The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: totallackey on January 21, 2018, 12:59:46 AM
-
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:
1) The model being a lie; or,
2) Newton is wrong; or,
3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
If humans can manufacture trash like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0jHsq36_NTU
Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"
-
There does not exist a complete computer model of the economy of Australia; nor a model of ridership on the tube wrt each individual; nor a model of the electrical wiring in the Louvre. That models of these things have yet to be made is not evidence that economists don't understand Australia, nor urban planners the tube, nor electricians the Louvre. At best, it is evidence that making these models is not necessary to prove they exist nor to understand them effectively.
So it is with the solar system; or it would be, except that computer models of it do exist, as so many examples were given in the previous thread you made on this exact topic, that went so well.
I again present solarsystemscope.com to the forum, and again decline to participate further in this highly-regarded shitshow.
-
There does not exist a complete computer model of the economy of Australia
How do you know?
I am of the opinion there are many computer simulations of economies, utilizing many different economic theories.
When I attended Fresno State University in 1981, we did computer modeling in my Macro Economic class (actually using PUNCH CARDS for data entry!!! LMFAO!!!)
Please provide evidence of your assertion.
Plus, there are no competing theories on regard to the heliocentric model. You have an accepted theory governed by specific Laws of Motion and Thermodynamics.
nor a model of ridership on the tube wrt each individual;
Why would a model of any subway be broken down to the individual riders?
A demographic model would be of far more value.
nor a model of the electrical wiring in the Louvre.
Well, this is just about the most ridiculous claim I have ever seen in my life.
Does not even deserve an answer.
As an aside, the models which you are proposing are so far removed from the CGI rendering of the Solar System it could be considered quite meaningless as a base for arguing the issue.
That models of these things have yet to be made
A dubious claim which requires more evidence than your word, I am afraid.
is not evidence that economists don't understand Australia, nor urban planners the tube, nor electricians the Louvre. At best, it is evidence that making these models is not necessary to prove they exist nor to understand them effectively.
You need more evidence models do not exist.
So it is with the solar system; or it would be, except that computer models of it do exist, as so many examples were given in the previous thread you made on this exact topic, that went so well.
None of which fit the bill.
I again present solarsystemscope.com to the forum, and again decline to participate further in this highly-regarded shitshow.
It would be smart of you to decline further participation as your argumentation is flawed and baseless. Your model is in the wrong thread. Plus, it has no verified pedigree. Plus the rest of the forum disavowed your model as accurate.
-
You’re seeing the trees but not the forest. Each of the models you find so ridiculous to even suggest? THAT’S THE POINT. Demanding a computer model of a thing, then rejecting that the thing exists when no model is presented, is ridiculous.
-
You’re seeing the trees but not the forest. Each of the models you find so ridiculous to even suggest? THAT’S THE POINT. Demanding a computer model of a thing, then rejecting that the thing exists when no model is presented, is ridiculous.
I am of the impression you are the one who lacks understanding.
There are models that exist.
It is obvious they exist.
What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the heliocentric model.
-
It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system of which plenty exist.
What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.
Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?
-
What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the heliocentric model.
Prove your claim.
-
It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system if which plenty exist.
None of which depict the complete Solar System in motion according to the Newton.
What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.
No, just the Solar System.
Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?
Yes.
Do you have one representing the entire Solar System in motion?
If so, please present that model here.
-
What is also obvious the models that exist are not based on the science that gave birth to the heliocentric model.
Prove your claim.
At this point, I feel justified enough in my claim to let it stand.
At some point it becomes evident enough in an argument to ascertain who is uttering fact or fiction. If the models available relied on the calculations of Newton, it would be patently indicated. Since they do not, as far as I can tell, I will rely on you to prove me wrong.
Post the model here:https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;topic=8557.0;last_msg=138992 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=post;topic=8557.0;last_msg=138992), along with the calculations used to build the model. Show the model in complete motion according to the terms stated in the OP.
-
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way)
Welcome back. I presented you with a model.
to be absolute certain evidence of:
1) The model being a lie:
2) Newton is wrong;
3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
If humans can manufacture trash like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0jHsq36_NTU
Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"
Even though we have, the lack of the creation of a CGI model says absolutely nothing about Newton or the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is an absolute non sequitur. Newton's laws and thermodynamics have been tested in thousands of ways over hundreds of years and it is extermely well established where they are accurate and where they are not. These laws were accurate before computers existed too.
-
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way)
Welcome back. I presented you with a model.
Thank you.
Yes you did, and since it did not clearly present any reference to any use of Kepler/Newton in the formation of any CGI rendering (nor did it actually present an opportunity for CGI rendering), what is there to do with the model you presented, except reject it?
If you would be so kind and helpful to provide direction to the CGI rendering and the math utilized in its creation, that would be appreciated.
to be absolute certain evidence of:
1) The model being a lie:
2) Newton is wrong;
3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
If humans can manufacture trash like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=14&v=0jHsq36_NTU
Then why can we not post the real deal, based on "real science?"
Even though we have, the lack of the creation of a CGI model says absolutely nothing about Newton or the Laws of Thermodynamics. This is an absolute non sequitur.
If I was demanding a CGI rendering of your dog taking a dump in your back yard as evidence of the Solar System moves as science claims it does or the math of Newton supports the textbook representation of the movements of the Solar System, then yes...that would be a non-sequitur.
But I am not.
Also, am I to take this statement: "the lack of the creation of a CGI model ..." as an admission your model submission did not meet the requirements of my original request?
And that no model actually exists?
Newton's laws and thermodynamics have been tested in thousands of ways over hundreds of years and it is extermely[sic] well established where they are accurate and where they are not. These laws were accurate before computers existed too.
That is exactly my point.
A CGI rendering would only serve to solidify the science.
-
Let me get this straight - if someone presented you with a "complete" model, you would subscribe to RET? Why is that your sticking point? What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...
-
It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system if which plenty exist.
None of which depict the complete Solar System in motion according to the Newton.
What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.
No, just the Solar System.
Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?
Yes.
Do you have one representing the entire Solar System in motion?
If so, please present that model here.
I gave such a model in the other thread, and I'm happy to give it to you. But first we need to agree what the word heliocentric means, or you need to stop using it.
Heliocentric means sun-centered, so any heliocentric model has the sun stationary. You seem to want the sun in motion, which means you want a galactic-centric or universe-centric model, I think.
Here is my model that is heliocentric, meaning it is choosing the sun's frame of reference.
----
https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/
Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation.
-
It would be super helpful for you to stop using heliocentric, because then people think you want a model of the solar system if which plenty exist.
None of which depict the complete Solar System in motion according to the Newton.
What you really want is a model of the entire galaxy, which seems like a really weird thing to want, given the difficulties in observing the galaxy.
No, just the Solar System.
Isn't it sufficiently supportive of Newtonian mechanics to have accurate models of the solar system?
Yes.
Do you have one representing the entire Solar System in motion?
If so, please present that model here.
I gave such a model in the other thread, and I'm happy to give it to you. But first we need to agree what the word heliocentric means, or you need to stop using it.
Heliocentric means sun-centered, so any heliocentric model has the sun stationary. You seem to want the sun in motion, which means you want a galactic-centric or universe-centric model, I think.
Here is my model that is heliocentric, meaning it is choosing the sun's frame of reference.
----
https://mgvez.github.io/jsorrery/
Source:
https://github.com/mgvez/jsorrery/blob/master/src/algorithm/Gravity.js
- uses Newton's law of gravitation.
A CGI rendering of the Solar System, showing the Sun in its revolutionary motion at 485,000 MPH, with the planets and all other objects in the Solar System dutifully in tow...
Is that what you present here?
No, it is respectfully not.
The fact I would be observing the movement from "outside," a point of reference other than the Sun does not change the fact I would be observing a System of planets in orbits centered upon the Sun.
Thus, the term "heliocentric," stands.
-
You defined the model in such a way that one probably doesn't exist, most models of the solar system - and you were given plenty in the other thread - will not model the sun spinning as that is not what they are intended for, they are meant to model the movement of the planets, which they do. What would a spinning sun add to the model? And the models aren't going to show the sun's movement because that would mean a model of the whole galaxy.
It is ludicrous logic "A model to these exact incredibly specific specifications doesn't exist, ergo heliocentricity is dead!"
Maybe you should think about whether a flat earth model exists which can explain sunset (without making up perspective rules which don't reflect reality), let alone anything else.
-
The thing about CGI is that it is not cheap. When we watch Toy Story, the funny thing is the animation started with artists drawing the characters. Then sculptors created clay models of these drawings. Only then did they take pictures of the physically real clay models from all sorts of angles to create a digital model that then was used to create the film Toy Story or any other Pixar film. They did not create a CGI model of these characters using a computer. So I am not surprised that CGI models of pretty much anything exists or does not exist.
I will add that I do not see any CGI model of a flat earth that explains anything we can observe ourselves zenetically. I would like to see some model that shows how southern Chile can get 15 hours of sunlight.
And Newton is "wrong" when taken to the scale outside the limits of practicality. Engineers use stress to design bridges but no one has ever shown that stress actually exists. The model predicts the behavior of the bridge but it has never been shown to exist.
-
You'll likely have to build your own. Below is a link to source code for making orbital animations.
https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/ (https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/)
This book may also assist you in your effort.
https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false)
Your reply does not surprise me.
I find the failure of those who support the heliocentric model to provide an accurate model (with open and honest references to Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc.) to be on par with NIST and their report concerning WTC 7.
A total prevention of open, honest scientific inquiry into reality.
-
You defined the model in such a way that one probably doesn't exist, most models of the solar system - and you were given plenty in the other thread - will not model the sun spinning as that is not what they are intended for, they are meant to model the movement of the planets, which they do. What would a spinning sun add to the model? And the models aren't going to show the sun's movement because that would mean a model of the whole galaxy.
Did you see the phony model I presented?
Do you see a moving Sun?
Do see the moving planets?
ANSWER = YES
So please, refrain from posting such a patently false paragraph.
It is ludicrous logic "A model to these exact incredibly specific specifications doesn't exist, ergo heliocentricity is dead!"
I don't think so.
It is nothing but simple math.
Computers and monitors just so happen to be the perfect tools to build these types of mathematical models.
Maybe you should think about whether a flat earth model exists which can explain sunset (without making up perspective rules which don't reflect reality), let alone anything else.
Maybe you should try sticking to the topic at hand.
-
The thing about CGI is that it is not cheap. When we watch Toy Story, the funny thing is the animation started with artists drawing the characters. Then sculptors created clay models of these drawings. Only then did they take pictures of the physically real clay models from all sorts of angles to create a digital model that then was used to create the film Toy Story or any other Pixar film. They did not create a CGI model of these characters using a computer. So I am not surprised that CGI models of pretty much anything exists or does not exist.
Please, NASA or JPL or any of the other sites have already spent money providing CGI renderings of the Solar System. The fact their renderings are not accurate or based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein, et.al., is damning evidence that either the math is wrong or the model is wrong.
I will add that I do not see any CGI model of a flat earth that explains anything we can observe ourselves zenetically[sic] would like to see some model that shows how southern Chile can get 15 hours of sunlight.
Attempted thread derailment noted and I would ask you please stick to the subject material at hand.
And Newton is "wrong" when taken to the scale outside the limits of practicality. Engineers use stress to design bridges but no one has ever shown that stress actually exists. The model predicts the behavior of the bridge but it has never been shown to exist.
Again, how is this paragraph to be taken as anything less than off-topic.
-
I don't think so.
It is nothing but simple math.
Computers and monitors just so happen to be the perfect tools to build these types of mathematical models.
Yes. But it still takes many person hours to build them, and with no reason to do so who is going to do it?
Maybe you should try sticking to the topic at hand.
Is that why you brought up WTC 7?
-
Let me get this straight - if someone presented you with a "complete" model, you would subscribe to RET?
As long as it stood muster.
Why is that your sticking point?
Because I am actually searching for "truth in advertising."
What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
I can get the math checked and can be taught by several acquaintances to examine it in detail for my own verification.
Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...
Please, I think you should review things prior to typing "Zetetic Method," again...
-
Yes. But it still takes many person hours to build them, and with no reason to do so who is going to do it?
So schools, academies, institutions of higher learning, NASA, JPL, etc., have no obligation to present accurate models based on accurate math or accepted science.
Or, you do not view the truth as a valid reason for doing so?
Is that why you brought up WTC 7?
Valid CGI rendering and data inputs are the topic at hand.
-
What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
I can get the math checked and can be taught by several acquaintances to examine it in detail for my own verification.
Why not have them make it for you instead, then? If they have the necessary qualifications and would be willing to help, just ask them. This is a terrible place to ask - you've basically guaranteed your request will never be completed by demanding the FET forum to make it for you.
Or, per the Zetetic Method, build every possible model and prove that only the Flat Earth model works...
Please, I think you should review things prior to typing "Zetetic Method," again...
Zetetic Method Zetetic Method Zetetic Method
It forbids you from starting from a fixed point with something in mind to prove/disprove, so you can't ask for a model of the round earth solar system with intent to disprove it. Which is what you're doing! For the sake of fairness, per the Zetetic Method, you need to ask for every possible model of the solar system and prove/disprove each one to determine which is correct. After all, even if you disprove RET models (somehow), that doesn't make FET models correct. So you'd have to get an equivalent FET model under all the same restrictions. You might as well do that in parallel - you probably have more willing Flat Earthers available to help you than Round Earthers.
-
Sorry, Newton being wrong is one of the points of the OP. I am saying no one in the scientific community believes that Newton's view of physics is the most accurate model, or in other words, he is wrong. The scientific community to the vast majority will say he is "wrong." His law of gravity is great for most applications but outside the basic assumptions he is wrong. He is wrong about F=ma when one gets outside the realm of normal everyday experience.
So I am saying that point 2 of the OP is correct. Newton is wrong. Especially if one is building a model to explain the motions of the universe.
I did not think that deserves a warning. To say that I agree that Newton is wrong.
-
You'll likely have to build your own. Below is a link to source code for making orbital animations.
https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/ (https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/)
This book may also assist you in your effort.
https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false)
Your reply does not surprise me.
I find the failure of those who support the heliocentric model to provide an accurate model (with open and honest references to Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc.) to be on par with NIST and their report concerning WTC 7.
A total prevention of open, honest scientific inquiry into reality.
You have been provided with a heliocentric model of the solar system that does reference Newton, Kepler, etc...
The most accurate simulation of the Milky Way to date is the Eris simulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_(simulation)). It is not going to satisfy your absurdly high standard of evidence because the 1.4M processor hours it took in a supercomputer network to simulation the 13B yrs the Milky Way has been in existence -only- contained 60,000,000 pixels and so was insufficient to model each of the 200-400B stars in the Milky Way. So, the best you can reasonably claim, is that Newton's and Kepler's laws may not accurately describe galactic evolution to a granular level. I can concede that. But that Newton and Kepler is completely wrong, not even just inaccurate and antiquated, but completely wrong, is absurd.
-
Please, NASA or JPL or any of the other sites have already spent money providing CGI renderings of the Solar System. The fact their renderings are not accurate or based on Newton/Kepler/Einstein, et.al., is damning evidence that either the math is wrong or the model is wrong.
What do you base this assumption on?
Also, I'd be interested in how the flat earth theory allows for 24 hour days, yet whichever latitude it's summer in gets more daylight hours. Especially in the December-February, which is summer down here (Australia). Let's assume that the sun moves farther outward from the centre of the disc to give us more warmth in that time. However, it's now got a greater distance to travel in the same 24 hours. Say, it's doing 60,000 km instead of the 40,000 km at the equator. So that's 1.5 times the distance, which means it's travelling 1.5 times as fast to make the distance in the same time.
So far, so good, yeah?
Except that the problem is that just like in Europe and North America, summer in the Southern Hemisphere is typified by longer days. Which means that the sun can't be travelling faster over any spot on the world. If anything, days would be much shorter. 1.5 times as short, to be exact. We'd be getting 8 hours of sunlight instead of 16.
I cordially invite anyone to come to Australia in the summer. I'll even put you up in my spare bedroom (it's air-conditioned). You can measure the hours of daylight, and then explain to me that if the sun is passing by faster, how are the days lasting longer.
I look forward to the explanation. It should be a good one.
-
What if they're lying about the math? Wouldn't you need to learn the math and build the model yourself for it to prove anything to you?
I can get the math checked and can be taught by several acquaintances to examine it in detail for my own verification.
Why not have them make it for you instead, then?
Would you hinder my travel in any avenue of discovery?
If they have the necessary qualifications and would be willing to help, just ask them.
As if I have not?
This is a terrible place to ask - you've basically guaranteed your request will never be completed by demanding the FET forum to make it for you.
Last I checked, there are more RE adherents here than any FE'rs.
And where did I "demand," a model.
Zetetic Method Zetetic Method Zetetic Method
It forbids you from starting from a fixed point with something in mind to prove/disprove, so you can't ask for a model of the round earth solar system with intent to disprove it. Which is what you're doing! For the sake of fairness, per the Zetetic Method, you need to ask for every possible model of the solar system and prove/disprove each one to determine which is correct. After all, even if you disprove RET models (somehow), that doesn't make FET models correct. So you'd have to get an equivalent FET model under all the same restrictions. You might as well do that in parallel - you probably have more willing Flat Earthers available to help you than Round Earthers.
"The Zetetic method is a system of scientific inquiry. ... The zetetic method differs from the usual scientific method in that in using it, one bases conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory that is to be proved or disproved."
I am sorry, but I do not render this definition to be anything similar to the approach you describe.
-
Sorry, Newton being wrong is one of the points of the OP.
Okay, you are stating beyond equivocation, Newton is wrong when it comes to the movement of the Solar System.
I am saying no one in the scientific community believes that Newton's view of physics is the most accurate model, or in other words, he is wrong. The scientific community to the vast majority will say he is "wrong."
Looks unequivocal to me.
His law of gravity is great for most applications but outside the basic assumptions he is wrong. He is wrong about F=ma when one gets outside the realm of normal everyday experience.
But wait...according to science the Solar System is in, "textbook motion," everyday...right?
And that textbook motion is attributed to...wait for it...
Newton!
Damn equivocation!
So I am saying that point 2 of the OP is correct. Newton is wrong. Especially if one is building a model to explain the motions of the universe.
I did not think that deserves a warning. To say that I agree that Newton is wrong.
Well, I am not going to figuratively, "put any words in your mouth...," because, frankly, I have found those typewritten and ascribed to your username to be confusing to this point.
Thanks for your reply.
-
The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.
What is “textbook motion” anyway?
Regardless, the heliocentric solar system has been accurately modeled in digital renderings with open code and a model of the galaxy is in progress, but due to size constraints, it isn’t accurate enough to include our specific solar system yet, as far as I know.
-
I'm confused by the existence of multiple threads, so I include another post of mine as a quote here:
Oh hey look:
https://youtu.be/OVLX432acYQ
This uses a game I've never heard of called Universe Sandbox 2.
http://universesandbox.com
Quote from the website:
Simulate Gravity
N-body simulation at almost any speed using Newtonian mechanics. Real science, real physics, no supercomputer required.
I assume we're done here?
-
You'll likely have to build your own. Below is a link to source code for making orbital animations.
https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/ (https://zingale.github.io/astro_animations/)
This book may also assist you in your effort.
https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false (https://books.google.com/books?id=upa42dyhf38C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=orbits+thermodynamics&source=bl&ots=60lfON4z2v&sig=rUDuVjvCbj51uSRvhyfIBr4ddzY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1m63B3enYAhXDulMKHVJjCe0Q6AEIcjAL#v=onepage&q=orbits%20thermodynamics&f=false)
Your reply does not surprise me.
I find the failure of those who support the heliocentric model to provide an accurate model (with open and honest references to Newton/Kepler/Einstein, etc.) to be on par with NIST and their report concerning WTC 7.
A total prevention of open, honest scientific inquiry into reality.
The inability to readily pull up a pretty animation based on your list of demands isn't preventing open scientific inquiry. The problem you run into is that you don't understand the math. There is a wealth of information out there on orbital mechanics, it just isn't in a format that is easy for you to understand. Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy? This thread is pointless and should probably be in complete nonsense.
-
I'm confused by the existence of multiple threads, so I include another post of mine as a quote here:
Oh hey look:
https://youtu.be/OVLX432acYQ
This uses a game I've never heard of called Universe Sandbox 2.
http://universesandbox.com
Quote from the website:
Simulate Gravity
N-body simulation at almost any speed using Newtonian mechanics. Real science, real physics, no supercomputer required.
I assume we're done here?
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.
Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.
Verify for yourself.
-
You have been provided with a heliocentric model of the solar system that does reference Newton, Kepler, etc...
You told me this before...
Please refresh my memory.
-
The inability to readily pull up a pretty animation based on your list of demands isn't preventing open scientific inquiry. The problem you run into is that you don't understand the math.
My current state of understanding (and for that matter, everyone else) would only be enhanced should the model exist.
There is a wealth of information out there on orbital mechanics, it just isn't in a format that is easy for you to understand.
And given the current ability of computers to easily translate, "math into pictures," all the more reason to bust it down into a rendering...
Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy?
I have friends.
How about you?
This thread is pointless and should probably be in complete nonsense.
LMAO!
Care to self-analyze describe what prompted you to even respond to something you find to be complete nonsense?
-
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.
Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.
Verify for yourself.
Maybe do more than just take a glance.
Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy?
I have friends.
How about you?
Was this really necessary? It was a valid and neutrally-phrased question.
-
I have friends.
How about you?
Given the timeline you've already provided, you are at least in your 50s. You should attempt to act like it. Sadly, you seem content to be a troll. It already got you banned once. I have a feeling it will happen again.
Care to self-analyze describe what prompted you to even respond to something you find to be complete nonsense?
I'm trying to help you understand the ridiculous nature of your request. It's like if I asked you for a REAL photo or video of the flat Earth with an ice wall around it. Not gonna happen. You put a bunch of demands on something that you couldn't verify even if someone did produce a video. What is the point?
-
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:
1) The model being a lie; or,
2) Newton is wrong; or,
3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
The answer is 2) Newton is wrong.
There are anomalies in Mercury orbit that can't fit into Newton's laws.
That's where Einstein's General Realtivity is more accurate.
If you use reference frame tied to Milky way we aren't sure how accurate our formulas could be.
But if you use reference frame tied to Sun and limit scope to Solar system, then Einstein is good.
They say for reference frame tied to Earth with local scope (satellites and orbital vehicles), Newton is good enough.
-
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.
Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.
Verify for yourself.
Vortex = tornado. Helix = spiral. You mean helix.
Why would that not be Newtonian mechanics? From the perspective of the sun, the orbits are ellipses, Newtonian/Keplerian. Just because the entire system is moving doesn't change things.
Centripetal acceleration is v^2/r, so the acceleration from the galactic orbit (radius: 28000 light years, velocity: 828000 km/hr) is something like 2 * 10^-10 m/s^2. That's peanuts compared to the acceleration due to Earth's orbit of the sun (radius: 1 AU, velocity: 30 km/s) at .006 m/s^2.
https://www.google.com/search?q=(828000+km%2Fhour)%5E2+%2F+28000+light+years
https://www.google.com/search?q=(30+km%2Fs)%5E2%2F1AU
So, by comparison, the frame of reference of the sun moving about the galactic core is nearly inertial.
Everything seems fine to me. What's the problem with the helical motion?
What shape do you think the moons of Jupiter inscribe across the solar system?
-
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.
Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.
Verify for yourself.
Vortex = tornado. Helix = spiral. You mean helix.
No I do not.
I mean vortex.
EDIT: according to Phil Plait, author of the debunking article, the planets in the false model trace a helix. The modeler of the debunked model, in labeling his model as a vortex model, utilized the wrong terminology.
Why would that not be Newtonian mechanics?
Because Newtonian mechanics states without equivocation orbits are ellipses. And if Universal Sandbox was indeed using Newtonian mechanics the orbits would ellipses or "helical," not a vortex or a helix.
But the orbits rendered in your submitted model are vortex.
From the perspective of the sun, the orbits are ellipses, Newtonian/Keplerian. Just because the entire system is moving doesn't change things.
Okay. Start with you as an observer on the Sun.
Start the model in motion.
See if your statement holds...
Centripetal acceleration is v^2/r, so the acceleration from the galactic orbit (radius: 28000 light years, velocity: 828000 km/hr) is something like 2 * 10^-10 m/s^2. That's peanuts compared to the acceleration due to Earth's orbit of the sun (radius: 1 AU, velocity: 30 km/s) at .006 m/s^2.
https://www.google.com/search?q=(828000+km%2Fhour)%5E2+%2F+28000+light+years
https://www.google.com/search?q=(30+km%2Fs)%5E2%2F1AU
So, by comparison, the frame of reference of the sun moving about the galactic core is nearly inertial.
Everything seems fine to me. What's the problem with the helical motion?
What shape do you think the moons of Jupiter inscribe across the solar system?
Again, it is not a helical orbit that is displayed here.
It is a vortex EDIT: (actually, helix).
Please see: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html)
-
The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.
What is “textbook motion” anyway?
Regardless, the heliocentric solar system has been accurately modeled in digital renderings with open code and a model of the galaxy is in progress, but due to size constraints, it isn’t accurate enough to include our specific solar system yet, as far as I know.
An admission he never did submit a model...
WTH RamaSet!?
-
Upon first glance it looks like the planets adopt a vortex model to me.
Which would mean it is not using Newtonian mechanics.
Verify for yourself.
Maybe do more than just take a glance.
I did.
It is not accurate and simply renders planetary movement as a vortex.
Further, even if we were able to find an animation that met your demands, how would you check its accuracy?
I have friends.
How about you?
Was this really necessary? It was a valid and neutrally-phrased question.
And I thought my reply was also, but ll of this type of discussion is really off topic and I will no longer entertain it.
StinkyOne, if you were offended, I am sorry.
Back to the subject at hand.
-
I have friends.
How about you?
Given the timeline you've already provided, you are at least in your 50s. You should attempt to act like it. Sadly, you seem content to be a troll. It already got you banned once. I have a feeling it will happen again.
You asked a question.
I provided an answer.
Whether or not I receive a ban(s) is non-topical.
Let us please return to the topic.
Thank you.
Care to self-analyze describe what prompted you to even respond to something you find to be complete nonsense?
I'm trying to help you understand the ridiculous nature of your request. It's like if I asked you for a REAL photo or video of the flat Earth with an ice wall around it. Not gonna happen. You put a bunch of demands on something that you couldn't verify even if someone did produce a video. What is the point?
I am capable of using resources to get them verified.
That is point.
-
I find the lack of a CGI rendering of the heliocentric model (depicting the complete revolutionary movement of the Sun as it travels throughout the Milky Way) to be absolute certain evidence of:
1) The model being a lie; or,
2) Newton is wrong; or,
3) The Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong.
The answer is 2) Newton is wrong.
There are anomalies in Mercury orbit that can't fit into Newton's laws.
That's where Einstein's General Realtivity is more accurate.
If you use reference frame tied to Milky way we aren't sure how accurate our formulas could be.
But if you use reference frame tied to Sun and limit scope to Solar system, then Einstein is good.
They say for reference frame tied to Earth with local scope (satellites and orbital vehicles), Newton is good enough.
So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?
-
Because Newtonian mechanics states without equivocation orbits are ellipses. And if Universal Sandbox was indeed using Newtonian mechanics the orbits would ellipses or "helical," not a vortex or a helix.
You really, truly have no idea how geometry works, at least in 3 dimensions. A helix is what you end with if the point that is tracing the perimeter of the ellipse along a plane in the x and y axis carries a vector in the z axis with respect to t.
But the orbits rendered in your submitted model are vortex.
They are helixes, you just don't understand what you are looking at.
The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.
What is “textbook motion” anyway?
Regardless, the heliocentric solar system has been accurately modeled in digital renderings with open code and a model of the galaxy is in progress, but due to size constraints, it isn’t accurate enough to include our specific solar system yet, as far as I know.
An admission he never did submit a model...
WTH RamaSet!?
I did submit a model of the heliocentric solar system with all the data you asked for.
So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?
You do not understand his post. Apparently you struggle with the difference between math and science, as well.
-
Because Newtonian mechanics states without equivocation orbits are ellipses. And if Universal Sandbox was indeed using Newtonian mechanics the orbits would ellipses or "helical," not a vortex or a helix.
But the orbits rendered in your submitted model are vortex.
The understanding here can be reached by understanding "local frame of reference".
Sun and orbiting planets don't revolve separately around galaxy core.
Look at Earth and Moon.
They are not orbiting Sun separately, but as a system.
Within the system Moon is still following its elliptic orbit relative to Earth.
Jupiter with all its moons also makes system that revolves around Sun as a whole.
During that movement every Jupiter's moon follows own elliptical orbit relative to Jupiter.
Same goes for all planets and other objects orbiting the Sun.
Solar system orbits galactic core as a whole.
Paths of planets of Solar system are helicoidal relative to galactic core, but elliptical relative to the Sun.
Just like each planet moons have spiral paths relative to the Sun but elliptical relative to own planets.
Example of Sun-Earth system:
Within Solar system reference frame Earth orbits Sun on elliptical path.
But relative to galactic reference frame they both additionally have velocity component of orbiting galactic core.
That component is equal for both, Sun and Earth, and doesn't influence their local interaction.
Our present knowledge about Universe couldn't be developed while religious Dogma was active.
If revolution around galaxy core takes 225 million years, and our heliocentric observations last 400 years,
then during the whole observation period Solar system traveled (360/225 million)*400 = 0.00064 degrees on own orbit.
It is 2.3 arcseconds for entire 400 years, or 0.00575 arcseconds per year (1.597E-6 degrees).
Error of 0.000001597 degrees is 1.6 ppm (parts per million) yearly, or 365 times smaller than that daily, which is 4.38 ppb (parts per billion).
Not enough to be measured during formulation of Kepler's laws.
Too close to straight line.
During our routine calculations within inner part of Solar system it sounds pretty tollerable to me.
I don't know if, for the probe New Horizons sent to Pluto, they took the correction into calculation.
-
You really, truly have no idea how geometry works, at least in 3 dimensions.
...
They are helixes, you just don't understand what you are looking at.
...
You do not understand his post. Apparently you struggle with the difference between math and science, as well.
I don't know if totallackey truely doesn't understand, or just doesn't have detailed enough picture of measures and scales.
But in both cases most of the time it is counterproductive to just point out "you don't understand this-or-that".
If you think he doesn't understand, try explaining it using understandable language.
Teaching (and "teaching", for that matter) requires great self-discilpine and is much harder than one could think.
-
I don't know if totallackey truely doesn't understand, or just doesn't have detailed enough picture of measures and scales.
But in both cases most of the time it is counterproductive to just point out "you don't understand this-or-that".
If you think he doesn't understand, try explaining it using understandable language.
Teaching (and "teaching", for that matter) requires great self-discilpine and is much harder than one could think.
I don't plan on engaging in this thread again because I find Total Lackey's posts to be in bad faith almost without exception. When he isn't posting in bad faith he misunderstands the subject matter to such an astonishing degree that I find the whole enterprise to be a waste. Best of luck to you.
-
You really, truly have no idea how geometry works, at least in 3 dimensions. A helix is what you end with if the point that is tracing the perimeter of the ellipse along a plane in the x and y axis carries a vector in the z axis with respect to t.
Simple.
Describe the difference between the orbits depicted on Universal Sandbox and the model I presented.
They are helixes, you just don't understand what you are looking at.
Okay, even the model I presented is, according to the debunking source, rendering helixes.
The motion of the planets around the sun is not attributed to Newton, it is described to a good degree of accuracy by equations developed by Newton and Kepler.
What is “textbook motion” anyway?
Ellipses.
I did submit a model of the heliocentric solar system with all the data you asked for.
And I ask again, for the 2nd time.
Please refresh my memory or provide a link to that model or to the post where you made the submission.
So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?
You do not understand his post. Apparently you struggle with the difference between math and science, as well.
What is wrong with asking for some clarity?
You did notice I asked a question, correct?
-
I don't plan on engaging in this thread again because I find Total Lackey's posts to be in bad faith almost without exception. When he isn't posting in bad faith he misunderstands the subject matter to such an astonishing degree that I find the whole enterprise to be a waste. Best of luck to you.
I'm sorry if I upset you.
It is not my intention to upset anyone here, except few occasional cases of teasing when I find useful for specific kind of intellectual stimulation.
I know it is hard.
I make many mistakes myself.
Some Flat Earthers developed "agressive" approach as pure desire to win, to force people into belief instead of knowledge.
But others developed "semi-agressive" approach as reaction to all ridicule-instead-of-help, and all laughs-instead-of-understanding.
In court lawyers compete.
But this is not court.
In science people cooperate.
-
Keplerian elliptical orbits apply to two bodies. If you restrict yourself to the sun & a planet, or even the sun and all planets, it's a very good model, but then you are sitting on the sun (in some magical protective bubble) watching the planets go around.
If you want to introduce the galactic center, you can't continue to expect ellipses. The ellipses are still there, they are just stretched over space in some other direction, making a helix.
What you are saying is like this:
- Juggling one ball is just throwing it straight up and down.
- When I'm juggling in a bus travelling down the freeway, the path of the ball isn't straight up and down - it's a parabola!
- Therefore juggling doesn't exist.
You can have an observer in the bus watching the ball go straight up and down, or an observer on the side of the road watching the ball go in parabolas. Just like this, you can have an observer coasting along next to the sun observing ellipses, and an observer stationary with respect to the galaxy watching the sun go by with planets tracing helixes.
It's the same motion, just observed from a different frame.
-
I commented this in the last thread started by you, but I was ignored. Here it is again. Check out Celestia. It has a model of the solar system and stars nearest to us:
https://celestia.space/
-
I don't plan on engaging in this thread again because I find Total Lackey's posts to be in bad faith almost without exception.
I asked you two times to clarify when and where you offered a model.
Your reply? = "I have offered you a model."
Who is acting in bad faith?
When he isn't posting in bad faith he misunderstands the subject matter to such an astonishing degree that I find the whole enterprise to be a waste. Best of luck to you.
You will pardon me if I find your assertion baseless and without merit.
Regardless, resting on the firm belief all people ultimately get exactly what they deserve, I bid you good riddance in the hope you will stick to your word.
I don't plan on engaging in this thread again
-
So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?
Math is tool and gives truth when you know how to use it.
Sit on a bench in park and whirl your keys in front of you, you will see them making circle, observer from outside the bench will see them making circle.
Sit on platform sliding on rails and whirl keys in front of you, you will see them making circle again, observer from outside the platform will see them making spiral.
You will calculate circle from your point of view.
Observer from outside the platform will calculate spiral.
In one full rotation on such circle there's less traveling distance than is one full rotation in such spiral.
Faster you go, difference is bigger.
Traveling distance depends on frame of reference, and in both frames is truth within the frame.
For cosmic travels we plan ballistic trajectories because we can't carry enough fuel to correct directions on the run.
To plan interplanetary trajectory within solar system we need frame tied to Sun.
To plan interstellar trajectory within the galaxy, we need frame tied to galactic core.
-
...Not in a way that I understand.
the way I am viewing the universe sandbox model is incorrect and inaccurate is due to my understanding of this article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html)
Please read the article and let me know if you arrive at the same conclusion.
-
So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?
Math is tool and gives truth when you know how to use it.
Sit on a bench in park and whirl your keys in front of you, you will see them making circle, observer from outside the bench will see them making circle.
Sit on platform sliding on rails and whirl keys in front of you, you will see them making circle again, observer from outside the platform will see them making spiral.
You will calculate circle from your point of view.
Observer from outside the platform will calculate spiral.
In one full rotation on such circle there's less traveling distance than is one full rotation in such spiral.
Faster you go, difference is bigger.
Traveling distance depends on frame of reference, and in both frames is truth within the frame.
For cosmic travels we plan ballistic trajectories because we can't carry enough fuel to correct directions on the run.
To plan interplanetary trajectory within solar system we need frame tied to Sun.
To plan interstellar trajectory within the galaxy, we need frame tied to galactic core.
So, if I am to understand your contribution...
I want the model to equal 4 in its rendering of the image.
If within the system on my own ride, I utilize Newton/Kepler only to arrive at a rendering.
If on a outside viewing platform, I use only Einstein and GR.
Under no circumstances, use Newton by himself.
-
So, if I am to understand your post, math is truth (2+2 = 4) depending on what side of the street I am on, and whether or not it is Tuesday or Wednesday?
Math is tool and gives truth when you know how to use it.
Sit on a bench in park and whirl your keys in front of you, you will see them making circle, observer from outside the bench will see them making circle.
Sit on platform sliding on rails and whirl keys in front of you, you will see them making circle again, observer from outside the platform will see them making spiral.
You will calculate circle from your point of view.
Observer from outside the platform will calculate spiral.
In one full rotation on such circle there's less traveling distance than is one full rotation in such spiral.
Faster you go, difference is bigger.
Traveling distance depends on frame of reference, and in both frames is truth within the frame.
For cosmic travels we plan ballistic trajectories because we can't carry enough fuel to correct directions on the run.
To plan interplanetary trajectory within solar system we need frame tied to Sun.
To plan interstellar trajectory within the galaxy, we need frame tied to galactic core.
So, if I am to understand your contribution...
I want the model to equal 4 in its rendering of the image.
If within the system on my own ride, I utilize Newton/Kepler only to arrive at a rendering.
If on a outside viewing platform, I use only Einstein and GR.
Under no circumstances, use Newton by himself.
It depends on desired degree of accuracy.
-
I commented this in the last thread started by you, but I was ignored. Here it is again. Check out Celestia. It has a model of the solar system and stars nearest to us:
https://celestia.space/
Thank you.
I am not sure (and cannot examine the model at this current time) but does celestia actually provide a rendering of the solar system in motion?
-
...Not in a way that I understand.
the way I am viewing the universe sandbox model is incorrect and inaccurate is due to my understanding of this article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/04/vortex_motion_viral_video_showing_sun_s_motion_through_galaxy_is_wrong.html)
Please read the article and let me know if you arrive at the same conclusion.
Ok, I think I understand you now- yes, that particular universe sandbox video has a similar problem to the “vortex” video that I hadn’t understood on first viewing. But now that I know Universe Sandbox exists maybe I or you can build one that is accurate. I believe the ecliptic is tilted about 60 degrees to the galactic motion vector, but I will check the details before attempting to build a model.
An accurate one would show helical motion, and that is allowed by Newtonian mechanics.