1761

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses

« on: October 09, 2020, 10:38:40 PM »

What those other pictures show, is lens flare and glare. Use the right filters and camera settings and they go away.

Incorrect. It doesn't go away when viewed through a polarized lens filter.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

Polarized Lens Example

It is often asserted that the above effects are caused by glare, and that if one were to view the scene through a polarized lens the glare would be reversed. This assertion invokes an apparent absurdity: to explain the observation of consistent sizes an enlarging glare would need to seemingly intellegintly adjust itself in size, in accordance to the shrinking with perspective and distance to the observer, in order to make the bodies the same size into the distance.

If glare at is making a body 2x its size at position A, for example, a body 8x smaller at 8 times distance from position A would be required to have a glare of 16x to match the glare at position A, which is eight fold increase of the initial ratio. It is questionable how 'glare' could know where the observer is, in order to cause bodies to maintain their sizes into the distance.

With polarized lenses the 'glare' does not shrink. Take a look at this video and demo of a popular pair of polarized glasses for night driving at the 4:52 mark.

We see that there is a car in the distance with headlights that overlap each other:



Now when he applies the polarized lens -- the headlights still overlap:



Continue watching the video to verify that the object in question is indeed a car.

From the video description:

  “ ✔ Polarized 100% UV 400 anti-glare lenses protect your eyes and ensure clarity and control by transforming distorted and distracting light into a crystal clear view ”
—Bluepond Knight Visor

A member of our forum, Thork, says:

  “ I have a actually have a set of those night driving glasses. ...You hold them out over a body of water, for me a small stream. Then turn them 90 degrees. When you do this, suddenly you can't see through the water any more because of the reflection. They are 100% polarised. ”

Polarized Lens Example II

Another example similar to the above is shown in the following video at the 3:06 mark:

HD Night Vision Glasses With Polarized Lenses for Men and Woman By Soxick

On the left hand approaching lane there is a car in the distance with headlights which overlap each other. The headlight of the approaching car are magnified and overlap, both when seen through the polarized lens and without the lens.

What do polarizing filters have to do with anything? They have little to no impact on nighttime glare. Why are you even mentioning them?

1762

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 09, 2020, 09:39:16 PM »

@stack

The instrument devised (interferometer) for the experiment was designed to measure very hyper-exacting distance

Wrong.  Also, please provide some support for your claim that the interferometer was first made to measure distance.  I'm waiting for it...  If your reading comprehension is poor enough that you think that detail was included in the entry level article you posted - you have big problems to address before you can make any further progress learning from reading.

Interesting. You simply say, "Wrong," without providing any evidence other than you just saying, "Wrong." How is this not the detail required: "The path difference of the two beams when they recombine is 2{d}_{1}-2{d}_{2}, where {d}_{1} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{1}, and {d}_{2} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{2}.

As well we have:

A straightforward application for the Michelson interferometer is direct measurement of the wavelength of monochromatic light. By smooth changing of the distance d1(or d2) and counting the interference maxima, which comes as cosine function of the distance, eq. (2.13), one can determine the wave number as number of maxima per unit length,13 and the wavelength as inverse of the wave number.

A short list of the Michelson interferometer applications in the optical spectroscopy application includes:
- wavelength determination;
- measurements of the light coherence length (the interference pattern can be observed only for coherent beams I1 and I2);
- optics diagnostics (an optical component, e. g. a lens, can be inserted between mirrors M1 and M2 and any distortions of the wavefront will be seen in distortions of the interference pattern on the interferometer output);
- fine displacement measurements;
- optical correlators (ultra-short pulse width measurements, will be considered in Chapter 4.5.2);
- Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy;
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/michelson-interferometers

The michelson morely observation is not an experiment.  Words have meanings.

Yes, words do have meaning. And I have no idea what you are getting at. The Michelson-Morley Experiment (MMX for short) is referred to in physics as the "The Michelson-Morley Experiment". Do you take issue with what it is called? If so, please explain.

I think the bigger problem you may have is that is seems you are one of the types of people who offers no evidence to support your claims and expects others to solely rely upon your wisdom which has yet to be revealed in any meaningful way. What sort of evidence do you have that refutes the evidence I have offered. If you could provide something then maybe we could have a conversation about reading comprehension. All we have so far from you is "Wrong."

1763

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses

« on: October 09, 2020, 07:23:04 PM »

Sure, that might be further evidence and another example that luminous objects don't follow the linear shrinking laws of perspective. Quite a deviation to those who say that linear shrinkage should apply to luminous objects.

The FE Theory states that this enlargement takes place on the atmosphere rather than in the eye.

Time-lapse was made with a Canon 1DX Mk2 - fitted with a 70 - 200 lens and a Thousand Oaks Solar filter. Sydney, Australia. No glare, no shrinkage, which means it's really big and really far away. I'm not aware of a magical law of perspective that disregards luminous objects. Is this documented somewhere? (Other than your wiki)

1764

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 09, 2020, 04:48:46 AM »

@stack

You are incorrect. The whole point of the interferometer was to measure minute distance, not motion

The interferometer was first designed and invented for a purpose.  Do you know what that purpose was? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't measuring distance...  If you do have any evidence to support your assertion, I'd be very interested!

The experiment was to determine whether the aether was in motion or stationary.

The instrument devised (interferometer) for the experiment was designed to measure very hyper-exacting distance to derive motion calculations/results. How is that lost on you? How does one measure motion over time? Think about it.

And I already gave you the evidence:

The path difference of the two beams when they recombine is 2{d}_{1}-2{d}_{2}, where {d}_{1} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{1}, and {d}_{2} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{2}. Suppose this path difference is an integer number of wavelengths m{\lambda }_{0}. Then, constructive interference occurs and a bright image of the point on the source is seen at the observer. Now the light from any other point on the source whose two beams have this same path difference also undergoes constructive interference and produces a bright image. The collection of these point images is a bright fringe corresponding to a path difference of m{\lambda }_{0} ((Figure)). When {\text{M}}_{1} is moved a distance \text{Δ}d={\lambda }_{0}\text{/}2, this path difference changes by {\lambda }_{0}, and each fringe moves to the position previously occupied by an adjacent fringe. Consequently, by counting the number of fringes m passing a given point as {\text{M}}_{1} is moved, an observer can measure minute displacements that are accurate to a fraction of a wavelength, as shown by the relation."
https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/the-michelson-interferometer/

1765

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses

« on: October 09, 2020, 04:41:05 AM »

Nope. That's not the last picture you posted. The diameters of the orbs in the night scene in the far field are clearly of identical size.

I said for the "non-glare representation", meaning the one above without glare, the orbs picture above, shrinking all the way, hence the red lines.

As for the "glare" representation you're speaking of, first half of the lights are shrinking then glare totally takes over and you can't really tell what's what.

See, non-glare:

1766

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses

« on: October 09, 2020, 03:59:15 AM »

Nope. Zoom in on the last ten lights in the last picture you posted. It's not consistently shrinking in the far field.

It's called glare. And what about the first 10?

And for the non-glare representation, looks pretty much receding all the way:

1767

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Round Earthers and eclipses

« on: October 09, 2020, 03:33:43 AM »

There are two to five solar eclipses a year, and the annular eclipse occurs once every one or two years. You are pointing out an anomaly. I am fairly sure those astrophysicists know about the existence of the annular eclipse when they were designating the visible size of the sun and moon to be an extraordinary coincidence.

It's surely an "extraordinary coincidence" that there's some effect which makes that happen - keeps the sun the same angular size no matter the distance.

Actually, there is photographic evidence of lights staying a consistent size in the distance. This is long part of FE Theory, which is what you should familiar yourself with if you want to criticize any part of it.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

I've seen the effect described in the above link many times. A receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field do not consistently shrink in a linear manner.

I think your examples are referring to 'glare'.

Without glare, and even with a little, sure a receding line of lights of sufficient quality in the far field does, absolutely, consistently shrink in a linear manner.

1768

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 09, 2020, 12:54:41 AM »

@stack

Interesting! I did not know about this!  Thanks for sharing - I'll take a look.

The interferometer was not designed or invented to measure distance, at least initially - as it seems!

You are incorrect. The whole point of the interferometer was to measure minute distance, not motion. Motion calculations were a byproduct of the device's exacting distance measurement capabilities.

"The Michelson interferometer (invented by the American physicist Albert A. Michelson, 1852–1931) is a precision instrument that produces interference fringes by splitting a light beam into two parts and then recombining them after they have traveled different optical paths...

The path difference of the two beams when they recombine is 2{d}_{1}-2{d}_{2}, where {d}_{1} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{1}, and {d}_{2} is the distance between M and {\text{M}}_{2}. Suppose this path difference is an integer number of wavelengths m{\lambda }_{0}. Then, constructive interference occurs and a bright image of the point on the source is seen at the observer. Now the light from any other point on the source whose two beams have this same path difference also undergoes constructive interference and produces a bright image. The collection of these point images is a bright fringe corresponding to a path difference of m{\lambda }_{0} ((Figure)). When {\text{M}}_{1} is moved a distance \text{Δ}d={\lambda }_{0}\text{/}2, this path difference changes by {\lambda }_{0}, and each fringe moves to the position previously occupied by an adjacent fringe. Consequently, by counting the number of fringes m passing a given point as {\text{M}}_{1} is moved, an observer can measure minute displacements that are accurate to a fraction of a wavelength, as shown by the relation."
https://opentextbc.ca/universityphysicsv3openstax/chapter/the-michelson-interferometer/

1769

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method vs UA

« on: October 07, 2020, 04:58:34 AM »

You should read up on what interferometers do and how they work, they don't measure motion, they measure distance.  I've used interferometers, I've even built my own.

Interferometers are not used (typically, anyhow) nor designed/invented to measure distance, why you think that is beyond me - especially with your claim that you've built one.  They are used to measure motion, which does - in fairness - correspond to an infinitesimal "distance" (distance between fringes).  Using a laser and timing its return for distance estimation is in no way an interferometer.  Perhaps you do not need this clarification, however there are likely some reading that do.

I'm not sure where you're getting all that from. But Interferometers certainly are all about distance (and size) measurements.

"The interferometer was invented by Albert A. Michelson in about 1880. It is an optical instrument that has been redesigned in numerous forms and has many applications in optics where precision measurements are required. Michelson originally designed the interferometer for ether-drift experiments to prove the existence of the medium, which was thought to explain the propagation of light. He also used the interferometer to define the International Standard Meter in terms of the red wavelength of cadmium light, to study the fine structure in spectral lines, to determine the degree of rigidity and elasticity of the earth, and to measure the angular diameters of the satellites of Jupiter and the diameters of several of the largest stars...
Interferometers are used as a tool for stellar astrophysics, principally for the measurement of the angular diameters of stars and for the measurement of binary star orbits."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-an-optical-interf/

Time Line for the Definition of the Meter
1892 Michelson used an interferometer that he developed to determine the length of
the International Prototype Meter in terms of the cadmium red line wavelength.
His measurements gave the meter a value of 1,553,164.13 times the wavelength
of cadmium red in air, at 760 mm of atmospheric pressure at 15 °C.

1925 The Michelson interferometer was in regular use at BIPM for measuring length.
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/pml/div683/museum-timeline.pdf

Perhaps you do not need this clarification, however there are likely some reading that do.

1770

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 01, 2020, 11:03:32 PM »

Affirmative action is racism.

Trying to populate schools based on a certain race rather than academic merit = racism

Hiring based on race rather than merit = racism

If you are preferring one race over another it's racism. Get out of here with your racist stuff. It's not good to eliminate Civil Rights protections so the government can hire based on race. That's bad, and racist.

Whatever you say Tom. Your world is very black and white. The real world is much more gray and nuanced.

1771

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 01, 2020, 10:44:31 PM »

Do you even read or watch the idiotic, racist content that you spew? Here is a quote from that video:

"Prop 16 would allow public agencies such as local governments and state universities to consider race, gender and ethnicity as factors in hiring, contracting and admissions."

Yep, deleting Civil Rights protections would allow the government to hire based on race and universities to admit based on race. That's a bad thing, FYI. The law before that, which they are erasing, said that all races were equal.

All races are equal = Good Republican position

Some races better than others = Bad racist Democrat position

You are merely here promoting racism, admitting that this is a racist proposition.

"Proposition 16 amends the California Constitution by repealing Section 31 of Article I, the section added by Prop 209. This would allow public agencies to reinstate affirmative action policies that attempt to support members of disadvantaged or underrepresented groups that have previously suffered discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and housing.[13] Since the passage of Proposition 209, there have been several legislative attempts to revise the application of its provisions, most notably California Senate Constitutional Amendment No. 5 which was shelved due to strong opposition, mainly from Asian Americans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_California_Proposition_16

Yes, when I think of the Good Republican positions the first thing that really jumps out in front of everything else is their undaunted support of racial equality. The funniest thing I've heard in a while. Thanks for the laugh. I think you should go back to defending the Proud Boys, seems more your speed than interpreting proposed legislation.

1772

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 01, 2020, 10:08:41 PM »

No, there is nothing they are adding to the California constitution in this. Repeal only. Stop fibbing. You are suggesting that there is some future vote which will put this back in. Another lie from you.

They say exactly what they want to do in that link. They don't want to put it back in. Here is the argument from a state senator:



They want us to stop "saying that race is not a factor". This is straight from the senator and not from your distrustworthy fingers.

They are arguing that it's okay to be racist. They want to hire based on race and are asking us to stop pretending that race is not a factor. This is a pro-racism argument. End of story. You are defending admitted racists and their attempt at institutionalized racism.

You clearly don't have a handle on what Prop 16 is actually about. If you need it dumbed down, here you go. Prop 16 explained in a 60 seconds. Yes to reinstating Affirmative Action in Cal or No:

1773

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 01, 2020, 08:38:45 PM »

Nope, they are repealing the protections, not amending them with more protections. That is a blatant lie. The content of the page clearly says that they are repealing the Civil Rights protections which contains following text:

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.
(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.
(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.
(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.
(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.[2]

All of that is crossed out. They are repealing that. They are not adding in protections. There is no text for anything that they are adding in. Go to that link and find the text they are adding in. Just read the link.

There is not a section on that page where they are adding anything in. Repeal only.

From the link:



This would make discrimination legal.

This is one of the D arguments:



They want to be able to discriminate by race for college admissions, so therefore the Civil Rights protections for the entire state needs to go.

Bad people.

Nice cherry-picking as usual. It's far more complicated than you make it out to be. 16 is intended to bring affirmative action back onto the playing field where 209 dispensed with it. Like I said, two different methodologies trying to achieve the same end. And both have their merits. In some cases some underrepresented groups faired better under 209, specifically women. Where people of color are still underrepresented in, for instance, the UC system. I don't know if 16 will alleviate the situation. The problem with any form of affirmative action is that it can be perceived to, and in some cases, in actuality, discriminate against one group while benefiting another in order to proportionally balance the population demographics against the make-up of institutions. And in some ways 209 does nothing to balance that proportion and perhaps inadvertently allows for discrimination in the name of protection. There's no easy answer and neither is a panacea.

The only bad people here is you as your myopic view is not helpful and is neither measured, holistic, thoughtful, nor thought through.

1774

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 01, 2020, 07:33:50 PM »

The worst has always come from the left, historically and presently. They are bad people. Legislature in California, which is controlled by the left, is presently trying to REPEAL Civil Rights protections.

See: http://archive.is/yvMXz



Guess who is voting for repeal of Civil Rights protections. Democrats:



Who would have thought? Bad throughout history. Bad now.

You are misrepresenting this using a buzz phrase like, "REPEAL Civil Rights protections". The Prop is about bringing Affirmative Action back into the CAL constitution. Which is actually an extreme, if not controversial, protection of civil rights, not a repeal of those rights. It all comes down to how one feels about Affirmative Action and it's usefulness in the protection of the underrepresented. It is very pro-civil rights, but certainly not exempt from misuse or abuse under less than optimal circumstances. Equally so is the existing prop 209 it seeks to amend.

Both the existing 209 and the proposed 16 have their pluses and minuses. Neither have sought nor seek to remove civil rights. Just two different ways of preserving civil rights and we need to decide which methodology is best. So lighten up on the rhetoric and stick to the facts.

1775

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: September 20, 2020, 07:04:37 PM »

Seems like the definition of hypocrisy:

1776

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Analytical Analyses

« on: May 18, 2020, 08:14:28 AM »

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

I have no idea how you can keep repeating this.  What sources say we can't predict the motion of celestial systems past two bodies?  Nobody. All you can find are math papers saying we can't solve the problems using ONE method, but there are thousands talking about other methods that work just fine.  Plus we have all those spacecraft zooming all over that seem to find their way, and the oft-mentioned comets hitting Jupiter that were predicted perfectly.

No matter how many times you say we can't, predictions prove you are wrong.

Are you going to give us a source explaining how physcists were able to overcome the Three Body Problem to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system, in contradiction to the Nova documentary's contrary statements of what happened after Newton published his laws? Or will you continue to cite your own self?

The basic scheme of RE cosmology says that it is possible to have a star with a planet and a moon. Hundreds of years of research by the greatest mathematicians have been unable to get that to work, however.

Here's an interesting paper, "Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem", that discusses all of the solutions from Kepler on up through Newton to roughly today. A lot of stuff has happened since Newton. All with ever increasing accuracy. The bottom line is that for our purposes we can accurately predict the Moon-Earth-Sun system movement to a high degree of precision.
http://sites.apam.columbia.edu/courses/ap1601y/Moon-Earth-Sin%20RMP.70.589.pdf

It is pretty damning that the basic idea of a star with a planet and a moon can't stay together and that the accepted model does not have working laws.

It's more damning that FET has no knowledge of where a star and a moon are in relation to a planet at all. Helio can give a pretty precise approximation and prediction as evidenced by some of the work referenced in the paper above. FET has no knowledge of any celestial mechanics. Zero. FET doesn't know where any objects in the heavens are or their size let alone being able to predict anything. Your time may be better spent trying to show how the Sun, Moon, and planets, even comets, work within FET rather than looking for holes in Newton.

 

1777

Flat Earth Theory / Re: International Space Station

« on: May 18, 2020, 02:45:21 AM »

Side note, someone please explain to me how to pull individual quotes from a person’s reply, so people don’t have to scroll through a text wall to see what I’m replying to.

Check out the code for this and you will see how to pull out a quote.

1778

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 15, 2020, 12:49:23 AM »

Nope. There were methods to predict the eclipses long, long, before Newton or Copernicus were even born. You are merely inferring that it must be done through a dynamical Three Body Problem.

Of course there were ways long ago. We've just gotten way more advanced and precise post Newton & Copernicus. From the same article:

"To factor all of that in, eclipse modelers like Wright use the 19th-century coordinate system as a starting point, but then calculate the view for millions of simulated observers by working in the profile of the moon, size and angle of the sun in the sky, as well as elevation at each of the points on the ground. That lets them plot out the swath of land that will see an eclipse, and how long it will last at each point. The number of calculations would seem very strange to early eclipse modelers, but isn't unusual for fields like computer graphics.

"We're able to do modern calculations now just because of this confluence of computing power and large datasets describing the shape of the moon and the Earth," Wright said.

Kindly quote a physicist who says that the Three Body Problem can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

What sort of solution are you looking for? Numerical, analytical, simulations?

And any luck on finding a modern day FE physicist to help rough out all of the celestial mechanics FET seems ignorant of?

1779

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 15, 2020, 12:26:44 AM »

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Not down to the 100 meter mark.

When you figure out where the Sun and other celestial bodies are and where they go and you have a map of earth, you too can play with the big boys in calculating and simulating n body scenarios. Until such time, FET has no knowledge of the heavens nor where things are on Earth. Helio seems to be nailing predictions left, right, and center in comparison. Or do you have an FE Physicist that has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system?

What are you talking about? The claim was "While RE (or just “science”) provides an explanatory framework."

Now, do you have a physicist who you can cite to tell us that the Three Body Problem works to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system or will you concede on this subject and admit that the laws proposed by RE Theory fail to show how a star can have a planet with a moon around it?

Helio predicted down to the 100 meter mark totality during the 2017 eclipse and was observed to be correct. From the same space.com article:

"Wright uses elevation data from NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission, which measures the elevation at 1,200 points between each line of latitude or longitude. He also takes into account the precise locations of the Earth, moon and sun at each time, and the time the sunlight takes to travel to the moon and then down to Earth."

Seems that Helio solved that Sun-Earth-Moon scenario quite well. I don't see FET solving much of anything. Are there any modern FE Physicists you could find that could help FET out with the 3 body problem??

1780

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: A flaw with the Flat Earth model?

« on: May 15, 2020, 12:07:31 AM »

Why does everything distill down to the 3 body problem for you? Look at it this way, from a practical real world example of 3 body scenario predicted and solved: The 2017 North American Total Solar Eclipse.

Eclipses can be predicted in ways that do not involve the three body problem. Lets see a source from a physicist that the three body problem has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

Not down to the 100 meter mark.

When you figure out where the Sun and other celestial bodies are and where they go and you have a map of earth, you too can play with the big boys in calculating and simulating n body scenarios. Until such time, FET has no knowledge of the heavens nor where things are on Earth. Helio seems to be nailing predictions left, right, and center in comparison. Or do you have an FE Physicist that has solutions for the Sun-Earth-Moon system?