The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: Tron on July 27, 2022, 12:04:48 AM

Title: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 27, 2022, 12:04:48 AM
Hi Guys,

I thought I would share with you a theory I'm working on.  I believe that a central landmass lies at the center of each Galaxy.  These land masses are what we refer to as Black Holes.   

Traditionally, black holes are viewed as very dense collapsed stars with no visible light emission.   Below is an artist rendition of a black hole and an article describing them more.  https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/2319/first-image-of-a-black-hole/

(https://i.imgur.com/ctXthTH.jpg)

The second image is a re-creation of what I think the center of each galaxy looks like. You'll notice I replaced the center with a habitable land mass and a solar system similar to our own.  Rotating planets, gas, and asteroids around a central star system may be shared by all galaxies.  The "orange rings" of hot gas we see in black hole photographs are Auroras caused by solar radiation hitting the atmosphere like on Earth.  Unfortunately, it might be too dim to capture images of land beyond a black hole. 

(https://i.imgur.com/Rzhto78.png)

The original image came from an article that describes another theory of two merging black holes early in the Milky Way's history if you're interested: http://annesastronomynews.com/has-galactic-black-hole-swallowed-its-counterpart/.
 
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on July 27, 2022, 02:11:01 AM
Just curious, but what makes you think this?  Have you made some sort of compelling observation based on the solution to a physical model, or is it just made up?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 27, 2022, 02:21:48 AM
I suppose the most compelling reasons for me are observational data.  Right now we agree that the solar system orbits the Milky Way.  But in the past 10-20 years, we've discovered many smaller Dwarf Galaxies also orbit the Milky Way. To me, its not a stretch to believe we are one of them.

Assuming this is true, then our island dwarf galaxy Earth would look similar to other galaxies. 
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: markjo on July 27, 2022, 02:49:46 AM
Are you suggesting that the spiral arms of the Milky Way are actually dwarf galaxies? ???
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 27, 2022, 02:51:54 AM
No, but smaller galaxies are born from the spiral arms.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: stack on July 27, 2022, 05:27:41 AM
Hi Guys,

I thought I would share with you a theory I'm working on.  I believe that a central landmass lies at the center of each Galaxy.  These land masses are what we refer to as Black Holes.   

Hey Tron,
I think supposedly most galaxies, dwarf or otherwise, have a black hole at the galactic center. In your theory, do all galaxies have a landmass at their respective galactic centers?

Also, what’s the purpose of calling the solar system a dwarf galaxy versus not? Is it sort of a geostationary argument in that the landmass at the center is not revolving? I don’t quite get why having the dwarf galaxy label applied to the solar system.

As an aside, more common notions are that the solar system is inside the Milky Way whereas the 50 or so dwarf galaxies in question are outside the Milky Way. Some actually orbit the MW, some do not. The latter are sort of just passing by or actually orbiting other galaxies.

As well, conventionally, even the smallest of galaxies, dwarves, have billions of stars and solar systems. Our little patch of space, earth and the other 7 planets, only have one star, the Sun.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 27, 2022, 06:19:31 AM
Hi Guys,

I thought I would share with you a theory I'm working on.  I believe that a central landmass lies at the center of each Galaxy.  These land masses are what we refer to as Black Holes.   

Also, what’s the purpose of calling the solar system a dwarf galaxy versus not? Is it sort of a geostationary argument in that the landmass at the center is not revolving? I don’t quite get why having the dwarf galaxy label applied to the solar system.

Solar systems only tell part of the story.  If we are at the center of a galaxy, then earths role changes a bit.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 27, 2022, 07:16:36 AM
Here is a photo of Carina - A Dwarf Galaxy orbiting the Milky Way. 

(https://i.imgur.com/ksslZpf.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carina_Dwarf_Spheroidal_Galaxy

Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 27, 2022, 07:26:10 AM
I suppose the most compelling reasons for me are observational data.
But as Stack points out, your proposal does not remotely correspond to observation.   You seem to accept the existence of galaxies of stars but not the characteristics and/or relationships of those objects.   Dreaming or brain doodling or whatever you want to call it can be entertaining but when you say that your are working on a theory that sounds like you view it as more than that.  Care to elaborate?

Note the evidence for black holes is the path of stars orbiting what seems an empty spot in space, from which we can estimate the mass of that unseen object and its so huge it must be a black hole.  As well as the observation of an event horizon where gas pulled into a black hole is heated and glows but then disappears.  Only black holes, as far as we know, produce this effect.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 27, 2022, 08:03:20 AM
The grand theory will see similarities between observations we see on earth with those in neighboring galaxies.      I'm aware that we locate black holes by the orbiting bodies around it.  I'm not sure if they are orbiting the black hole or its accompanying solar system.  And below is a short clip of the northern lights.  Heated gas goes into and out of view:  Northern Lights clip:  https://player.vimeo.com/video/45819280?h=bfb07b50a6
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 27, 2022, 08:49:23 AM
The grand theory will see similarities between observations we see on earth with those in neighboring galaxies.
Again you seem to accept the existence of galaxies but not that our sun is just one star of the 100s of billions in the Milky Way galaxy and that even nearby galaxies are vastly far away.  That is what observations tell us.
     I'm aware that we locate black holes by the orbiting bodies around it.  I'm not sure if they are orbiting the black hole or its accompanying solar system.
Its possible that planets could be orbiting black holes, but even if so the mass of a bunch of planets would be nothing compared to that of a black hole and the observed orbits of the stars require a giant mass.

  And below is a short clip of the northern lights.  Heated gas goes into and out of view:  Northern Lights clip:  https://player.vimeo.com/video/45819280?h=bfb07b50a6
Northern lights are an entirely different phenomenon and produce entirely different radiation than gas being massively heated as it falls into a black hole.  The first images of the event horizon were captures by radio telescopes as well as the Chandra X-Ray telescope.  What you see are false color images of that data where as the aurora borealis are of course visible light.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on July 27, 2022, 01:07:19 PM
Assuming this is true, then our island dwarf galaxy Earth would look similar to other galaxies.
However, our local structure in the galaxy is nothing like a dwarf galaxy and the planets and sun do not orbit the earth.  We are actually near the margin of one of the spiral arms where the stars are much less densely populated.  Further, we are nothing like a black hole.  If you squeezed the earth down to a black hole it would be smaller than a golf ball.  Not much landmass there.  Then lets add the the gravity associated with a black hole would not permit anything like the kind of life we see about us.

I see no compelling reasons to draw the same conclusions as yourself.  What your proposing is a wild guess with nothing to substantiate it.  Not a scientific theory.

I'm not sure you watched that video I posted to another thread, but Feynman clearly delineated that science is a process.  You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 28, 2022, 04:49:15 PM
Hi All,

I've updated the image at the top of this thread to better explain my theory. 

I'm aware traditional science holds we are living in a small solar system within the milky way.  One of trillions of stars.  I'm suggesting that even though our world developed in the milky way, eventually we branched off and became a dwarf galaxy like our neighbors.  

Then what are the stars?   I don't believe galaxies or stars are as big as everyone says they are.  Like my image suggests, I think earth is relatively big and sits below the sun.  Planets and asteroids all orbit the sun and account for everything we see in the sky.  The Sun is the only "nuclear" object in the sky for which everything rotates around - except earth.  Other Galaxies have their own primary sun or bi-nary star system in the center which has planets, asteroids, and accreditation disks orbiting them as well.  

We are an "Island Universe" to ourselves.... stars included.

I think this answers most questions about earth's location. the size of stars, galaxies, etc...  Some asked what compelling data do you have that explains your model to observations?

First, Flat Earth Theory...   Over the years, many people have developed an earth model which matches observations....  I don't need to go into that.

Second, Other phenomena within galaxies that I think our own "system" can explain are Fermi Bubbles.  Huge plumbs of hot gas above and below a galactic plane as seen in purple.  I think these are what we on earth call the "Heliosphere" created by the sun emitting heat.  
Third, Relativistic Jets are another phenomena earth could explain.  Huge rays of light sometimes shine from the center of galaxies above and below the plane.  I believe Earth's Rotation can twist magnetic field lines up into space and the Sun's light illuminates it.  I don't think we can observe this from earth but Earth has the mechanisms to explain them.

Fourth, obviously Galaxies spin.  Earth and our Solar system also spin. 
Fifth, the first images of Black Holes show in my opinion the Radio Signature of an Aurora...  Very powerful electrical and magnetic events that fit well in the model above - even the twisty magnetic lines are shared between earth Auroras and Black Hole "aura's".  OhPlease - if the Chandra x ray radio telescope imaged earth's auroras I think you'd see the same images as a black hole almost exactly in size and shape. 

Lastly, scientists have speculated there is a large mass at the center of each galaxy holding everything into its orbit.   Naturally they assumed it was a traditional star system with a massive star in the middle.  However, flat earth theory can also explain celestial orbit and account for the large mass in the middle.

I could go on, but I would rather answer any specific questions if you have them.  
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: stack on July 28, 2022, 06:20:45 PM
Hi All,

I've updated the image at the top of this thread to better explain my theory.

I'm aware traditional science holds we are living in a small solar system within the milky way.  One of trillions of stars.  I'm suggesting that even though our world developed in the milky way, eventually we branched off and became a dwarf galaxy like our neighbors.   

Why? What's the benefit of your theory over conventional thinking?

Then what are the stars?   I don't believe galaxies or stars are as big as everyone says they are. 

Why? Why don't you think that?

Like my image suggests, I think earth is relatively big and sits below the sun.  Planets and asteroids all orbit the sun and account for everything we see in the sky. 

I could be wrong, but your updated graphic puts all the planets in between Earth and the Sun. Is that what we observe?

However, flat earth theory can also explain celestial orbit and account for the large mass in the middle.

How does FE explain celestial orbit and account for the large mass in the middle?  In other words, which FE proposal, as there are many, is attributable to the things you mention?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 28, 2022, 07:54:44 PM
I'll try to answer a few of your questions sincerely.

I honestly think over time as observations become better along with telescopes like the James Webb, then we will see our orbit and position around the Milky Way is similar to Dwarf Galaxies.

I'm not sure why we measure stars and galaxies larger than I believe they are.  I just don't believe we can see objects light years away.  Or that light can travel that far... 

As to my claim "earth sits beneath the sun" it is misleading.  I was trying to seperate earth from the sun and its orbiting celestials.  My rendering is not to scale.  The best pictures of our solar system are obviously from space.  The earth and planets look so small from satellite images far away it's not worth me posting them but here is a link from the Voyager 1 spacecraft looking at the solar system from VERY far away.  https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/solar-system-portrait/#gallery-1 

What's interesting is how small the earth looks!   But when you remember only a certain portion of  earth is illuminated during the day and the atmosphere literally halves the image it looks like every other planet.  Another reason other large land masses like earth aren't detected in neighboring galaxies, until black holes came along.

I can try to offer you my FE Theory on Celestial Orbits.  I went into this before during our moon orbit and Apollo landing conversation, but basically objects orbit around the sun (besides earth) because the sun creates powerful winds that circle it in upwards of a million miles an hour.  And obviously the large mass in the middle of galaxies is the large world. 
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: stack on July 28, 2022, 08:45:07 PM
I'll try to answer a few of your questions sincerely.

I honestly think over time as observations become better along with telescopes like the James Webb, then we will see our orbit and position around the Milky Way is similar to Dwarf Galaxies.

Why? Why do you think this? What is driving you to think JWST will change our perception of our location in the Milky Way? What does changing our thinking from being a solar system to being a galaxy achieve?

I'm not sure why we measure stars and galaxies larger than I believe they are. 

It seems prudent to understand how we conventionally measure star distance and then come up with a better way to measure before you just toss out that you think something is wrong before you understand it.

I just don't believe we can see objects light years away.  Or that light can travel that far... 

What compels you, specifically, to think this?

As to my claim "earth sits beneath the sun" it is misleading.  I was trying to seperate earth from the sun and its orbiting celestials.  My rendering is not to scale.  The best pictures of our solar system are obviously from space.  The earth and planets look so small from satellite images far away it's not worth me posting them but here is a link from the Voyager 1 spacecraft looking at the solar system from VERY far away.  https://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/images-voyager-took/solar-system-portrait/#gallery-1 

What's interesting is how small the earth looks!

Things that are 4 billion miles away probably look pretty small.

I can try to offer you my FE Theory on Celestial Orbits.  I went into this before during our moon orbit and Apollo landing conversation, but basically objects orbit around the sun (besides earth) because the sun creates powerful winds that circle it in upwards of a million miles an hour.  And obviously the large mass in the middle of galaxies is the large world.

Why do these solar winds only impact other planets? What have you done to determine that solar winds cause planets to orbit it?

Are all the large masses in the middle of a gazillion galaxies a "world"?

And thanks for your time fielding questions.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 28, 2022, 10:50:13 PM
I'll try to answer a few of your questions sincerely.

I honestly think over time as observations become better along with telescopes like the James Webb, then we will see our orbit and position around the Milky Way is similar to Dwarf Galaxies.
You accept that the JWST is real, is making observations of the cosmos and was launched from earth into space.  But everything about that process like all space launches was calculated on the standard (RE) model of the solar system which you claim is completely and radical wrong.   If JWST is real then the earth is round.  You can't have it both ways.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2022, 12:20:26 AM
You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

This disproves much of your astronomical theories. The physics of galaxies and the three body problem do not work -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Galactic_Epicycles

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on July 29, 2022, 01:54:08 AM
You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

This disproves much of your astronomical theories. The physics of galaxies and the three body problem do not work -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Galactic_Epicycles

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
We've been through this before Tom.

The three (or more) body problem is one of finding an analytic solution to a system of differential equations.  It has nothing to do with the physics.  You have always been unable to differentiate between using numerical methods to find an analytic solution and running a numerical simulation.  Numerical simulations prove the physics and can be used to predict reality to arbitrary precision.

As I said we have been trough this before.   Others have had this dance with you too.  Your unwillingness to educate yourself leaves you ignorant, stupid and constantly getting this wrong.  I don't want or need to go here with you again.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 29, 2022, 02:56:31 AM
You begin by making a calculated guess based on a mathematical model, then compare that to experiment.  If the result of the experiment does not support your calculations, they get thrown out and you begin again.  That is how the process (simplified) of science works.  That process is not what I see here.  You might actually enjoy that video.

This disproves much of your astronomical theories. The physics of galaxies and the three body problem do not work -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Galactic_Epicycles

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
We've been through this before Tom.

The three (or more) body problem is one of finding a analytic solution to the system of differential equations.  It has nothing to do with the physics.  You have always been unable to differentiate between using numerical methods to find an analytic solution and running a numerical simulation.  Numerical simulations prove the physics and can be used to predict reality to arbitrary precision.

As I said we have been trough this before.   Others have had this dance with you too.  Your unwillingness to educate yourself leaves you ignorant, stupid and constantly getting this wrong.  I don't want or need to go here with you again.
Indeed.  The theory here is general relativity and it has been verified by gravity probe B (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/gpb/) which directly measured the curvature, in addition to our being able to predict how the path of bodies moving through space will be impacted.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2022, 03:30:44 AM
Numerical simulations prove the physics and can be used to predict reality to arbitrary precision.

As I said we have been trough this before.   Others have had this dance with you too.  Your unwillingness to educate yourself leaves you ignorant, stupid and constantly getting this wrong.  I don't want or need to go here with you again.

Yes, we have been through this before, and you were wrong. Numerical solutions are not solutions which use the full physics of the situation. We have a page for you to address here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: stack on July 29, 2022, 04:52:50 AM
If we can solve the n-body issue to a high level of accuracy for a given set numerically, what exactly is the problem?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2022, 06:56:44 AM
If we can solve the n-body issue to a high level of accuracy for a given set numerically, what exactly is the problem?

The problem is that it does not use a full version of gravity where gravity is universal. It uses a series of independent two body problems or other cheats. See the link I gave: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 29, 2022, 07:40:15 AM
We've been through this before Tom.
And you will again - or someone will, there's always someone willing to feed the troll it seems.
What Tom repeatedly fails to understand, or pretends to, is that breaking a problem which we currently can't solve down into smaller problems which we can is a perfectly valid technique. So long as the results are close enough a match to reality to be useful. Which they demonstrably in this case are given the accuracy with which celestial phenomena can be predicted.
One may pause at this point to consider the hypocrisy of pointing out this speck in RE's eye while with a straight face ignoring the log in the eye of FE which has no working map and has "theories" like EA which has an equation with no derivation, an unknown constant and has no predictive power whatsoever.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: stack on July 29, 2022, 07:42:33 AM
If we can solve the n-body issue to a high level of accuracy for a given set numerically, what exactly is the problem?

The problem is that it does not use a full version of gravity where gravity is universal. It uses a series of independent two body problems or other cheats. See the link I gave: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

I've read all that. I'm just trying to figure out the significance as it pertains to FE. Is this some sort of argument for UA?

As well, using the numerical solutions seem to get a fairly high level of accuracy. Perhaps not perfect, but very good. And utilized with alot of success. So why is so important to FE that we don't quite yet have an analytical solution?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 29, 2022, 07:51:19 AM
If we can solve the n-body issue to a high level of accuracy for a given set numerically, what exactly is the problem?

The problem is that it does not use a full version of gravity where gravity is universal. It uses a series of independent two body problems or other cheats. See the link I gave: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions
The lack of a closed solution to the 3 Body Problem in no way casts doubt on General Relativity.  GR well describes how mass curves space and that has been experimentally verified.  The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that.  That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation.  You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 29, 2022, 08:10:45 AM
Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist. 
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on July 29, 2022, 04:07:29 PM
And you will again -
Not on this subject.  Tom is content with his ignorance in this regard and I feel no compulsion to elevate him out of it.

He maintains this ignorance intentionally in order to support his Fake Earth nonsense.  How do you deal with someone that does that?  It's not possible.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: SteelyBob on July 29, 2022, 05:25:33 PM
Yes, we have been through this before, and you were wrong. Numerical solutions are not solutions which use the full physics of the situation. We have a page for you to address here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Yes, we have been here before, and you never, ever address the fundamental flaws in your argument when pointed out. Examples include:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17884.msg235076#msg235076 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17884.msg235076#msg235076)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17923.msg235482#msg235482 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17923.msg235482#msg235482)
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17927.msg236050#msg236050 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17927.msg236050#msg236050)

There's very little point in engaging when you've shown such bad faith in your prior discussion on a subject that you clearly either a) don't understand or b) wilfully misrepresent.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 29, 2022, 07:03:38 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
And you will again - or someone will, there's always someone willing to feed the troll it seems.
What Tom repeatedly fails to understand, or pretends to, is that breaking a problem which we currently can't solve down into smaller problems which we can is a perfectly valid technique.

The problem is that planets, moons, and asteroids traversing the solar system in the real scenario would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical fudges. If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

Quote from: stack
I've read all that. I'm just trying to figure out the significance as it pertains to FE. Is this some sort of argument for UA?

As well, using the numerical solutions seem to get a fairly high level of accuracy. Perhaps not perfect, but very good. And utilized with alot of success. So why is so important to FE that we don't quite yet have an analytical solution?

You can use unrelated gravitational physics, limited gravitational interaction, and mathematical fudges to come to any result you want. None of it shows that universal gravitation actually works to simulate astronomical systems. That it needs to be done this way does more to discredit it than support it.

It should be possible for a star to have a planet which has a moon, for the paths of asteroids to be explainable, and for solar systems and galaxies to exist. Yet the difficulty simulating this undermines accepted theories of astronomy.

Quote from: ohplease
The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that.  That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation.  You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.

It is apparent that you guys have abandoned claiming that you have a working model of gravity and are now appealing to space ships "flying around the solar system" to prove disjointed gravitationally selective models.

Your model simply doesn't work and the excuses are poor.

Quote from: DuncanDoenitz
Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist.

The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: WTF_Seriously on July 29, 2022, 08:25:17 PM
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

I was simply going to lurk here, but this is such utter bullshit I can't help it.

Can we simulate and model the whirlpools of the deception pass bridge?

(https://i.imgur.com/68huqq7.jpg)

Of course we can't because we don't have the math to do it.  Do they exist in reality?  I've seen them myself.  Perhaps you should too, they're pretty amazing at times.

I'll just leave this here again for you to think about.

As I said we have been trough this before.   Others have had this dance with you too.  Your unwillingness to educate yourself leaves you ignorant, stupid and constantly getting this wrong.  I don't want or need to go here with you again.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 29, 2022, 08:27:31 PM
Quote from: ohplease
The fact that we must use numerical methods to plot the path of multiple masses through space does not invalidate any of that.  That those methods produce very accurate predictions of the paths of celestial bodies and allows us fly around the solar system with great precision only adds further validation.  You either know that or simply refuse to educate yourself about such things.

It is apparent that you guys have abandoned claiming that you have a working model of gravity and are now appealing to space ships "flying around the solar system" to prove disjointed gravitationally selective models.
You conveniently left out the mention that Gravity Probe B has directly verified the curvature of space due to the earth.

Quote from: DuncanDoenitz
Its complex = Humans haven't found a way to calculate it yet = It doesn't exist.

The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.
The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on July 29, 2022, 09:09:20 PM
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.
Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 30, 2022, 03:00:19 PM
You accept that the JWST is real, is making observations of the cosmos and was launched from earth into space.  But everything about that process like all space launches was calculated on the standard (RE) model of the solar system which you claim is completely and radical wrong.   If JWST is real then the earth is round.  You can't have it both ways.

I acknowledge within the "flat earth" system many of the distances are different then in the standard RE model.  But many of these distances are measured without a good frame of reference.  Planes see lots of snow when going fast around the world. The ISS sees lots of water going around the equator.  And spacecraft see a lot of space.

I accept the standard RE model is adequate for day to day travel needs.  But considering new ideas I have faith will lead to greater understanding and will benefit society. 
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 30, 2022, 04:02:28 PM
You accept that the JWST is real, is making observations of the cosmos and was launched from earth into space.  But everything about that process like all space launches was calculated on the standard (RE) model of the solar system which you claim is completely and radical wrong.   If JWST is real then the earth is round.  You can't have it both ways.

I acknowledge within the "flat earth" system many of the distances are different then in the standard RE model.  But many of these distances are measured without a good frame of reference.  Planes see lots of snow when going fast around the world. The ISS sees lots of water going around the equator.  And spacecraft see a lot of space.
I do not know what any of that means, but only the following pertains to the point I raised:
I accept the standard RE model is adequate for day to day travel needs.  But considering new ideas I have faith will lead to greater understanding and will benefit society.
Launching a spacecraft (like JWST or any others) is a complex process requiring careful calculation as to trajectories, speed, fuel burn, payload weight etc etc etc.  It is not at all like day to day travel.  Just as a tiny example the rotational speed of the launch site is a key factor.

From The JWST launch (https://jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/launch.html)
Webb was launched from Arianespace's ELA-3 launch complex at Europe's Spaceport located near Kourou, French Guiana. It is beneficial for launch sites to be located near the equator - the spin of the Earth can help give an additional push. The surface of the Earth at the equator is moving at 1670 km/hr.

All of those parameters are calculated based on a round earth and all that that implies.  If you accept that these craft are successfully launched into orbit or whatever their destination was, i.e. that these calculations worked, then you are accepting the RE.

Likewise you seem to accept the pictures from space are real.
The best pictures of our solar system are obviously from space.
But all such pictures show a round rotating earth orbiting the sun. Despite the vast number of such images (still and video) none show a flat earth or the dome or the underside of the flat earth.  Not only could we not have launched such probes if the earth was flat but the data they send back also confirm its roundness.  You seem to accept all of that yet claim that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: markjo on July 30, 2022, 04:08:32 PM
I acknowledge within the "flat earth" system many of the distances are different then in the standard RE model.  But many of these distances are measured without a good frame of reference.
What frame of reference would you recommend for measuring distance on the earth?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on July 30, 2022, 04:43:12 PM
But many of these distances are measured without a good frame of reference. 
\\You must be talking about your Fake Earth.  On the Real Earth we use a system of latitudes and longitudes as a frame of reference.  It works wonderfully at allowing us to determine distances from one place to the next.  Maybe you should educate yourself on that before moving on to a world where nothing works.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 30, 2022, 05:47:17 PM
If an area is difficult to directly measure, then maps and everything that goes into making maps are the next best thing.   And earth itself is probably the best frame of reference from space because its dimensions are generally understood.



Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: markjo on July 30, 2022, 08:23:31 PM
Yes, the earth's dimensions are very well understood.  From a round earth perspective, that is.  But what about from a flat earth perspective?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 30, 2022, 08:31:41 PM
When looking at earth from space, the southern hemisphere will look almost twice as big and the upper northern hemisphere small compared to the visual you'd have of earth if you removed the atmosphere.  But, because RE measurements add miles to the south and subtract them from the north, total area I don't think is too different so earth is still a reasonable reference point from space.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: SteelyBob on July 30, 2022, 09:25:42 PM
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.
Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

Don’t waste your time. We’ve been here before, on lots of occasions - see the links I’ve posted. I’ve used a different example - airflow over a wing - but the principle is the same - ditto WTF’s example. He never responds.

Likewise, I’ve shown in lots of detail, with extensive links, exactly what goes in to modern ephemeris models - again, nothing in response, and then a few months later the same garbage gets spouted and the cycle continues.

The only thing I can’t quite fathom is whether it’s trolling, or genuine lack of understanding. I suspect the former.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 30, 2022, 09:49:21 PM
The only thing I can’t quite fathom is whether it’s trolling, or genuine lack of understanding. I suspect the former.
I'd modify that only to say its trolling or a willful lack of understanding.  The notion of believing whatever you want to believe irrespective not only a total lack of supporting evidence but of very well established facts to the contrary is an increasing and worrisome trend on several fronts.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: stack on July 30, 2022, 11:11:22 PM
When looking at earth from space, the southern hemisphere will look almost twice as big and the upper northern hemisphere small compared to the visual you'd have of earth if you removed the atmosphere.  But, because RE measurements add miles to the south and subtract them from the north, total area I don't think is too different so earth is still a reasonable reference point from space.


How come looking at earth from space resembles nothing of what you described?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tron on July 31, 2022, 12:15:06 AM
Stack I'll try to make a visual sometime later to clarify..
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 31, 2022, 01:03:39 AM
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

I was simply going to lurk here, but this is such utter bullshit I can't help it.

Can we simulate and model the whirlpools of the deception pass bridge?

(https://i.imgur.com/68huqq7.jpg)

Of course we can't because we don't have the math to do it.  Do they exist in reality?  I've seen them myself.  Perhaps you should too, they're pretty amazing at times.

Well yes, if you can't model it with the supposed physics that govern it then you can't claim to know the underlying physics. People in this thread and on this forum are claiming that they do know the underlying physics and that their RE model works. They are wrong.

Also, unlike seeing a whirlpool as a whole, we have never seen the entire solar system outside of space agencies.

Quote from: ohplease
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.

The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

Incorrect. Many of the greatest mathematicians did try their hand at the three body problem, with unsatisfactory results. Regardless of your personal ignorance on the matter, the Three Body Problem is a known problem. See the quotes here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Quotes

Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system. You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.

You guys are now agreeing with this and are stamping your feet like children claiming that the models are useful in other ways, and make additional claims about how space agencies use the models. None of this proves that the bodies are using selective gravity and is contradictory to the concept of universal gravitation. Simply, you don't have a coherent model. Gravity does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 31, 2022, 01:14:51 AM
Quote from: ohplease
The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

Incorrect. Many of the greatest mathematicians did try their hand at the three body problem, with unsatisfactory results. See the quotes here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Quotes
How disingenuous this is.  No one is disputes that there is no closed solution to the three body problem.  Of course many have tried.  I did NOT dispute that mathematicians have not been able to produce a closed solution.  What I posted was that the physics community over the past 100 years does not see that issue as a refutation of general relativity.  That is what you are claiming and that is what is wrong.

The theory of gravity is general relativity and that has been directly verified by Gravity Probe B.  Why not respond to that Tom?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2022, 01:28:31 AM
Simply, you don't have a coherent model.
Neither does the OP.  Perhaps you should point out the inconsistencies in his "theory" instead of derailing this thread with your n-body problem nonsense.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: stack on July 31, 2022, 09:16:40 AM
Gravity does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.

Could you say the same thing about UA? As in, UA does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.
I'm guessing if your argument is that RE can't analytically simulate the n-body problem, therefore Gravity doesn't exist, then the same argument would be that since FE can't analytically simulate the n-body problem, therefore UA doesn't exist either. Or am I missing something?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on July 31, 2022, 05:25:34 PM
I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system. You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.
This is not how planetary systems are modeled Tom.  Where are you getting this bullshit?  (rhetorical - no need to answer)

For everyone else:

Assuming a simple system (no relativistic effects) for a particular slice (or point) in time all forces on all bodies are calculated using UG, then using a=F/m the change in velocities of all objects are calculated from which their positions at the next time slice are all computed.  By definition of it being a single point in time, all calculations for each time slice are .. simultaneous.  There are no "gravitationally selective two body problems" or whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.  The time is then incremented and the process is repeated.  Just a few simple Newtonian formulas are required - no differential equations and no analytic integrations to solve and no "cheats".  The whole process of the simulation is a piecewise numerical integration.

Where relativistic effects come into play, you need to use the appropriate corrections, but even without them you can model our solar system to arbitrary accuracy by making the time slices smaller.  Of course the perihelion of Mercury will be out by .0012 degrees after a decade of time slices, but everything else will be just fine.  If you want that 0.0012 degrees in Mercury's orbit corrected you'll have to account for the relativistic effects but other than that the simulation is done the same way..
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 31, 2022, 11:17:26 PM
In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092546/)!
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 31, 2022, 11:24:15 PM
In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092546/)!
If you can't figure out how to post in the upper, don't post in the upper.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on July 31, 2022, 11:41:15 PM
In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092546/)!
If you can't figure out how to post in the upper, don't post in the upper.
It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.   I thought my post was well within rule 3 about being on topic including "...the natural progression thereof" given the conversation about what Tom is claiming.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 01, 2022, 12:25:04 AM
It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.
If you cannot figure out why providing no content other than an IMDB link to Amazon Women on the Moon is not in line with a well-spirited debate, then you are beyond help and should be ejected immediately. If you do understand why it's not OK, then you've got your final chance to behave.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 01, 2022, 07:53:39 AM
I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system.
This is correct, but irrelevant.

Quote
You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.
It isn't a "cheat" to simplify intractable or complex problems into simpler solvable ones. This is a perfectly valid technique in science and engineering so long as the simplification is a good enough approximation of the reality. It demonstrably works - the Curiosity rover is sitting on Mars, your GPS works, the eclipse paths are predicted down to block level.

This sentence is hard to take seriously from someone who claims to believe in a model with no agreed map. While in the real world goods and people are transported around the globe on a daily basis, you are reduced to claiming that the distance from New York to Paris is "unknown" and that planes don't know how fast they're going. My gut feeling is that you don't believe any of this - you have alluded in the past to treating this place as a debating society. So you are probably debating from a viewpoint you don't hold as an intellectual exercise. Which is fine up to a point, but it becomes tiresome when you resort to such intellectual dishonesty. With a straight face you claim that the n-body problem is a "gotcha" for mainstream science, refusing to understand that it can be and has been modelled as multiple 2 body problems very successfully. Meanwhile you have a Wiki page about EA which has an equation on with no derivation, contains an unknown constant and has no predictive power or any practical use at all. Science is always open to new models replacing old ones, but the new one has to be better. Yours demonstrably isn't. If you can't find a working map - and we both know why that isn't possible - and you can't decide how many poles there are then it's hard to take any of your criticisms of mainstream science or claims to have discovered a better model seriously.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on August 01, 2022, 07:59:36 AM
It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.
If you cannot figure out why providing no content other than an IMDB link to Amazon Women on the Moon is not in line with a well-spirited debate, then you are beyond help and should be ejected immediately. If you do understand why it's not OK, then you've got your final chance to behave.
The content I provided was my question to Tom.  The imdb link was just a little humor, which obviously you did not appreciate.  ok point taken.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on August 01, 2022, 01:53:35 PM
... refusing to understand that it can be and has been modelled as multiple 2 body problems very successfully.
You are making the very same error that Tom is.  When N-body problems are simulated they DO NOT use multiple 2-body problems.  That method is only used to approximate an analytical solution.  For simulation you do not need a an analytic solution to the differential equations.  The equations for each object are simultaneously integrated numerically in a piecewise or discrete fashion and allowed to evolve.  This is NOT multiple 2-body problems.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 02, 2022, 05:53:27 AM
Noted, and thanks for the correction.
My point was more around Tom’s intellectual dishonesty. However it’s modelled, the fact is it is modelled very successfully with practical and demonstrable results. Turn your GPS on. Look in the sky at the right time and observe the ISS - with decent optics you can observe its shape. Look at the predictions of eclipse paths  and compare them to on the ground observations.
These are all testable results of our accurate model of the solar system.

Tom learns there is no analytic solution, misunderstands that (possibly deliberately) and argues it’s a glaring omission in the RE model. All while defending a model which doesn’t have a working map - to the point where they can’t agree whether there is one pole or two. And has EA as part of its model, the flaws of which I’ve highlighted above.

Newer models have replaced older models many times in history. Globe earth replaced flat earth, the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one, Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics as a more complete model of gravity. In each case the new model yielded better and more accurate results. FE doesn’t do that, there is no coherent working FE model which has any predictive power. Tom repeatedly defends this model, pointing out splinters in RE’s eye (which are often imagined) while ignoring the planks in his own.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: BillO on August 02, 2022, 01:56:16 PM
Indeed.

If they don't like Newtonian mechanics what would they think of GR and QM?  In GR only abut 20 solutions are know to exist, yet the many approximations we have are so good they explain many of the things we see in the cosmos.  It reveals a lot about how the universe is made up and we can deduce myriad things from that.  QM does not give exact answers either.  All it provides is the probability that something is going to be in any given state at any given time.  Yet that has allowed us to build nearly all the technology we have today.  If Tom (and the Fake Earth community in general) can't get their head around F=Gm1m2/r2 and F=ma and are not satisfied with us being able to calculate orbits to 30 decimal places of accuracy to the point of claiming our universe can't exit. how then can he believe in his computer and the internet which come to us courtesy of probabilities, "guesswork" and insights with no analytic answers at all.  Yet here he is, using those things he can't possibly understand or believe in every day to disseminate his misinformation from his closet.
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: ohplease on August 02, 2022, 03:50:29 PM
Such wild inconsistencies are not limited to Tom but seem fundamental to the FE view.  Tron claims space craft exist (JWST, Voyager, etc) but does not acknowledge that all launches depend on RE physics.  The real question is whether anyone actually thinks the earth is flat or if its all a sort of trolling or self deception?  There might be some trolling going on here (claiming a position that you do not actually hold), but the shape of the earth is not something that matters to most people's lives so self deception might be in play even more.

If one genuinely thought that the earth was flat clearly they are not going to be employed where that does not work (long haul airline pilot, geographer, GPS engineer, NASA-pretty-much-anything, etc).  But traveling to the corner store is going to work no matter what global map you claim.  People can hold that GPS is somehow based on ground stations, that we know can not be the case, and still use it.  They can point their Sat TV dish at the location of the geosynchronous satellite and tell themselves the signal is bouncing off the dome.  They can claim a vast global conspiracy of 100s of thousands if not millions yet all keeping totally silent for decades, again as it does not impact their day to day life.  I'm guessing that such folks are drawn to the view of themselves of not accepting the standard model everyone else acknowledges.  That they like the self image of being one that thinks way way outside the box and doing so for the shape of the earth does not involve any changes to your daily life for most folks.

The impact is to our civilization where folks holding clearly false notions about reality is a worrisome trend.  Not so much for FE/RE but for elections, pandemics, climate change etc it does matter.  If that can not be resolved even for the shape of the earth how can we do so for other domains that are even more impactful yet require more trust of experts than FE/RE and are more vulnerable to vested interests than FE/RE?
Title: Re: Theory that Black Holes are Land Mass
Post by: existoid on August 13, 2022, 01:35:51 AM
If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

We cannot simulate the human brain (i.e., a brain that has all the qualities of a human brain but that is not biological). I'm pretty sure my brain works, though I do agree that not everyone's brains work  ;D