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_problemIf 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.