rest of your concerns about this video. That's very simple physics going on right there. Go spin a bucket of water around on the end of a string. The force being applied is always towards the center, yet it doesn't ever end up there. Why? Same thing. (I'd also note your assertion that it's happening on a vomit comet would produce zero-g circumstances and render this a feat impossible there too, leaving you *required* to have wires which simply isn't the case)

The fact that this old footage is cutting it so close to the limit is evidence enough. It's not like 1970's video cameras could only record video for less than a minute.

Only if you're already inclined to think it's fake. Length of segments is not strong evidence in and of itself without entering with bias.

39

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Suns lit area of the flat Earth

« on: February 07, 2019, 02:15:17 PM »

Can I just pop into the mix of this discussion a related question about the Sun.  If FE theorists are so convinced that the Sun is rotating over their Earth 3000 miles above it what is making it rotate and holding it up? And indeed keeping it conveniently fixed above the centre point of the Earth?

Do you mean revolving?

Means the same thing.

Manic, I believe that is generally regarded as unknown. I'd suspect some put it up to the Aether, and other's attribute it to 'celestial gears'. The most interesting suggestion I've ever seen is the idea there's literal poles coming up out of the North Pole that the moon and sun are on that carry them around.

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 08:17:52 PM »

So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.

I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....

No, you didn't quote anything relevant to your statement. Your statements of "we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it" and ">1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up." are complete fantasy nonsense, and is entirely unsupported by what you quoted.

What you quoted admits that modeling three or more bodies of a solar system is impossible with any realistic model of the celestial bodies, and admits that they are resorting to a series of 2-body problems and pretending that ignoring the physics of multiple bodies is just as good.

You have no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system. It is admitted that it cannot be done.

As ever you see what you want to see Tom. If you can't (or won't) grasp the point being presented in the article you yourself linked, I see no reason to continue to bash my head against this wall. Your inability to come to logical conclusions based on presented information and data is not my problem to attempt to overcome. I'm sorry you need someone to state exactly what I've put forth in my TL;DR in order to believe it. No wonder you believe the Earth to be flat.

Edit: For the record he DOES explicitly state they can achieve a 99% accuracy percentile using computational algorithms and modeling, although my second statement in regards to the remaining 1% is an extrapolation of the information he provides rather than an explicit quote. I've already qouted both of where I pulled these things from above however, so maybe you can find them again by actually with the intent to learn for once.