The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: manicminer on March 30, 2019, 09:35:55 PM
-
The FAQ page in FE Wiki states regarding retrograde motion,
The 2007 retrograde of Mars. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.
If this description is true, then as I interpret it the planets should also exhibit a phase cycle like the Moon does shouldn't they? So you would never see a 'full Jupiter' or a 'full Mars' because in that configuration the Sun would lie between the Earth and the planet. You can't see planets when they lie in the same line of sight as the Sun for obvious reasons. The same would apply when the planet is between the Earth and the Sun on the other side of its orbit.
I have been observing the planets with telescopes for around 40 years now and I have never seen Jupiter or Saturn at 'half' phase. Only ever a full or very nearly full disk. How can that be?
-
Why would the outer planets get between the observer and the sun?
-
If I am wrong in that interpretation then I am clearly misunderstanding the statement I have quoted from FE Wiki. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain more fully.
-
I am wrong in that interpretation then I am clearly misunderstanding the statement I have quoted from FE Wiki. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain more fully.
Is it possible from your observation of the planets that they could be in orbits around the Sun that lie in a plane perpendicular to our line of sight to the Sun. That is, they orbit the Sun but never cross between the Sun and the Earth?
I believe such an orbit should be possible from a central force argument, but have not assessed it in detail.
What orbits do they appear to have given your decades of observation?
The lack of phases of the planets is a very interesting observation.
-
I am terrible at typing sometimes! Just noticed another couple of typos in my previous post which I have now corrected :-)
All the planets follow paths through the sky (i.e the starry background) that closely follow that of the Sun. That tells us that the planes of the orbits are all very similar so that would put your suggestion about a perpendicular plane in some doubt.
Of the planets, Mercury and Venus do show a phase cycle that is the same (though with longer period) as that of the Moon. That is quite easy to account for by the heliocentric model if the Earth is the third planet out. Mars does show a slight gibbous phase at times but that is all.
FE Wiki seems to suggest that the other planets orbit the Sun while the Sun orbits over the plane of the Earth. That would inevitably lead to more than just Mercury and Venus showing phases and that simply isn't what is observed.
-
Why would they lead to phases? The outer planets don't come between the observer and the sun. Please draw a diagram.
-
No Tom I'm the one asking the question so you draw a diagram to illustrate what the statement in the FE means. Then perhaps I will understand why my interpretation is wrong.
-
I couldn't find anything via the google so I whipped this up. I have no idea if it's right, just taking a guess:
(https://i.imgur.com/Kg7QhXZ.jpg?1)
-
Congrats Stack on producing an excellent diagram. That is exactly how I envisioned what is meant by the description in FE Wiki.
It shows exactly how the outer planets as we call them should show phases. As shown you would not be able to see any on the planets because they are all in line with the Sun but if you run Jupiter or Saturn 90 deg forward of back then they should show either 'last quarter' or 'first quarter' phase. Like a 'half Moon'. In 40 years of observing I have never seen that.
Also in this model we could never have the situation where Mars and beyond are at 'opposition' where they rise as the Sun sets. In the above configuration No planet could ever be seen on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun.
-
Yuck. That shows the planets orbiting the sun. Most flat earther's subscribe to everything 'orbiting' the earth. The earth is the big thing, it is the centre of the universe. So the planets travel in Spirograph type patterns, consistent with the celestial gearing theory.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Cassini_apparent.jpg)
-
Yuck. That shows the planets orbiting the sun. Most flat earther's subscribe to everything 'orbiting' the earth. The earth is the big thing, it is the centre of the universe. So the planets travel in Spirograph type patterns, consistent with the celestial gearing theory.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0e/Cassini_apparent.jpg)
Whoa! Where’s the sun in this picture?
-
QED, the sun seems to be depicted slightly left of the center vertically along the equator at the bottom
-
Yuck. That shows the planets orbiting the sun.
Why are you so against the idea that the planets orbit the Sun? And what is causing all those loops in your diagram? All looks a bit complicated to me. Again, that depiction would not produce the planetary motion as we see it in the sky.
-
From the Wikipedia page on planetary phases:
"The superior planets, orbiting outside the Earth's orbit, do not exhibit the full range of phases as they appear almost always as gibbous or full."
Sounds pretty simple to me. Some planets can get between the observer and the sun as to create all phases, and the outer ones cannot, and only display some phases.
-
From the Wikipedia page on planetary phases:
"The superior planets, orbiting outside the Earth's orbit, do not exhibit the full range of phases as they appear almost always as gibbous or full."
Sounds pretty simple to me. Some planets can get between the observer and the sun as to create all phases, and the outer ones cannot, and only display some phases.
Tom, that's the RE explanation. What's the FE explanation? Aren't the sun, moon and planets more or less on the same plane above the flat earth?
-
Some planets can get between the observer and the sun, others cannot.
-
Some planets can get between the observer and the sun, others cannot.
Would you care to elaborate? What's different about the orbits of Mercury and Venus that allows them to get between the sun and the observer but not the other planets?
Perhaps a diagram of FE planetary orbits would help those of us who can't visualize such a system without help.
-
"The superior planets, orbiting outside the Earth's orbit, do not exhibit the full range of phases as they appear almost always as gibbous or full."
Sounds pretty simple to me. Some planets can get between the observer and the sun as to create all phases, and the outer ones cannot, and only display some phases.
For once Tom I completely agree with you. This is exactly what happens in the heliocentric model. If anyone can get the same description to work with a geocentric model then I would be most interested to hear about it.
-
You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?
-
You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?
RE has one. FE?
The questions are not about the Helio model but about the FE model. That's why we're asking.
- Are the planets and Sun arranged and orbit over the flat earth like Thork's spirograph model?
- Or are they arranged in some other manner with different orbits?
- How high are the planets? Are they on the same plane as the FE Sun and Moon, higher or lower?
Seemingly simple questions, but maybe not for FET.
-
You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?
RE has one. FE?
I'm pretty sure that I just told you about five times now in this thread. Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn.
-
You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?
RE has one. FE?
I'm pretty sure that I just told you about five times now in this thread. Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn.
How did you personally measure them?
-
You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?
If Mercury is in more or less the same orbital plane as Saturn, then yes. Not knowing the FE geometry of the planets orbits relative to observers on the flat earth makes it hard for me to just take your word for it.
-
You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?
RE has one. FE?
I'm pretty sure that I just told you about five times now in this thread. Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn.
Maybe you could be more specific and answer the other questions I had that you seemed to skip over:
The questions are not about the Helio model but about the FE model. That's why we're asking.
- Are the planets and Sun arranged and orbit over the flat earth like Thork's spirograph model?
- Or are they arranged in some other manner with different orbits?
- How high are the planets? Are they on the same plane as the FE Sun and Moon, higher or lower?
-
I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.
-
I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.
If someone even whispers words like 'equinox' or 'solstice' or 'eclipse' or 'transit' you immediately launch into how modern astronomy is bunk/pattern-based drivel, there's no RE n- body solution, etc. Yet here you are saying you have never looked into the FE model as to how the planets are arranged, orbit, and how far they are away from earth? In other words all of those things are unknown to you as you've never looked into them? And without looking into it, how would you know that Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn as you stated?
It's really hard to regard with any sense of credibility your responses and ridicule of anything in the helio model when you admitted you don't know much about your own model.
-
I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.
No, I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET. If that is your interest, then I can only encourage you to pursue it. I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.
-
I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.
No, I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET.
Then how would you know that Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn as you stated?
-
I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.
Close Tom, it was actually six until 1781. Saturn is the outermost of the bright planets. Uranus was discovered in 1781 and Neptune was discovered in 1846 after its position was mathematically calculated independently by astronomers from the UK and France.
Planetary distances have been measured very accurately now and these distances have since been confirmed mathematically. We can predict positions for any time in the future. The distances that RET uses may not agree with what FET states but they have been shown to be correct observationally. What else does a model or theory need to do to be accepted?
What I want and need as an observational astronomer is data that I can rely on. I want to be able to point my telescope and know that I will find and see my target with the least possible effort. I will accept any theory that allows me to do that successfully and consistently.
-
Five planets can be seen with the naked eye. How do you figure that civilizations such as the Ancient Greeks saw six planets?
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_astronomy#The_Planets_in_Early_Greek_Astronomy
The book Kings Dethroned discusses the methods used to determine the distances to the planets and finds that the methods of triangulation are flawed. Take a look if you wish to learn more:
https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich
-
Well Tom, putting them in order from the Sun outwards you have:
1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. You are standing on it. (I know its cheating a bit to include Earth but it certainly is visible to the naked eye!)
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn.
Technically Uranus does shine just within naked eye visiblility but at mag 5.7 you need very good skies to see it. Saturn is the outermost of the bright planets.
-
I provided a source that RET started with five planets, you provided none. Uranus was not discovered until 1781. (http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/134-Who-discovered-Uranus-)
-
I believe I stated that Uranus was discovered in 1781 didn't I Tom? By Sir William Herschel at his home in Bath, England. That is well known. I visited the Herschel Museum myself last year.
After Uranus was discovered it was realised that the orbital path was being affected by another, at the time unknown planet. The path of such a planet was calculated mathematically and Neptune was subsequently observed in 1846. Again I mentioned that.
It is very well known that there were five known planets visible in the sky up until 1781. There are countless 'sources' that mention that. Why should I feel the need to single out any of those when you can check for yourself? I don't need to publish a bibliography with every post I put on here. I don't believe that it is necessary to allow your life to be controlled by skepticism as others here perhaps do. I recognise the point when there is enough evidence about to accept that something is known rather than 'alleged' or whatever you would call it.
The nature of the planets was somewhat of a mystery until the early 17th century. That's when the era of telescopic observational astronomy started. But then I'm sure you know that already Tom so it would be a waste of time me explaining about that again.
-
I provided a source that RET started with five planets, you provided none. Uranus was not discovered until 1781. (http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/134-Who-discovered-Uranus-)
RET planetary orbits are irrelevant. Do you have any sources that describe the planetary orbits from a Flat Earth perspective?
-
I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET. If that is your interest, then I can only encourage you to pursue it. I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.
-
I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET.
Yes, I understand that. Do you know anyone who has focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET?
-
I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET. If that is your interest, then I can only encourage you to pursue it. I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.
Would it be fair to say that the distance, size, arrangement, and orbits of the planets is unknown at this time to FET?
-
Why do you need to have studied it personally to provide a source?
The point above is a brilliant one. Neptune was discovered because when Uranus was discovered it was shown mathematically that another planet must be out there. This is such powerful evidence for the heliocentric model and Newton’s theories. Since when has FE ideas had any predictive power?
-
I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET.
Yes, I understand that. Do you know anyone who has focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET?
I believe that I have already stated that I haven't looked into it. If you have an interest in the subject, feel free to research the topic for yourself.
Neptune was discovered because when Uranus was discovered it was shown mathematically that another planet must be out there. This is such powerful evidence for the heliocentric model and Newton’s theories.
Doubtful.
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Perturbation_theory
The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1848 by J. Adams and U. le Verrier, based on the deviations in motion of the planet Uranus, represented a triumph of perturbation theory.
Perturbation Theory doesn't use the full laws of Newton. Read about perturbation theory here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
-
Ha. You were doing quite well then until your source was your own Wiki.
More details from the real world here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
-
The Wiki is composed almost entirely of third party sources which we did not write at all.
The source material doesn't come from the Wiki. Look into what quotes and references are.
-
The Wiki is composed almost entirely of third party sources which we did not write at all.
The source material doesn't come from the Wiki. Look into what quotes and references are.
Are the distance, size, arrangement, and orbits of the planets unknown to FET? I couldn't find any 1st or 3rd party references to this in the wiki.
-
If you can't find it in the Wiki it means that the few people editing it probably haven't looked into it. Others may have, such as old zetetic societies. You are welcome to contribute.
-
Why do you need to have studied it personally to provide a source?
The point above is a brilliant one. Neptune was discovered because when Uranus was discovered it was shown mathematically that another planet must be out there. This is such powerful evidence for the heliocentric model and Newton’s theories. Since when has FE ideas had any predictive power?
The Wikipedia page on the "Discovery of Neptune" notes that it had been observed repeatedly prior to its official discovery. As for the mathematical prediction of the planet, it turns out to have been somewhat of a fluke.
"Luck also played a part in the discovery, for it turns out (as it would in the case of the discovery of Pluto) that both Adams and Le Verrier succeeded in getting the predicted longitude because of a 'fluke of orbital timing'. Had Uranus and Neptune been elsewhere in their orbits the methods of prediction employed by Adams and Leverrier would not have resulted in such an accurate prediction."
https://books.google.com/books/about/Discovery_and_Classification_in_Astronom.html?id=IT8oAAAAQBAJ
-
Why do you need to have studied it personally to provide a source?
The point above is a brilliant one. Neptune was discovered because when Uranus was discovered it was shown mathematically that another planet must be out there. This is such powerful evidence for the heliocentric model and Newton’s theories. Since when has FE ideas had any predictive power?
The Wikipedia page on the "Discovery of Neptune" notes that it had been observed repeatedly prior to its official discovery. As for the mathematical prediction of the planet, it turns out to have been somewhat of a fluke.
"Luck also played a part in the discovery, for it turns out (as it would in the case of the discovery of Pluto) that both Adams and Le Verrier succeeded in getting the predicted longitude because of a 'fluke of orbital timing'. Had Uranus and Neptune been elsewhere in their orbits the methods of prediction employed by Adams and Leverrier would not have resulted in such an accurate prediction."
https://books.google.com/books/about/Discovery_and_Classification_in_Astronom.html?id=IT8oAAAAQBAJ
"On September 23, 1846, Galle used Le Verrier’s calculations to find Neptune only 1° off Le Verrier’s predicted position. The planet was then located 12° off Adams’ prediction...
Ironically, as it turns out, both Le Verrier and Adams had been very lucky. Their predictions indicated Neptune’s distance correctly around 1840-1850. Had they made their calculations at another time, both predicted positions would have been off. Their calculations would have predicted the planet’s position only 165 years later or earlier, since Neptune takes 165 years to orbit once around the sun."
https://earthsky.org/human-world/today-in-science-discovery-of-neptune
Not bad I would say, 1° & 12° off, for the first guys to locate/identify a planet with just their pens.
Fast forward 170+ years later, seemingly due to the lack of time, resources, or interest, FET still hasn't found Neptune.
-
If I was able to predict the position of a celestial object that had never been seen before to an accuracy of just 1 degree even with todays technology I would be quite happy with that. To do the same in the mid 19th century I would regard as a massive achievement. Adams was slightly less accurate but even 12 degrees for his day is not at all bad.
A 'fluke' as George puts it is more a matter of unplanned or unintentional success. Flukes as such are often seen in sport for example.
The discovery of Neptune was not a fluke since astronomers were specifically looking for it based upon the observed 'perturbations' of Uranus. They were looking for something that they were expecting to find. Evidence for the scientific method in action I would suggest.
Fast forward 170+ years later, seemingly due to the lack of time, resources, or interest, FET still hasn't found Neptune.
Wow..is that true?
-
It's a pretty astonishing achievement and powerful validation of the scientific method and the heliocentric model and Newton's laws.
Meanwhile, Tom is asserting that "Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn" although provides no evidence for that in the FE model.
As a wise man once said:
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
I presume that his only reason for saying that, ironically, is that's what the heliocentric model claims and observes.
Hint: We get transits of Mercury and Venues but not the other planets. In the heliocentric model where we are "3rd rock from the sun" this makes perfect sense.
-
A 'fluke' as George puts it is more a matter of unplanned or unintentional success. Flukes as such are often seen in sport for example.
The discovery of Neptune was not a fluke since astronomers were specifically looking for it based upon the observed 'perturbations' of Uranus. They were looking for something that they were expecting to find. Evidence for the scientific method in action I would suggest.
I'm thinking that the "fluke" mentioned is that Neptune just happened to be near enough Uranus for the orbital perturbations to be detected. A few years earlier or later and they would have been too far apart to see any perturbation in either orbit.
-
I guess it's a similar fluke that the rings of Uranus were only discovered when the planet occulted a star. Unexpectedly at the time, the star was seen at the time to blink on and off several times just before and just after the actual occultation. The pattern of blinks before the occultation was symmetrically the reverse of the pattern after the occultation. The rings themselves, not visible from Earth were subsequently confirmed by the Voyager pass by.
Another fluke is that the Sun and Moon distance and size ratios as seen from Earth are also equal. That makes the Sun and Moon look the same size on the sky so we see total solar eclipses.
-
If I was able to predict the position of a celestial object that had never been seen before to an accuracy of just 1 degree even with todays technology I would be quite happy with that. To do the same in the mid 19th century I would regard as a massive achievement. Adams was slightly less accurate but even 12 degrees for his day is not at all bad.
Except it had been seen before:
Neptune is too dim to be visible to the naked eye: its apparent magnitude is never brighter than 7.7.[5] Therefore, the first observations of Neptune were only possible after the invention of the telescope. There is evidence that Neptune was seen and recorded by Galileo Galilei in 1613, Jérôme Lalande in 1795 and John Herschel in 1830, but none is known to have recognized it as a planet at the time.[6] These pre-discovery observations were important in accurately determining the orbit of Neptune. Neptune would appear prominently even in early telescopes so other pre-discovery observation records are likely.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune
How do you know La Verrier and Adams weren't familiar with those observations or hadn't made similar observations (being that Neptune is stated to be easily observable using equipment available at the time) and merely made it seem like they "predicted" the observation ex post facto? Wikipedia specifically mentions that "pre-discovery observations" helped determine the orbit of Neptune, although a citation isn't given for that claim unfortunately.
-
The matter is a pretty questionable argument. Neptune was discovered via perturbation (pattern) methods, not with full Newtonian Gravity. Newtonian Gravity can't even keep the solar system together without falling apart...
As George states, the Wikipedia page says that it was only through luck that Neptune was discovered with the particular methods used. The "pre-discovery" stuff doesn't sound too confident either.
-
Why do you keep lying? ???
In 1821, Alexis Bouvard had published astronomical tables of the orbit of Uranus, making predictions of future positions based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation.[15] Subsequent observations revealed substantial deviations from the tables, leading Bouvard to hypothesize some perturbing body.[16] These irregularities or "residuals", both in the planet's ecliptic longitude and in its distance from the Sun, or radius vector, might be explained by a number of hypotheses: the effect of the Sun's gravity, at such a great distance might differ from Newton's description; or the discrepancies might simply be observational error; or perhaps Uranus was being pulled, or perturbed, by an as-yet undiscovered planet.
Adams learned of the irregularities while still an undergraduate and became convinced of the "perturbation" hypothesis. Adams believed, in the face of anything that had been attempted before, that he could use the observed data on Uranus, and utilising nothing more than Newton's law of gravitation, deduce the mass, position and orbit of the perturbing body
-
The matter is a pretty questionable argument. Neptune was discovered via perturbation (pattern) methods, not with full Newtonian Gravity. Newtonian Gravity can't even keep the solar system together without falling apart...
As George states, the Wikipedia page says that it was only through luck that Neptune was discovered with the particular methods used. The "pre-discovery" stuff doesn't sound too confident either.
Tom,
As sympathetic as I am for this cause, I cannot permit such claims to go unanswered. Especially when I routinely lambaste REers for equivalent claims against FE.
I have explained to you previously the consistency of Newtonian dynamics in explaining orbits. I addressed your concerns regarding the lack of analytical solutions for n=3 and greater, and walked you through the rationale for why that thinking was flawed.
Continued dispute of these items without proposing new evidence which might serve as a rebuttal only serves to present you as entrenched and non-rational. I do not think this is the reputation you wish to propogate.
I highly recommend that your efforts be devoted to developing a consistent FE explanation for planetary motion. Further blanket denial of Newtonian success in it is ineffective and counter productive.
-
Just to recap a bit on a point that Stack made earlier, how does FET account for the discovery of Uranus and Neptune?
-
QED, I recall giving references to experimental evidence that a three body problem with a sun that that a planet that had a moon was not possible and did not exist in the n-body families. They all required at least two bodies of equal masses, and were in configurations that looked nothing like heliocentric orbits. You appeared to agree that there were no numerical solutions with such a configuration in the galleries or the studies and told me that we could cheat by treating it as a two body problem and considering the earth and moon as one, because that is what students do.
If this were true and Newton's gravity worked based on approximations then we should expect to see those configurations in the three body problem galleries.
It is my opinion that experimental evidence from Newtonian gravity simulators > "We can fudge a little" and "it's close enough". We should emperically favor experimental evidence over an idea of approximations.
-
In order for Newtonian mechanics to work the ad-hoc and unfalsifiable hypothesis of 85% of the universe consisting of invisible and undetectable matter has to be assumed. Such a theory is hardly worthy of any triumphalism.
-
In order for Newtonian mechanics to work the ad-hoc and unfalsifiable hypothesis of 85% of the universe consisting of invisible and undetectable matter has to be assumed. Such a theory is hardly worthy of any triumphalism.
They need all sorts of shortcuts to make it work. For me, the most damning of the matter is that they cannot make a sun with a planet that has a moon.
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.
We can see the behavior of the systems in this 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
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/6c/Three_body_sim.png/350px-Three_body_sim.png) (https://cloud.anylogic.com/model/f1999d97-8de2-4804-9940-5ae261d7ad86?mode=SETTINGS&tab=GENERAL)
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.
So we can see how the ideas of being able to just use two body problems and the practice of considering the masses of some bodies as negligable or combined, or shortcuts of any kind, may be questionable. The configurations of the solutions need to be very precise.The slightest change in mass of one of the bodies in the above demo created an instable system that caused the system to tear apart.
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!
-
Very interesting Tom but to repeat the question I posted only a few minutes ago but which seems to have been skipped over in favour of some rambling on about your speciality of the 3 body problem. What is the FE account for the discovery of Uranus and Neptune?
-
QED, I recall giving references to experimental evidence that a three body problem with a sun that that a planet that had a moon was not possible and did not exist in the n-body families. They all required at least two bodies of equal masses, and were in configurations that looked nothing like heliocentric orbits. You appeared to agree that there were no numerical solutions with such a configuration in the galleries or the studies and told me that we could cheat by treating it as a two body problem and considering the earth and moon as one, because that is what students do.
If this were true and Newton's gravity worked based on approximations then we should expect to see those configurations in the three body problem galleries.
It is my opinion that experimental evidence from Newtonian gravity simulators > "We can fudge a little" and "it's close enough"
I remember you providing references that detailed investigations into analytical solutions for n=3 bodys. You expressed concern that this was problematic because for these analytical solutions, two of the three had equal mass, which is not the case for the Sun moon earth system.
In response, I explained that n body problems lacking an analytical solution is not a constraint on the physical model, but instead a constraint on mathematical techniques. Numerically, the solutions exist and undergraduates find them. In other words - they are COMMON. I also explained that their commonality is why you cannot find research on them - because we research unknown things....
I also explained how we use Newtonian dynamics to solve for orbits in our solar system. I explained that in the earth moon sun system, the equations decouple, and we solve this by considering the equivalent 2 body systems. Indeed, the force on the moon from the earth >> the force on the moon from the sun. It is in most textbooks how one completes the calculations.
That the equations decouple is not a fudging...it is what happens to some differential equations, and is rather commonly found, in fact.
What you refer to as “loopholes” or “cheats” are what scientists call: mathematical methods, and those methods are pretty basic as applied to central force problems.
If you wish to learn how to do this, then take a physics class! The reason you don’t see these methods in “galleries” is the same reason why you don’t see investigations of 1+1=2 in galleries: because it is basic and understood.
Tom, I wish I could get you to see this. You are not presenting valid criticisms of central force problems. Continued denial of what I am explaining to you looks foolish, not because I have any agenda, or wish to be hurtful, but because any undergraduate physics student can immediately see your mistake - and as a zetetic council member, the mistake represents the FE community as an uninformed and scientifically juvenile movement.
I promise that I am trying to guide your efforts in a productive direction.
-
Tom, every time you use that three body problem as an argument it gets more and more tedious and it shows you're being disingenuous. Here's another simulation using actual gravity calculations and you can even interact with it to see what happens if you throw things off course. I've linked this about 3 or 4 times to you now in response to the three body problem since you insist on bringing it up.
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
-
Tom, every time you use that three body problem as an argument it gets more and more tedious and it shows you're being disingenuous. Here's another simulation using actual gravity calculations and you can even interact with it to see what happens if you throw things off course. I've linked this about 3 or 4 times to you now in response to the three body problem since you insist on bringing it up.
https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html
I'd also note that while it doesn't use Relativity because of the processing power required, Universe Sandbox 2 is a fully fledged solar system creator/simulator that runs based on Newtonian physics. I've found one video so far zooming on everything and showing the whole system in motion, and I think it's a default system you can load up with the software. But I'm going to see if I can't find anything a bit longer yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7efk7GmZ7t8
-
Here you go:
http://universesandbox.com/blog/2016/02/n-body-problem/
By default, the simulations in Universe Sandbox ² try to set an accuracy which prevents orbits from falling apart due to error. This means setting a maximum error tolerance for each step and also making sure the total error doesn’t reach an upper limit.
If you crank up the time step, the simulation then has to take fewer, larger steps. This means the potential for greater error. And the greater the error, the more likely it is that an orbit, which otherwise would be stable, falls apart. Moons crash into planets, Mercury gets thrown out of the solar system — things like that.
This isn’t what most people want in their simulations. But at the same time, most people also don’t want a limit on how fast they can run their simulation. This is a problem.
An imperfect solution
So how can we get around this problem? How can we accurately simulate thousands of objects while still allowing for large steps forward in time? For example, what if you wanted to simulate our solar system on a time scale of millions of years per second so that you could see the evolution of our Sun?
One solution proposed by Thomas, our physics programmer, is to allow for a special mode within simulations running at high time steps. This mode (which of course could be toggled) would collapse the existing n-body simulation into a series of 2-body problems: Moon & Earth, Earth & Sun, Europa & Jupiter, Jupiter & Sun, etc.
Solving a 2-body problem is much easier than solving an n-body problem. Not only is it faster computationally, but there is also a relatively arbitrary difference between figuring out where the two objects will be in one year and where they’ll be in a million years — it still requires just one calculation. So if you collapse an n-body simulation into a series of two-body problems, the simulation could take one big step forward, instead of taking the small steps needed for calculating it as an n-body problem.
The results won’t be entirely accurate, as this method would effectively ignore all gravitational influences outside of the main attractor. As mentioned before, calculating Earth’s orbit by looking at how it interacts with just the Sun is not accurate, as Earth is also affected by every other body. The Sun, however, is the most significant factor by far, because it is much more massive than any other object in our solar system. The other, much smaller forces tend to have little effect overall in non-chaotic systems. So while it’s not correct, it’s close enough when simulating something relatively stable like our solar system.
See bolded. They admit that the methods used are not correct.
I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, it is my opinion that the commonality does not have anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.
-
I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, I don't think that the commonality has anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.
Very interesting I remember when you linked the challenges behind the 3 body problem. Calculating gravity and orbits for a planet which orbits the sun and a moon which orbits that planet. This is not a 3 body problem. This is like a 3,000 body problem. All the planets, all the moons, all the big asteroids etc. Each of these things affecting the orbits of all of the others. It seems that not even a supercomputer could accurately model something so complex.
-
The 3-Body problem in RE doesn’t seem to be even relevant to this topic. As usual, it's a red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. The real issue is FE’s Any-Body problem.
As it stands, FET has no knowledge of where the planets are, their size, distance from earth, let alone their orbits. So FE can attempt to poke holes in helio models and predictions and continue to fail or perhaps be better served by figuring out the FE models and predictions because right now, there are none.
-
At any time of day or night, any time of the year I can switch on my telescope mount and set it to aim at any of the planets. Mercury, Venus, Mars and Jupiter are easily visible during broad daylight when the skies are nice and clear.
What I would like to hear Tom explain is this. Where has the data that my mount uses for aiming at the planets come from? It is not connected to the Internet and it does not use GPS. It uses a handset with an onboard computer containing positional coordinates for just over 100,000 objects. Including of course all the planets. This is my mount http://astropixels.com/bifrost/ap1200gto.html Not this exact one I should add but I have the same model in my observatory.
-
The 3-Body problem in RE doesn’t seem to be even relevant to this topic. As usual, it's a red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. The real issue is FE’s Any-Body problem.
As it stands, FET has no knowledge of where the planets are, their size, distance from earth, let alone their orbits. So FE can attempt to poke holes in helio models and predictions and continue to fail or perhaps be better served by figuring out the FE models and predictions because right now, there are none.
I think, in a discussion about orbits of the planets, the near infinite complexity of the orbits and gravity in the round earth model is totally relevant.
I will agree with you that there are many flat earth models which don't even attempt to outline the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system.
-
The 3-Body problem in RE doesn’t seem to be even relevant to this topic. As usual, it's a red herring to draw attention away from the real issue. The real issue is FE’s Any-Body problem.
As it stands, FET has no knowledge of where the planets are, their size, distance from earth, let alone their orbits. So FE can attempt to poke holes in helio models and predictions and continue to fail or perhaps be better served by figuring out the FE models and predictions because right now, there are none.
I think, in a discussion about orbits of the planets, the near infinite complexity of the orbits and gravity in the round earth model is totally relevant.
I will agree with you that there are many flat earth models which don't even attempt to outline the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system.
I'm just saying, especially if you read QED's response here and in other threads regarding the helio 3-body problem, it is irrelevant. The real issue here is what you pointed out - The FET Any-body problem: No FET knowledge of the orbit, size, or distance of the planets in our solar system. That's essentially the focus of the OP: FE, what does your solar system look like, where are your planets, and how do they move about?
So far nada for answers from FE. Reason being, apparently, because there are none.
-
Why should I care about planetary properties as a topic of research? How many people have been studying and making theories about the planets in the lifespan of FET vs 2000+ years of RET?
Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. :(
-
Why should I care about planetary properties as a topic of research? How many people have been studying and making theories about the planets in the lifespan of FET vs 2000+ years of RET?
If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.
Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. :(
As been shown time and time again, we got that. FET has had a few thousand years to figure out where the planets are and what they do, yet FET still doesn't know where the planets are and what they do. Fair enough.
-
If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.
I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.
As been shown time and time again, we got that.
Post it.
-
If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.
I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.
Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth
And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.
As been shown time and time again, we got that.
Post it.
Reply #52 & #58 in this thread for starters, though there are many more in various threads. Perhaps FET should locate and figure out how any body works before it tackles 3 body problems.
-
If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.
I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.
Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth
And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.
Some of those ancients who believed in a Flat Earth were able to predict the position of the planets with their pattern predicting methods -- methods that are independent of model and are still in use today
It is pretty disturbing that you guys are still using ancient pattern-based methods of locating the planets rather than an RET model, and walk around under the fantasy that you have a working model.
Three Body Problem solutions were not posted in this thread. I don't think I will bother to look at those posts. When you can find an example of a Three Body Problem that has bodies of different masses, that doesn't ignore physics, and has something that looks like a sun with a planet that has a moon, you should probably post a new thread about that. Science has been searching for a way to get Copernicus' heliocentric system working for a long time!
-
Tom, if the n-body problem is the bane of modeling the RE solar system, do you think that the FE solar system would be any easier to model?
-
Here you go:
http://universesandbox.com/blog/2016/02/n-body-problem/
By default, the simulations in Universe Sandbox ² try to set an accuracy which prevents orbits from falling apart due to error. This means setting a maximum error tolerance for each step and also making sure the total error doesn’t reach an upper limit.
If you crank up the time step, the simulation then has to take fewer, larger steps. This means the potential for greater error. And the greater the error, the more likely it is that an orbit, which otherwise would be stable, falls apart. Moons crash into planets, Mercury gets thrown out of the solar system — things like that.
This isn’t what most people want in their simulations. But at the same time, most people also don’t want a limit on how fast they can run their simulation. This is a problem.
An imperfect solution
So how can we get around this problem? How can we accurately simulate thousands of objects while still allowing for large steps forward in time? For example, what if you wanted to simulate our solar system on a time scale of millions of years per second so that you could see the evolution of our Sun?
One solution proposed by Thomas, our physics programmer, is to allow for a special mode within simulations running at high time steps. This mode (which of course could be toggled) would collapse the existing n-body simulation into a series of 2-body problems: Moon & Earth, Earth & Sun, Europa & Jupiter, Jupiter & Sun, etc.
Solving a 2-body problem is much easier than solving an n-body problem. Not only is it faster computationally, but there is also a relatively arbitrary difference between figuring out where the two objects will be in one year and where they’ll be in a million years — it still requires just one calculation. So if you collapse an n-body simulation into a series of two-body problems, the simulation could take one big step forward, instead of taking the small steps needed for calculating it as an n-body problem.
The results won’t be entirely accurate, as this method would effectively ignore all gravitational influences outside of the main attractor. As mentioned before, calculating Earth’s orbit by looking at how it interacts with just the Sun is not accurate, as Earth is also affected by every other body. The Sun, however, is the most significant factor by far, because it is much more massive than any other object in our solar system. The other, much smaller forces tend to have little effect overall in non-chaotic systems. So while it’s not correct, it’s close enough when simulating something relatively stable like our solar system.
See bolded. They admit that the methods used are not correct.
I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, it is my opinion that the commonality does not have anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.
Tom, you're cherry picking your information and bending it to suit your own desires. If you're just going to keep doing that don't bother replying to a post please. You've deliberately misread the statement you quote in order to make it appear to support your point. This is one of many reasons I don't both posting much anymore and will once again step away from this discussion as you continue to show you don't discuss in good faith but in the same way as Rowbotham has been said to. A snake-oil salesman looking for any way to twist words to your own advantage.
-
You read that blog post and left thinking "this is a full simulation of gravity" and I am just cherry picking quotes and phrases to deceive people? ???
-
If recollection serves, flat earth theory is older than globe earth theory, same for geocentrism. So I don't know what you're getting at.
I can't think of many Flat Earth astronomers who have studied the planets. I can think of many RE astronomers. One would think that RE would have a working model by now, with all of science behind that effort.
Maybe ask yourself why you can’t name one. But maybe some of these guys:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Belief_in_flat_Earth
And one would think that FE would at least know where the planets are and how they move by now, with even a smidge of science behind that effort. But alas, nothing after thousands of years.
Some of those ancients who believed in a Flat Earth were able to predict the position of the planets with their pattern predicting methods -- methods that are independent of model and are still in use today
Great, independent you say. So where is Saturn in FET? Where is Mars? From an FET standpoint, where are they, how far away are they, what are there orbits? FET=crickets.
It is pretty disturbing that you guys are still using ancient pattern-based methods of locating the planets rather than an RET model, and walk around under the fantasy that you have a working model.
Math = Neptune.
Three Body Problem solutions were not posted in this thread. I don't think I will bother to look at those posts. When you can find an example of a Three Body Problem that has bodies of different masses, that doesn't ignore physics, and has something that looks like a sun with a planet that has a moon, you should probably post a new thread about that. Science has been searching for a way to get Copernicus' heliocentric system working for a long time!
Red herring galore. And yes, Copernicus' heliocentric system has been working for a long time. And quite well. Now when FET has an actual 'system', great. But to date, thousands of years later, the planets are unknown to your system as FET does not know where they are or how the move. At least helio does and demonstrates.
-
Here you go:
http://universesandbox.com/blog/2016/02/n-body-problem/
By default, the simulations in Universe Sandbox ² try to set an accuracy which prevents orbits from falling apart due to error. This means setting a maximum error tolerance for each step and also making sure the total error doesn’t reach an upper limit.
If you crank up the time step, the simulation then has to take fewer, larger steps. This means the potential for greater error. And the greater the error, the more likely it is that an orbit, which otherwise would be stable, falls apart. Moons crash into planets, Mercury gets thrown out of the solar system — things like that.
This isn’t what most people want in their simulations. But at the same time, most people also don’t want a limit on how fast they can run their simulation. This is a problem.
An imperfect solution
So how can we get around this problem? How can we accurately simulate thousands of objects while still allowing for large steps forward in time? For example, what if you wanted to simulate our solar system on a time scale of millions of years per second so that you could see the evolution of our Sun?
One solution proposed by Thomas, our physics programmer, is to allow for a special mode within simulations running at high time steps. This mode (which of course could be toggled) would collapse the existing n-body simulation into a series of 2-body problems: Moon & Earth, Earth & Sun, Europa & Jupiter, Jupiter & Sun, etc.
Solving a 2-body problem is much easier than solving an n-body problem. Not only is it faster computationally, but there is also a relatively arbitrary difference between figuring out where the two objects will be in one year and where they’ll be in a million years — it still requires just one calculation. So if you collapse an n-body simulation into a series of two-body problems, the simulation could take one big step forward, instead of taking the small steps needed for calculating it as an n-body problem.
The results won’t be entirely accurate, as this method would effectively ignore all gravitational influences outside of the main attractor. As mentioned before, calculating Earth’s orbit by looking at how it interacts with just the Sun is not accurate, as Earth is also affected by every other body. The Sun, however, is the most significant factor by far, because it is much more massive than any other object in our solar system. The other, much smaller forces tend to have little effect overall in non-chaotic systems. So while it’s not correct, it’s close enough when simulating something relatively stable like our solar system.
See bolded. They admit that the methods used are not correct.
I believe that these are the same work-around methods QED considers to have solved the n-body problems. While in common use, it is my opinion that the commonality does not have anything to do with a correct depiction or simulation of Newtonian gravity.
I think what is wrong is that you just don’t understand differential equations. If you have a coupled differential equation, then you can represent it as two uncoupled differential equations. This usually makes them easier to solve. The penalty is that you have to solve twice as many!
You continue to insist that this decoupling method is somehow not genuine. That it cheats the system somehow, or implies that the original equations are somehow invalid.
It’s like if you wanted to solve the problem: 5+7=?, and I said: “hey just do this”: 5+7=5+5+2=10+2=12.
And then you say: “there is a flaw in your method if you have to take some shortcut.”
No Tom, that’s just how arithmetic works...
You just don’t understand how differential equations work.
That’s all!
The moment you acknowledge this, and take action to remedy it - by LEARNING, is the moment you begin to enter the scientific discourse.
Right now, you are not part of that scientific discussion. You are reacting like a cornered intransigent, and to avoid changing an entrenched position, it sounds like you are just making stuff up.
Which is exactly what you’re doing.
I implore you to abandon this argument. The internet is written in ink, and with every reply you sink another nail into the coffin of your potential future reputation. Nothing will come from this that benefits you.
-
Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon.
Why do you need a model when you can see it happening in the real world? Have you never seen the Moon?
-
QED, the matter is simple. Does the moon ignore the gravitational influence of the sun while it orbits the earth?
If not, then we can't treat the Sun-Earth-Moon system as two two body problems. Nor can we treat it as a single two body problem by considering the earth and moon as one and using the earth-moon center of mass as the second anchorpoint. That simplification also assumes that the moon cannot feel the gravitational pull from a body in the system.
These are all cheats that work around a non-working system. The moon has mass and it must simultaneously feel the gravitational pull of the sun and the earth. It can't be simplified.
We are at an impasse. I am expecting experimental evidence from the three body research, where such configurations should surely have manifested in the super computer simulations that have been done, and you keep telling us that cheats and two body approximations are enough.
Surely there should be an example of a three body solution with bodies of different masses, or one that looks like a heliocentric system. Yet all the ones we have seen in the galleries (which are numerical solutions, not anlytical solutions -- those don't exist) require at least two bodies of equal masses, and exist in odd loopy orbits. Other similations employ the two-body cheats. There must be a simulation of gravity somewhere which operates in favor of heliocentricism.
The scientific method demands that we demonstrate by experiment, and you appear to be ignoring all experimental evidence, are telling us that it is unneeded, and are repeatedly telling us that we can just cheat a little with two-body approximations, apparently cognisant that it won't work any other way.
That is, in my opinion, not enough. We should either seek experimental evidence from a full gravity simulation where these approximations should manifest naturally or admit that doesn't work. If it can't work then it can't work.
-
Tom, what is the average distance of the Moon from the Sun and what is the average distance between the Moon and the Earth? We know the masses of the Sun, the Earth and the Moon so you can calculate what the gravitational force is between the Sun and the Moon and the Earth and the Moon.
I would suggest that the Earths gravitational force on the Moon is significantly more than that of the Sun but the gravitational force on the Moon by the Sun is very small but greater than zero. Gravity has infinite range.
-
Actually, the sun's gravitational influence on the moon is about twice that of the earth's. However, the moon's orbital velocity around the earth is about 1km/s while escape velocity at that distance is 1.2km/s.
https://www.universetoday.com/116158/why-doesnt-the-sun-steal-the-moon/
Then again, it's also possible to look at the moon's orbit as being around the sun.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8d42f754769fd0e57715cf8d01887761-c)
-
I didn't think FET believed in the idea that the Earth orbited the Sun. Or is it a case of some FE models do while others don't?
-
QED, the matter is simple. Does the moon ignore the gravitational influence of the sun while it orbits the earth?
If not, then we can't treat the Sun-Earth-Moon system as two two body problems. Nor can we treat it as a single two body problem by considering the earth and moon as one and using the earth-moon center of mass as the second anchorpoint. That simplification also assumes that the moon cannot feel the gravitational pull from a body in the system.
These are all cheats that work around a non-working system. The moon has mass and it must simultaneously feel the gravitational pull of the sun and the earth. It can't be simplified.
We are at an impasse. I am expecting experimental evidence from the three body research, where such configurations should surely have manifested in the super computer simulations that have been done, and you keep telling us that cheats and two body approximations are enough.
Surely there should be an example of a three body solution with bodies of different masses, or one that looks like a heliocentric system. Yet all the ones we have seen in the galleries (which are numerical solutions, not anlytical solutions -- those don't exist) require at least two bodies of equal masses, and exist in odd loopy orbits. Other similations employ the two-body cheats. There must be a simulation of gravity somewhere which operates in favor of heliocentricism.
The scientific method demands that we demonstrate by experiment, and you appear to be ignoring all experimental evidence, are telling us that it is unneeded, and are repeatedly telling us that we can just cheat a little with two-body approximations, apparently cognisant that it won't work any other way.
That is, in my opinion, not enough. We should either seek experimental evidence from a full gravity simulation where these approximations should manifest naturally or admit that doesn't work. If it can't work then it can't work.
The impasse you have defined is contrived. Does the moon ignore the electrostatic forces from the Sun as it orbits? No. Do we consider those effects when computing its orbit? No. You simply do not understand the science surrounding orbits.
There are incredible electromagnetic interactions between the sun and the Earth. You do not know this, but now that you do, you should insist that orbital trajectories account for these effects. But you will be made to look foolish, because those effects do not impact the trajectories. Given your current knowledge in this area, you are not prepared to understand how this is true, or diagnose under what conditions it would make a difference.
Your opinion of “what is enough” is irrelevant, because your knowledge in these areas is absent. You are free to maintain your position, of course, but it is obvious that you do so without any regard for seeking the truth.
If you ever wish to actually learn about these topics, do just let me know, and I will teach you.
Until then, I wish you could see from an outside perspective just how foolish you look.
-
Why should I care about planetary properties as a topic of research? How many people have been studying and making theories about the planets in the lifespan of FET vs 2000+ years of RET?
Despite all the effort, it appears that the greatest minds of humanity have yet to come up with a model where a sun can exist with a planet that has a moon. :(
Let alone a planet that has a moon Orbiting a star with many other planets several of which have multiple moons in which every objects gravity is affecting every orbit every time they pass by each other.
I figure in the next 1,000 years with major advancements in computers, AI, math, physics etc RE could come up with some sort of more accurate model for the 3 body problem. Hell they could even solve it! Unfortunately solving the 3 body problem does not support the RE model at all. RE has committed to solving the 200+ body problem. One star, 8 planets, and over 190 moons.
It would be a lot easier for the RE gravity/orbit model if there were only 3 bodies. Very good evidence pointing out flaws in the current round earth gravity/orbiting model.
-
RE has committed to solving the 200+ body problem. One star, 8 planets, and over 190 moons.
And comets, asteroids etc, etc.
There are millions of objects in the solar system. And at a more granular level, the rings of Saturn are made up of billions of rocks, how could we begin to model that perfectly?
But, and here's the point you are collectively ignoring or not understanding - a model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful.
And a model doesn't have to be perfect to prove that the thing it's modelling is correct. Or rather, imperfections in a model doesn't mean the thing it is modelling must be wrong, it just means the model is imperfect. Einstein came along a century ago and showed that Newton's model of gravity wasn't quite right. But it's good enough for most practical purposes - it got us to the moon.
The models we have of the solar system are good enough. They've got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars. They've got craft to fly past other planets.
Now, of course, you can say that's all faked but that's a lazy argument which you could use to dismiss anything which doesn't fit your worldview.
Meanwhile, the FE model doesn't even know what the sun is, how it's powered or how any of the planets orbit.
Now, Tom bemoans that no budget for FE research. But you might all want to think about why that is.
Why are there no flat earth astronomers?
HINT: It's the same reason there are no research budgets for alchemy...
-
The models we have of the solar system are good enough. They've got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars. They've got craft to fly past other planets.
I completely agree. The 'mainstream' heliocentric model of the Solar System that we have used for at least the last two or three centuries is able to account, and account very accurately for the observed current and future events that we will see. That would lead me to ask what else do we need a model to do? There is a saying.. 'If it works... then why try to fix it?'
All this waffle about the n body problem not being solved is irrelevant I feel and certainly no evidence against the heliocentric model. If we can predict where the planets are going to be at any time in the future, eclipses and events associated with Jupiter and Saturn then we must be getting something right.