[Tom Bishop]

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

[stack]

If we can solve the n-body issue to a high level of accuracy for a given set numerically, what exactly is the problem?

[Tom Bishop]

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

[AATW]

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.

[stack]

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?

[ohplease]

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.

[DuncanDoenitz]

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

[BillO]

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.

[SteelyBob]

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=17923.msg235482#msg235482
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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[WTF_Seriously]

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?



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.

[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.

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.

[AATW]

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?

[Tron]

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. 

[ohplease]

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
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.

[markjo]

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?

[BillO]

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.

[Tron]

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.

[markjo]

Yes, the earth's dimensions are very well understood.  From a round earth perspective, that is.  But what about from a flat earth perspective?

[Tron]

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.