[iamcpc]

What "one thing"? RET can't be modeled and doesn't work.

Tom,

This is another example of conformation bias from you. Many times i respect your points and recognize them as valid and worthy of further discussion but you will do much better if you try to limit your conformation bias.

Does the RET model have flaws, things that we can't explain, and things which appear outright wrong ? YES.
Does the FE models have flaws, things that we can't explain, and things which appear outright wrong ? YES.

Both systems have flaws, things we can't explain, and things which appear outright wrong. But  a round earth traditional gravity system can be modeled.

How do explain that measured distances, which we use every day, show the earth is round. In detail the WGS84 model.

The flat disk model struggles with distances. The repeating plane model does not.

[Tom Bishop]

Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

"why would we need to account for gravity if this is a full simulation of gravity?"  are you serious?  relativity is a theory of gravity, dummy.

the simulation calculates the motion of each object based on newton's equation for the force of gravity.  corrections are applied based on relativity, a more accurate theory of gravity.

why not just calculate everything from the equations of general relativity, you say?  because they're computationally expensive.  solving newton's equations is straightforward and computationally simple.

You guys just gave two entirely different explanations for what the corrections are. Get your act together.

The paper says nothing about "the motion of each object based on newton's equation for the force of gravity.  corrections are applied based on relativity, a more accurate theory of gravity." You are apparently just making things up, per usual.

Go ask this mathematician at askamathematician.com on the matter:

https://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-the-three-body-problem/

Q: What is the three body problem?

Physicist: The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits).

It says directly that very few scenarios are possible. None look like heliocentric orbits, all are incredibly sensitive and can only exist in those exact velocities and configurations, and all require at least two bodies of equal masses.

[Tom Bishop]

But  a round earth traditional gravity system can be modeled.

No, it can't. I disagree. Anyone who asserts that the RET system can be modeled has no idea what they are talking about, and is engaging in wishful thinking. Show me where the heliocentric orbits are in the three body family galleries are. Lets see something that looks like a star with a planet that has a moon.

Take a look at the Three Body Problem family gallery: http://three-body.ipb.ac.rs/

Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that bodies are of equal mass or mass-less: http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/

The ones that look like a heliocentric system don't exist. I am unable to find that family anywhere in the list of families.

Where are the solutions with the suns that have planets and moons? Don't tell us. Show us. Until you guys can demonstrate your case that it does work, the mathematician above who says that it doesn't work is likely better qualified to answer the matter.

Another description of the Three Body Problem by Professor Robert Sherrer:

http://www.cosmicyarns.com/2017/07/the-physics-problem-that-isaac-newton.html

This is the famous three-body problem. When Newton invented his theory of gravity, he immediately set to work applying it to the motions of the planets in the solar system. If you have a planet orbiting a much larger body, like the sun, and the orbit is circular, then the problem is easy to solve -- it's something that's done in a high school physics class.

But a circular orbit isn't the most general possibility, and sometimes one body isn't much smaller than the object it orbits (think of the Moon going around the Earth). This more complicated case can still be solved -- Newton showed that the two bodies orbit their common center of mass in elliptical orbits. In fact, this prediction of elliptical orbits really cemented the case for Newton's theory of gravity. The calculation is a lot trickier than for circular orbits, but we still throw it at undergraduate physics majors in their second or third year.

Now add a third body, and everything falls apart. The problem goes from one that a smart undergraduate can tackle to one that has defied solution for 400 years. There are a few special cases that are much easier to solve. If the third body is so small that it doesn't affect the motion of the other two, then it just moves around in the gravitational field of the first two bodies as they orbit each other.

[inquisitive]

But  a round earth traditional gravity system can be modeled.

No, it can't. I disagree. Anyone who asserts that the RET system can be modeled has no idea what they are talking about, and is engaging in wishful thinking. Show me where the heliocentric orbits are in the three body family galleries are. Lets see something that looks like a star with a planet that has a moon.

Take a look at the Three Body Problem family gallery: http://three-body.ipb.ac.rs/

Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that bodies are of equal mass or mass-less: http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/

The ones that look like a heliocentric system don't exist. I am unable to find that family anywhere in the list of families.

Where are the solutions with the suns that have planets and moons? Don't tell us. Show us. Until you guys can demonstrate your case that it does work, the mathematician above who says that it doesn't work is likely better qualified to answer the matter.

All this discussion and you still do have not have any measurements to work out what you might accept as the shape of the earth.  It is clearly not flat or else flight times would be wrong.

[Curious Squirrel]

Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

"why would we need to account for gravity if this is a full simulation of gravity?"  are you serious?  relativity is a theory of gravity, dummy.

the simulation calculates the motion of each object based on newton's equation for the force of gravity.  corrections are applied based on relativity, a more accurate theory of gravity.

why not just calculate everything from the equations of general relativity, you say?  because they're computationally expensive.  solving newton's equations is straightforward and computationally simple.

You guys just gave two entirely different explanations for what the corrections are. Get your act together.

The paper says nothing about "the motion of each object based on newton's equation for the force of gravity.  corrections are applied based on relativity, a more accurate theory of gravity." You are apparently just making things up, per usual.

Go ask this mathematician at askamathematician.com on the matter:

https://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-the-three-body-problem/

Q: What is the three body problem?

Physicist: The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits).

It says directly that very few scenarios are possible. None look like heliocentric orbits, all are incredibly sensitive and can only exist in those exact velocities and configurations, and all require at least two bodies of equal masses.

Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

If you would continue to read the link you posted, you would find he elaborates on this statement. TL;DR: There's no single formula/equation to exactly solve for any 3-body problem, but it's possible to create a 99% accurate estimation using computer simulations and other solutions. F.E. the solar system can be estimated to 99% accuracy or better by solving it as a series of 2-body problems.

This supports what comes up every single time you raise this objection. There's no analytical solution to the 3-body problem. But that doesn't mean it can't be solved/simulated to a near arbitrary degree of accuracy short of 100% for long spans of time.

[Tom Bishop]

Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

If you would continue to read the link you posted, you would find he elaborates on this statement. TL;DR: There's no single formula/equation to exactly solve for any 3-body problem, but it's possible to create a 99% accurate estimation using computer simulations and other solutions.

Really? It says that? Quote it.

This supports what comes up every single time you raise this objection.

No. You guys are using words and opinion, and never quote anything which supports what you imagine the case to be. I feel embarrassed on your behalf that you believe that a gravity solution exists for the solar system or the sun-earth-moon system, yet are unable to support that belief.

[Tom Bishop]

The mathematician Henri Poincare couldn't do it either:

I assume you're referring to FET when saying, " General application of the Three Body Problem are, in fact, impossible". Because in this day and age it's very simple.

"They could predict the eclipses thousands of years into the future". This statement is contradiction of the former.

Prediction of three or more orbiting bodies under the Newtonian System is impossible. Literally impossible. It is one of the greatest problems of astronomy, mathematics, and classical mechanics. They can't get the heliocentric system to work.

Take a look at the existing Three Body Problem solutions. The bodies are either all of the same mass, or some of them are mass-less. The applications are very limited.

The famous physicist Henri Poincare studied the Three Body Problem. Here is a quote from 'Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems in Natural Sciences' about Poincare's discoveries:

As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial 2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

The available solutions to the Three Body Problem, beyond looking unlike anything seen in Heliocentric Theory, are so sensitive that the slightest change or imperfection will tear the entire system apart. As a very illustrative demonstration, take a look at this online Three Body Problem simulator that uses the simplest possible figure eight pattern, which requires three identical bodies of equal mass that move at very specific momentum and distance in relation to each other.

Demo: Figure-Eight Three Body Problem



Adjust the slider values in the upper left to something very slight to find what happens. What you will see is a demonstration of Chaos Theory. Any slight modification to the system creates a chain reaction of random chaos.

This is precisely the issue of modeling the Heliocentric System, and why the fundamental systems as depicted in popular astronomy cannot exist. Only very specific and very sensitive configurations may exist. The slightest deviation, such as with a system with unequal masses, or the minute influence from a gravitating body external to the system will, as Poincare found, cause the entire system to fly apart!

Why should we believe that you guys are smarter than the greatest mathematicians who have ever lived and who said that the three body systems just fall apart, and who say that there are only a few solutions available for unrealistic scenarios?

If you are claiming that there are working Sun-Earth-Moon gravity models, why not just post it or at least quote something that supports your case?

[stack]

If you are claiming that there are working Sun-Earth-Moon models, why not just post it?

I'm not claiming anything b/c I don't care about the N Body problem. And that's not what this thread is supposed to be about. It's a question about FE, not about RE.

How about simply answering the OP:

"so my question is there anyone that follows the FE model that can work out a schedule of lunar and solar eclipses based on the FE view of orbital mechanics and planetary motions.  If FE theory can predict lunar and solar eclipses based on a separate set of celestial and orbital mechanics different from RE theory, that would be very interesting."

[Tom Bishop]

Consult our literature. The celestial dynamics and attracting mechanisms in FET  are unknown.

The OP claimed that RET could predict the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

"Current RE models are able to predict lunar and solar eclipses 1000s of years into the future."

"Obviously some scientist has worked out the eclipses based on celestial mechanics and planetary motions"

The OP, or anyone who believes that a gravity model exists for the Sun-Earth-Moon system exists, needs to support their case.

[Curious Squirrel]

Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

If you would continue to read the link you posted, you would find he elaborates on this statement. TL;DR: There's no single formula/equation to exactly solve for any 3-body problem, but it's possible to create a 99% accurate estimation using computer simulations and other solutions.

Really? It says that? Quote it.

I put it as TL;DR for a reason, but will do my best to back up with quotes to guide you towards this.

The unsolvableness of the 3-body problem, rather than being an embarrassing hole in physics, an obvious but unsolved problem, is actually the norm.  In physics, the number of not-baby-simple, exactly solvable problems can be counted on the fingers of one hand (that’s missing some fingers), and that includes the 2-body problem.

A statement that informs you are correct, we cannot exactly solve the 3-body problem. In fact, even the 2-body problem isn't exactly solvable.

The dynamics of two bodies, while not trivial, can be reduced by pretending that one body is sitting still, and then restricting all of your attention to the other body.  Using that technique, you find (or, at least, Newton found) that the motion of a body under gravity is an ellipse.

2-body problems can be solved by restricting what you're looking at as a form of 'trick' to make things simpler.

But, for three bodies, there doesn’t seem to be a fancy trick for finding solutions.  As a result, the exact behavior of 3 or more bodies can’t be written down.

Again, we can't write down the exact behavior of 3 or more bodies.

Despite that, we do alright, and happily, reality doesn’t concern itself with doing math, it just kinda “does”.  For example, quantum field theory, despite being the most accurate theory that ever there was, never involves exactly solving anything.  Once a physicist gets a hold of all the appropriate equations and a big computer, they can start approximating things.  With enough computing power and time, these approximations can be made amazingly good.  Computer simulation and approximation is a whole science unto itself.

Yeah, we never exactly solve things. We just create very precise approximations.

So, if you want to calculate the orbits of all the planets, a “2-body approximation” will get you more than 99% of the way to the right answer.

Using a series of 2-body approximations can get you to greater than 99% accuracy in the movement of the planets around the sun.

Point is, this effect only shows up in systems with three or more bodies, it’s chaotic (in the chaos theory sense), and there is no way to predict it exactly.  That being said, we can still get computers to come pretty close (up to a point, because chaos is a punk), and there are even some mathematical tricks to get reasonable solutions that, while not perfect, are still pretty good (and can even get us well into that last “1% of weirdness”).

Restating much of what was said earlier in another manner.

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

[Tom Bishop]

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

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

[Curious Squirrel]

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

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

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

[Tom Bishop]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[inquisitive]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who is 'you' you refer to?  Have you ever discussed this subject with anyone else other than on this or a similar forum?

[stack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If RE has no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system, how is it that RE can predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth? If if you say it's just patterns, then why can't FE pattern predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth?

[Curious Squirrel]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Bishop]

I'm sorry you need someone to state exactly what I've put forth in my TL;DR in order to believe it.

You do not have a working model. What you quoted admits that it cannot be done, and that only two body orbits are possible.

I see no reason to continue to bash my head against this wall.

Yes, there is no point for you to continue this. Stop posting and go away. You do not have a working model, only four hundred years of ridiculous failure. Newton's equations don't work with three or more bodies, except with very specific and unrealistic scenarios. You have shown nothing to demonstrate that it does work. Your quotes admit this. The mathematicians admit this. The dancing around in this thread admits this.

[Tom Bishop]

If RE has no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system, how is it that RE can predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth? If if you say it's just patterns, then why can't FE pattern predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth?

RE cannot predict "exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth". The Saros Cycle is used, not any n-body problems.

NASA Eclipse Website https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

From Resources -> Eclipses and the Saros we read a description of the Saros Cycle:

  “ The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well. ”

Feel free to count how many times the Three Body Problem is mentioned on NASA's eclipse website.

Google Search Term: "saros" site:https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

No. of Results: 13,700

Google Search Term: "three body" site:https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov

No. of Results: 2 (duplicate text)

  “ The distance of apogee does not vary by much month to month although the value of perigee can change quite a bit. Minimum vs. maximum apogee is a 0.6% spread and minimum vs. maximum perigee is a 3.9% spread. If Newton couldn't solve the three-body problem I certainly can't ”

Three Body and n-Body Solutions, the mathematical simulation of the Solar System using Newton's Laws, are not used.

[iamcpc]

No, it can't. I disagree. Anyone who asserts that the RET system can be modeled has no idea what they are talking about, and is engaging in wishful thinking.

Tom what you have pointed out is how, mathematically we are unable to PROVE, the round earth sun/earth moon orbit. Not that a model for those orbits does not exist. Furthermore even if we did PROVE mathematically that the orbit of a planet with a moon around a star was possible Saturn has 52 moons. How the heck would you prove that???

something that looks like a star with a planet that has a moon.

The area in space what we reside has a star (the sun) and planets which have moons (earth, Jupiter, Saturn etc)

The OP, or anyone who believes that a gravity model exists for the Sun-Earth-Moon system exists, needs to support their case.

Tom, the case is supported by the website the OP linked.

On August 21, 2017 I went to Wyoming and saw a solar eclipse. This was because there was a solar eclipse prediction model which was accurate enough to tell me the exact time, and location of a solar eclipse.

My uncle went to see a solar eclipse in Hawaii many years ago. How on earth was he able to know that on that specific day, at that specific time, there would be a solar eclipse in Hawaii? I'll give you a hint:
There is some sort of solar eclipse prediction model.

RE cannot predict "exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth". The Saros Cycle is used, not any n-body problems.

This website would disagree. If you don't believe them then, by all means, go to the predicted locations at the predicted times and see if there is a solar eclipse. I have used these models to observe dozens of solar eclipses. I can assure you, based on my personal experiences, they are quite accurate.


http://time.com/4897581/total-solar-eclipse-years-next/
http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/solar.html#recent
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/solar.html

[stack]

If RE has no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system, how is it that RE can predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth? If if you say it's just patterns, then why can't FE pattern predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth?

RE cannot predict "exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth". The Saros Cycle is used, not any n-body problems.

Location, location, location. RE can predict exactly where an eclipse can be observed. FE cannot. Why is that?