[Tom Bishop]

And for some reason you take his word over folks like Newton, Einstein, Neil Degrasse Tyson.  Of course you do!

Newton? Newton invokes divine intervention to explain his solar system. He said it himself!

Newton cannot explain the n-body issues with his model and tells us that god is keeping everything together.

Einstein's gravity is based on Newton's gravity and provides no further answers.

Neil Degrasse Tyson appears to be more of a TV celebrity than anything. I can't find that he solved any of the n-body issues.

Yeah, I also agree with René’s calculation of the forces on the moon from the earth and the sun.  He got that grade school math right, however his interpretation was hilarious.  What he forgets/misses/bumbles, and apparently you missed it too a, is that the moon is also orbiting the sun as it orbits the earth which completely satisfies the force on it from the sun.

Then, at the point in question, the moon will leave the earth and continue to orbit the sun, since the sun is applying the more powerful force at that time.

How does the moon get back to the earth?

Your "point" doesn't tell us anything.

Tom, you’re reading the wrong stuff, putting your lot in with the wrong people and you don’t have the math and/or physics skills to see how they are leading you astray, and you are also doing it willfully.  Why?

I am only interested in truth. As far as I can see, Bill, you are the main person here attempting to lead people astray.

The example is fairly clear to all. Your point about the moon orbiting the sun is rather stupid and only tells us that the moon would continue to orbit the sun and leave the earth behind.

You made a claim about the simulator I provided:

I took a look at this one. It appears to merely be creating 2-body orbits around a static sun. It does not appear to be a three-body or n-body problem simulator.

I respectfully request that either you justify this baseless claim by reference to my code, or that you retract it here.

The two earths in the simulation just passed right through each other without a change in momentum or orbital path. I don't know what more there is to show about about the matter. It is clearly not a three body or n-body simulator.

I ran the thing you followed up with yesterday. I got an error code after a few rotations, "Illegal quantity in line 650". All I can see from that is that you fed it bad two-body orbit values in your new settings and the two-body orbit either fell apart, grew too big for the screen, or there was some other underlying issue with the code. I have not seen anything that demonstrates that the planets are affected by each other. They always pass right through each other unperturbed.

No, I'm just agreeing that you are incredibly stubborn about accepting any evidence that proves that you're wrong.

Markjo, read the page I gave earlier: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem#The_astronomer.27s_three-body_problem:_ii.29_a_caricature_of_the_lunar_problem

If the Sun-Earth-Moon system could be described and understood with the Three Body Problem, we would have read that, rather than a demonstration of Hill's massless-moon that bounces around chaotically, makes mid-orbit u-turns, and collides with the earth. It does not say that the Three Body Solutions have created the Sun-Earth-Moon system, and none of the other Three Body Problem articles or books do either.

They have no idea how to handle the motions of three bodies under Newtonian physics in the heliocentric system. They cannot simulate or explain it. It cannot be done. Where are the examples of the Heliocentric Sun-Earth-Moon system modeled with the Three Body Solutions?

Instead of this simple thing you can point us to, you mentally cross out the sections which admit that three or more bodies is very problematic in everything you read, stubbornly refuse to face reality, and assume that "someone must understand it".

Show it. Show that the Three Body Solutions can simulate the Heliocentric Sun-Earth-Moon System.

[BillO]

Newton? Newton invokes divine intervention to explain his solar system. He said it himself!

Newton cannot explain the n-body issues with his model and tells us that god is keeping everything together.

Perhaps a 17th century take on the failure to find a purely analytic solution.  I've not spoken with Newton to get his take on his comments.  Needless to say the computers of the time were not up to the task of providing a purely numerical proof.

Einstein's gravity is based on Newton's gravity and provides no further answers.

No it's not.  Where did you pull that rabbit from?  Yes it had to agree with Newton;s theory - that's the way scientists do things - they improve on older theories not toss them out and not replace them like FE'ers.  GR is not even linear and is based on entirely different concepts.

Neil Degrasse Tyson appears to be more of a TV celebrity than anything. I can't find that he solved any of the n-body issues.

Research his story and quit making assumptions- isn't that what a zetectic does?

Then, at the point in question, the moon will leave the earth and continue to orbit the sun, since the sun is applying the more powerful force at that time.

How does the moon get back to the earth?

Your "point" doesn't tell us anything.

It does, it's just that you don't understand.  It is the center of mass of the earth moon system that orbits the sun.  The moon isn't borrowed by the sun and then handed back to the earth.  What kind of thinking is that?  Rene thinking?  They both orbit the sun and also orbit around their common center of mass.  They can't move away from each other further than they are.

I am only interested in truth. As far as I can see, Bill, you are the main person here attempting to lead people astray.

Astray?  You make claims about things Tom, but you don't do the hard thinking yourself.  You quote things from google searches that 'look' like what you want to get across and you can't see they don't support you ideas.

The example is fairly clear to all. Your point about the moon orbiting the sun is rather stupid and only tells us that the moon would continue to orbit the sun and leave the earth behind.

How could it?  The Earth is also orbiting the sun at pretty much the same place as the moon, so they are forced to orbit each other as well.  If you think I'm a quack, that this up with a physicist at one of your local universities.

You made a claim about the simulator I provided:

I took a look at this one. It appears to merely be creating 2-body orbits around a static sun. It does not appear to be a three-body or n-body problem simulator.

I respectfully request that either you justify this baseless claim by reference to my code, or that you retract it here.

The two earths in the simulation just passed right through each other without a change in momentum or orbital path. I don't know what more there is to show about about the matter.

There is an obvious change in momentum in that video you provided and in my own simulator here at home.  Watch it again carefully.  You gave them exactly the same orbit.  They would necessarily meet exactly at the same point at the same time.  Without a collision (which I did not program) I would not expect any change to their orbits other than an acceleration when they get close and a slowing down as they move apart - which is witnessed.  Do you have something to quantify anything to the contrary?

I ran the thing you followed up with yesterday. I got an error code after a few rotations, "Illegal quantity in line 650". All I can see from that is that you fed it bad two-body orbit values in your new settings and the two-body orbit either fell apart, grew too big for the screen, or there was some other underlying issue with the code. I have not seen anything that demonstrates that the planets are affected by each other. They always pass right through each other unperturbed.

I gave one earth a circular orbit.  If you doubt it's validity, run them separately.

The error occurs when the program attempts to plot a point off the screen, so yeah, it is technically a bug, but it's not in the math routine.  Look at line 650.  I could trap that for you if you're interested.  Now that I re-discovered the code I intend to fancy it up a bit and make it more user friendly.  It is wanted by some others on vintage computing forums, so it would be no big deal.

Look Tom, either you prove your point that this program does not address the n-body (actually the program is limited to 10 bodies) by showing the error in my code, or have someone else do that for you, or retract your comments.  It's not right to cast aspersions one someone else like this.  I provided you with a numerical simulation and all you do is void all over it without any compunction or attempt to validate your 'reasons' with any rigor at all.  If you understood this stuff, it should be a simple matter for you.  I expect more from someone that professes to educate the world on new ideas.

[Curious Squirrel]

{snipped for brevity}

I would point out that at best all this shows is that Newtonian gravitation doesn't work to explain celestial motion.

I am glad to see agreement that the Heliocentric System cannot be created or exist under current theory. Celestial Mechanics is in the stone age, without even a working theory.

There was no agreement with your statement. I was pointing out that you have not presented a case that the heliocentric solar system cannot work. Once again at best all that shows is that Newton gravity doesn't explain it. Please stop taking snippets of what I say and pretending it agrees with you.

[Rama Set]

GL guys. Tom will not concede a point like this. In the Full Moon thread, icansciencethat provided a model with full mathematical rigour, exactly as Tom requested. Tom said that if said model were provided he would concede the point, but he has not. He isn’t interested in the truth, he is interested in arguing, so if you are game for that, then go to. I have been observing him in his natural habitat for almost ten years and it has always been so.

It doesn’t matter to him how many examples of heliocentric models he is shown, or that an analytic solution to the n-body problem is not the end of the heliocentric model. He literally could care less. He is honing something to write in the wiki, that is all.

[BillO]

Yes, I think you are absolutely right.  I'm pretty well done on this one and more than likely will not put much more effort into it.

Has anyone else noticed a real lack of intellectual integrity amongst some of the FE'ers?

[Rama Set]

Has anyone else noticed a real lack of intellectual integrity amongst some of the FE'ers?

Probably a topic for another thread.

[Tom Bishop]

Newton? Newton invokes divine intervention to explain his solar system. He said it himself!

Newton cannot explain the n-body issues with his model and tells us that god is keeping everything together.

Perhaps a 17th century take on the failure to find a purely analytic solution.  I've not spoken with Newton to get his take on his comments.  Needless to say the computers of the time were not up to the task of providing a purely numerical proof.

I have shown the numerical three body methods as applied to the Sun-Earth-Moon system. We saw what the moon did. Where is this stable Three Body solution?

Neil Degrasse Tyson appears to be more of a TV celebrity than anything. I can't find that he solved any of the n-body issues.

Research his story and quit making assumptions- isn't that what a zetectic does?

What does his story have to do with this topic? Did he solve the three body problems? No. He did not. Get out of here with that.

Then, at the point in question, the moon will leave the earth and continue to orbit the sun, since the sun is applying the more powerful force at that time.

How does the moon get back to the earth?

Your "point" doesn't tell us anything.

It does, it's just that you don't understand.  It is the center of mass of the earth moon system that orbits the sun.  The moon isn't borrowed by the sun and then handed back to the earth.  What kind of thinking is that?  Rene thinking?  They both orbit the sun and also orbit around their common center of mass.  They can't move away from each other further than they are.

I fully understand. At the new moon the sun is applying more force on the moon than the earth. Over twice as much, in fact.

How does the moon get back behind the earth again, to where the earth is between the sun and the moon? Explain.

You said it yourself: "They can't move away from each other further than they are." Eat it. Explain it. How does the moon go around the earth to where the earth can be between it and the sun again?

Look Tom, either you prove your point that this program does not address the n-body (actually the program is limited to 10 bodies) by showing the error in my code, or have someone else do that for you, or retract your comments.

I've already shown that the bodies pass through each other unaffected. You have shown nothing contrary to this. I'm not going to decipher un-commented code from an ancient operating system. You need to demonstrate your case, and so far you have not done so.

GL guys. Tom will not concede a point like this. In the Full Moon thread, icansciencethat provided a model with full mathematical rigour, exactly as Tom requested. Tom said that if said model were provided he would concede the point, but he has not.

I said that if a Round Earth model were provided I would concede the point. Everyone saw the silly model that was presented. The last I checked, the Round Earth model doesn't have the bodies in space projected onto a screen close above the observer's heads. The model is totally invalid as a demonstration, just as Bill's magazine model is totally invalid.

[BillO]

I have shown the numerical three body methods as applied to the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

You didn't

I fully understand. At the new moon the sun is applying more force on the moon than the earth. Over twice as much, in fact.

How does the moon get back behind the earth again, to where the earth is between the sun and the moon? Explain.

I did.  You didn't understand.  The moon is orbiting the Sun.  That's it- that's all.  If you take the earth out of it, the moon will happily orbit the sun at ~93M miles with a period of ~365 days.  Same can be said for the earth without the moon.  They happen to be close to each other so they orbit each other too.  It's butt simple Tom.  Children understand this with ease.

I've already shown that the bodies pass through each other unaffected.

I explained that.  That proves nothing as you did not frame a reason why it should create an instability.  You just did something you did not understand and said "See!"

You have shown nothing contrary to this.

I gave you another version of the model that showed the interaction between two earths.  Like everything else, you dismissed it even though you saw the results.  What more can I do?  What will you not dismiss?

I'm not going to decipher un-commented code from an ancient operating system. You need to demonstrate your case, and so far you have not done so.

The code is simple and does not require documentation to see what it's doing.  The language is BASIC.  I's still around and in use today.  You are not going to do it because you can't.

You have the program, If you doubt the last model I gave you, as I already said, you can run the two earths individually to see that they are both in stable orbits and then run them together to show they interact.

Tom, I'm out of this one.  You have the tools - do the zetetic thing.  I'll give you the last word...

[Tom Bishop]

If Bill's only response to Rene's challenge is "the moon is orbiting the earth" then I suppose there is nothing left to discuss about the matter. Everyone can see it for what it is.

According to Bill, because the moon is orbiting the earth, it doesn't matter what kind of external forces are applied upon the moon. An external force can be twice as powerful, ten times as powerful, whatever, and the moon will just defy that force and move in an opposite direction from it as it continues to rotate around the earth. The moon is orbiting the earth and that's that!

The magic in this response is apparent and obvious.

Of the sun and moon, Bill says it himself: "They can't move away from each other further than they are."

A little honesty peaking trough! Bill admits that the Sun-Earth-Moon system, as it is described, is impossible. It is impossible for the moon to defy the stronger pull of the sun and get behind the earth again, so that the earth is between the sun and the moon.

Lets read it again: "They can't move away from each other further than they are."

Of course not. The moon isn't going to defy a stronger force in favor of a weaker force. In the followup Bill now seems to be spiraling out of control with excuses of "the moon is closer to the earth" or some such thing. As if physical laws were based on sentences that a "child could understand". Very amusing. These are weak arguments, and I agree with Bill's assessment that the best course of action is for you guys to just stop talking about it.

[inquisitive]

Ending this gives Bill time to measure the angle of the sun at different times and locations to determine the shape of the earth.

[garygreen]

Rene's challenge.  Very amusing.

i couldn't agree more.  rene is conflating two different frames of reference (geocentric and heliocentric).

from the geocentric point of view, it doesn't matter that the relative forces are different.  acceleration due to gravity does not depend on the mass of the object being accelerated (eg everything falls at the same rate).  since your new thing is to ask people to do math for you:



since the earth-sun and moon-sun distances are basically identical, then the earth and moon are accelerated by the sun at the same rate and in the same direction.

from the heliocentric point of view the story is more interesting: the moon orbits the sun, and its orbit is perturbed by the earth.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384911423/The-Sun-the-Moon-and-Convexity
https://www.scribd.com/document/384912183/Why-the-Moon-s-Orbit-is-Convex

 

[Tom Bishop]

Rene's challenge.  Very amusing.

i couldn't agree more.  rene is conflating two different frames of reference (geocentric and heliocentric).

from the geocentric point of view, it doesn't matter that the relative forces are different.  acceleration due to gravity does not depend on the mass of the object being accelerated (eg everything falls at the same rate).  since your new thing is to ask people to do math for you:



since the earth-sun and moon-sun distances are basically identical, then the earth and moon are accelerated by the sun at the same rate and in the same direction.

from the heliocentric point of view the story is more interesting: the moon orbits the sun, and its orbit is perturbed by the earth.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384911423/The-Sun-the-Moon-and-Convexity
https://www.scribd.com/document/384912183/Why-the-Moon-s-Orbit-is-Convex

Your argument seem to be that "the moon and earth orbit so closely together so it doesn't matter".

And since they are "close together," you are crossing out various equations for gravity as applied to the earth and the moon? 

Is that a right assessment?

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles. The moon can defy the force of the sun over a course of almost one million miles?

I don't see that either of those pages addresses this question.

[garygreen]

Your argument seem to be that "the moon and earth orbit so closely together so it doesn't matter".

And since they are "close together," you are crossing out various equations for gravity as applied to the earth and the moon? 

Is that a right assessment?

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles. The moon can defy the force of the sun over a course of almost one million miles?

yep, that's an accurate assessment.  the earth is ~149 million km from the sun.  adding 0.5% hardly changes the force.

I don't see that either of those pages addresses this question.

they describe the moon's orbit from a heliocentric point of view.  you've been asking: but wait isn't the sun acting on the moon, too?  answer: it is.  this is already well-understood.  from a heliocentric frame, the moon orbits the sun and is perturbed by the earth.

and in a geocentric frame, the influence of the sun doesn't matter because it curves the paths of the earth and moon in the same way.  the earth and moon are in the same reference frame centered on the system's barycenter.

[BillO]

Rene's challenge.  Very amusing.

i couldn't agree more.  rene is conflating two different frames of reference (geocentric and heliocentric).

from the geocentric point of view, it doesn't matter that the relative forces are different.  acceleration due to gravity does not depend on the mass of the object being accelerated (eg everything falls at the same rate).  since your new thing is to ask people to do math for you:



since the earth-sun and moon-sun distances are basically identical, then the earth and moon are accelerated by the sun at the same rate and in the same direction.

from the heliocentric point of view the story is more interesting: the moon orbits the sun, and its orbit is perturbed by the earth.

https://www.scribd.com/document/384911423/The-Sun-the-Moon-and-Convexity
https://www.scribd.com/document/384912183/Why-the-Moon-s-Orbit-is-Convex

Nicely and elegantly done! 

However, I hope you don't expect this to have any effect on the person you were responding to.  The reason I gave up discussing this with him was because he has no ability to understand it.  You can see his mathematics acumen from his response to you:

The moon's orbital path has a diameter of 768,000 km. That is almost one million miles.

I doubt many on this board will understand, including the person you responded to (obviously) why you were able to make the cancellations you did.  The skills are just not there.

While you have proven your point with simple mathematics, it will be dismissed.

Kudos nonetheless.

[Tom Bishop]

Great one Bill! Your main ammunition is an obvious typo, rather than any real or fundamental error. You even put it into your sig. Looks like a pretty desperate tactic.

We can all see how weak the argument is: Declaring that the moon is close to the earth and then crossing out the physics. High level stuff.

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

Great one Bill! Your main ammunition is an obvious typo, rather than any real or fundamental error. You even put it into your sig. Looks like a pretty desperate tactic

If it's a typo, what did you actually mean to say instead?

[BillO]

My main ammo? "I doubt many on this board will understand, including the person you responded to (obviously) why you were able to make the cancellations you did."

[markjo]

Tom, the moon's orbit around the sun looks something like this:

[totallackey]

They are basically dimensionless... 

Funny!

In response to Tome, you patently admit your whole routine is total shinola!

Dimensionless planets...as fictional as the heliocentric solar system...

LMMFAO!!!

"Would you care to demonstrate how the sun's motion would be significant to the orbital dynamics of the solar system?"

You actually asked that question as if it was legitimate?

If you need that explained to you...omg...

Oh, yes.  I just remembered the problems you FE'ers have with understanding uniform motion, inertial frames of reference and Newton's first law of motion.  Pity.

So my guess is you won't demonstrate how the sun's motion would be significant to the orbital dynamics of the solar system, right?  Good choice as you can't, but I doubt you will ever understand why it is of no significance.

And neither do you demonstrate as to how the Sun's motion is insignificant to the orbital dynamics of the planets around it while traipses around the fictional Milky Way!!!

The onus is on you there Copernicus-lover...

Make me a CGI model of the heliocentric solar system, utilizing Newton, Kepler, and Einstein...

Not excuses!

[BillO]

They are basically dimensionless... 

Funny!

In response to Tome, you patently admit your whole routine is total shinola!

....

And neither do you demonstrate as to how the Sun's motion is insignificant to the orbital dynamics of the planets around it while traipses around the fictional Milky Way!!!

You have not a clue what you are talking about.

To your first ridiculous point: Newton's theory does not depend on the size of the objects, just their mass and the radius between them.  Even a complete idiot can see this:


f= Gm₁m₂/r²


That's the theory - where in there are the dimensions required?  They are not.  They have no bearing on the situation.

To your 2nd ridiculous point: The solar system is an inertial frame of reference WRT to the sun.  Uniform motion of the sun will not and can not affect the solar system as every body in it is also moving along with the sun at exactly the same speed in the direction of the sun's motion.  That's the explanation, there isn't any more one can say about it.  You don't understand that because you don't have the first clue about the mechanics of motion.  Why do you insist on displaying your lack of knowledge on this?

The onus is on you there Copernicus-lover...

Make me a CGI model of the heliocentric solar system, utilizing Newton, Kepler, and Einstein...

Not excuses!

Ahhh, I provided the model and it uses Newton, the onus is on you to prove it does not work.  I know you can't and I hate discussing things with people that proceed proudly from a position of profound ignorance, so I'll give you the last word ... our discussion is done until you provide some tangible proof.