The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Ozymandias74 on January 30, 2019, 06:05:07 AM

Title: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Ozymandias74 on January 30, 2019, 06:05:07 AM
One of the hallmarks of any theory is the ability to not only explain what we can see, but to make predictions about what cannot be seen or measured yet.   Any scientist will tell you that any theory that explains what you can see but does not make any predictions is worthless as a theory or model.  Einstein's Theory of relativity predicted black holes and gravitational waves in the early 1900s and it was 50 years before black holes were discovered.   Gravitational waves were just discovered in the last 2-3 years (although they were indirectly proven to exist back in the 1970s based on binary pulsars).  It predicted many other things that were later confirmed.  I will allow that maybe the results have been faked for the last 100 years, after all no one has really 'seen' a black hole or a gravitational wave for themselves, we just have scientists word they have been proven to exist.

However something everyone can see and experience for themselves is a lunar or solar eclipse.   Current RE models are able to predict lunar and solar eclipses 1000s of years into the future.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html shows the next 5-10 years of lunar and solar eclipses.  There are other resources online that have much longer timelines.
I would like to see a FE model with the predicted dates of lunar or solar eclipses.  I assume that orbital mechanics of Flat earth theory and Round earth theory have to be different  Obviously some scientist has worked out the eclipses based on celestial mechanics and planetary motions, so my question is there anyone that follows the FE model that can work out a schedule of lunar and solar eclipses based on the FE view of orbital mechanics and planetary motions.  If FE theory can predict lunar and solar eclipses based on a separate set of celestial and orbital mechanics different from RE theory, that would be very interesting.

Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: iamcpc on January 30, 2019, 06:41:32 PM
However something everyone can see and experience for themselves is a lunar or solar eclipse.   Current RE models are able to predict lunar and solar eclipses 1000s of years into the future.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html shows the next 5-10 years of lunar and solar eclipses.  There are other resources online that have much longer timelines.
I would like to see a FE model with the predicted dates of lunar or solar eclipses.

You just presented one:

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html

The earth represented as a flat plane. Whereas it's not that popular of a model it is a model none the less.

One thing you have to understand is that there are many flat earth models. The one that is discussed 90% of the time is the flat disk model. That model does good explaining many phenomenon and observations and very poorly at explaining other phenomenon and observations.

The map you have shown is one of a flat planar shape vs a flat disk shape. That model does good explaining many phenomenon and observations and very poorly at explaining other phenomenon and observations.


These are variations of a flat planar shape in which the plane is like a loop or infinitely repeating.
http://suncalc.net/

Personally I don't care for the disk model. Even though it is able to answer some questions well, based on my traveling experience, I prefer other models which better explain my personal real life experiences.

Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: manicminer on January 30, 2019, 10:01:42 PM
Quote
Personally I don't care for the disk model. Even though it is able to answer some questions well, based on my traveling experience, I prefer other models which better explain my personal real life experiences.

Can you describe any of your personal real life experiences that the conventional spherical Earth model cannot explain satisfactorily?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: iamcpc on January 31, 2019, 12:27:51 AM
Quote
Personally I don't care for the disk model. Even though it is able to answer some questions well, based on my traveling experience, I prefer other models which better explain my personal real life experiences.

Can you describe any of your personal real life experiences that the conventional spherical Earth model cannot explain satisfactorily?



The best thing I can do is advise not come here looking for failures in the spherical earth model.  There is only one and it's been thoroughly researched. Whereas there are a lot of models and different answers/explanations for observations within those specific models.

It's best to come here with an open mind and look for evidence that, on some level, does one of two things:

1. Provides an alternative to the claim that ______ observation proves the earth is round.
2. Provides evidence of observations which can weaken any aspect of the round earth model.


If you would like I can give you some. It's important to understand that there is evidence which casts some doubt on existing systems. RE people, because of conformation bias, will say that this evidence proves the earth is round. FE people, because of conformation bias, will say this evidence proves the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2019, 01:53:43 AM
The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on January 31, 2019, 02:49:23 AM
The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.
How do you explain that measured distances, the path of the sun and satellite operation all confirm a round earth.  How would you determine the shape of the earth if you had the resourses?  Where is the WGS84 model inaccurate?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on January 31, 2019, 04:24:21 AM
The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.
Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2019, 04:52:34 AM
What "one thing"? RET can't be modeled and doesn't work.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

https://wiki.tfes.org/Tides

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

https://wiki.tfes.org/Torsion_Balance_Experiments

More on the way.

Most impressive is the Three Body Problem. A sun with a planet that has a moon cannot even be simulated. There is no predictive astronomical model at all, only cartoons.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: JCM on January 31, 2019, 04:59:03 AM
The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

Here we go again with the 3 body mathematics problem that round Earth apparently won’t work without despite the world knowing the Earth was a sphere a thousand years before a 3 body math problem existed.  Tom knows that current mathematical solutions work out to a few million years for the 3 body solution with near 100% accuracy.  After that the accuracy starts to become less than 99% because of unforeseen gravitational events that far into the future start adding up.   That is hardly reason to throw out all of round Earth when literally everything in flat Earth theory requires magic with zero explanation scientifically.

Flat Earth Theory cannot even explain why everyone on Earth sees the same phase of the moon just shifted or how to explain the star trails and their rotational axi (2). It has no explanation for the setting sun and mountain shadows on the clouds at sunset that stand up to scrutiny. It has no explanation that fits sextant measurements using Polaris and Octans in the hemispheres.  It has no explanations for the movements of the near Sun and Moon or how they match what we see or how they can cause eclipses.  But let’s throw out all of round Earth theory because mathematically the 3 body problem is near 100% accurate for only 3 million years.... 
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on January 31, 2019, 05:05:17 AM
The millions of years of stability analysis as an n-body simulation was debunked the last time we had this discussion.

i already provided you with a nine-body simulation.  this is literally a simulation of the solar system carried out by directly calculating newton's laws and letting the system evolve. 
A three million year integration of the earth's orbit (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....101.2287Q)

https://i.imgur.com/AY2HS7B.png

Read the first two sentences of that abstract:

Quote
Abstract

We have integrated the equations of motion of the nine planets and the Earth's spin axis for 3.05 million years into the past. The equations include the dominant relativistic corrections and the corrections for the quadropole movement of the Earth-Moon system

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

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#Perturbations) says:

  “ This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula. ”

If your formula doesn't work, just keep adding corrections until it does. Science!
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: manicminer on January 31, 2019, 09:34:20 AM
It is fascinating reading your replies Tom. I bow down to you. Because I could never make things up as well or as convincingly as you can or indeed try and convince myself and other people that something is true when it isn't like you can.

I don't think the Earth is round, I know it is.  This has been shown to be true before the FES was even thought of. The satellite images that have been taken by a lot of different privately and publicly owned organisations show it is spherical. Various experiments and investigations have been carried out which now provide the true physical characteristics to a very high level of accuracy.

I know that you Zetetic people and the FE movement as a whole don't accept such evidence but that is only because it contradicts what you want to believe in.   
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on January 31, 2019, 10:44:55 AM
The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.
If all the years of research have failed to produce a perfect model then that doesn't demonstrate anything other than it's complicated.
There are over half a million asteroids in the asteroid belt, the solar system IS complicated. I suspect a perfect model will always be beyond us.
But our models are good enough to launch Voyager craft to rendezvous with the outer planets, your FE model isn't even good enough to explain how the sun and moon orbit.

If models are imperfect then that model must be wrong then. But that doesn't mean that everything about it is wrong.
This is like the old claim that bumblebees can't fly. Well, they clearly can fly so models showing they can't must be wrong.
But that doesn't mean that bumblebees are a hoax.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: ChrisTP on January 31, 2019, 10:54:02 AM
Tom, regarding the 3 body thing~ Here's an interactive simulation where you can even choose to-scale sun, earth and moon orbits and you can even move the objects yourself and see how it plays out, but when you hit play, they begin their orbits at the correct velocity and direction to sustain the orbits. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate to the exact orbit of the earth and moon but the fact that it's orbiting with 3 bodies surely disproves what you're saying.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

You can even drag the moon toward the sun to see that it too can be affected, meaning all 3 bodies are affecting each other.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: WellRoundedIndividual on January 31, 2019, 12:13:24 PM
They are not corrections due to the original equation and calculation being wrong, Tom.  Relativistic corrections are corrections that are based on frame of reference. Like the mass of an electron having an interaction with the speed at which it travels.  They are interdependent, and therefore a relativistic correction is needed when considering either the mass or the velocity at different frames of reference.  Its really not that hard to understand.  A scientist is not simply throwing in random numbers to make the end result of the calculation come out to what is predicted, and then reverse engineering the equation to fit that result.  :( ;)
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on January 31, 2019, 02:43:39 PM
What "one thing"? RET can't be modeled and doesn't work.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

https://wiki.tfes.org/Tides

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

https://wiki.tfes.org/Torsion_Balance_Experiments

More on the way.

Most impressive is the Three Body Problem. A sun with a planet that has a moon cannot even be simulated. There is no predictive astronomical model at all, only cartoons.
How would you determine the shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: iamcpc on January 31, 2019, 05:28:14 PM
The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.
Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.





Tom,

I'm the first to admit that you have presented lots of evidence. Much of it does very well and presenting alternate explanations for RE conformation bias. You are going to get through to a lot more round eathers if you just phrase things a little differently. Instead of saying _____________ proves the earth must be flat. You could say _____________ is something that the round earth model really struggles with.

I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is flat.
I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is round.

I do believe that, if the earth is flat, it's not the flat disk model. It very well might not be an infinite plane model. It might be some combination of those things.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on January 31, 2019, 06:50:15 PM
The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.
Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.





Tom,

I'm the first to admit that you have presented lots of evidence. Much of it does very well and presenting alternate explanations for RE conformation bias. You are going to get through to a lot more round eathers if you just phrase things a little differently. Instead of saying _____________ proves the earth must be flat. You could say _____________ is something that the round earth model really struggles with.

I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is flat.
I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is round.

I do believe that, if the earth is flat, it's not the flat disk model. It very well might not be an infinite plane model. It might be some combination of those things.
How do explain that measured distances, which we use every day, show the earth is round. In detail the WGS84 model.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 09:37:57 AM
The millions of years of stability analysis as an n-body simulation was debunked the last time we had this discussion.

i already provided you with a nine-body simulation.  this is literally a simulation of the solar system carried out by directly calculating newton's laws and letting the system evolve. 
A three million year integration of the earth's orbit (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AJ....101.2287Q)

https://i.imgur.com/AY2HS7B.png

Read the first two sentences of that abstract:

Quote
Abstract

We have integrated the equations of motion of the nine planets and the Earth's spin axis for 3.05 million years into the past. The equations include the dominant relativistic corrections and the corrections for the quadropole movement of the Earth-Moon system

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

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory (https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#Perturbations) says:

  “ This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula. ”

If your formula doesn't work, just keep adding corrections until it does. Science!

From the same discussion you reference above, I think Shafto said it best:

This has gone way off the rails.

The N-body problem is a red herring.

The issue I raised in the opening post of this topic is the TFES Wiki's (Tom's) claim that eclipse predictions are based on patterns. That's wrong, and whether or not the N-Body problem eludes solution doesn't matter. Cycles are time-based. There is nothing about a Saros cycle that can provide the parameters needed to calculate Besselian elements of a solar eclipse.

You can't get this from a cycle:
(http://oi67.tinypic.com/27y8k08.jpg)

You can't produce this based on a mere cycle:
(http://oi65.tinypic.com/317cj6u.jpg)

This is the predicted solar eclipse for July 2, 2019. It's part of Saros cycle 127. But that's not the basis for predicting the detailed characteristics of the eclipse: the where, the how much, the duration, etc. For that, you need the Besselian elements, which are based on the relative position and motion of the earth/moon/sun and spherical geometry of the earth. It doesn't matter if the ephemeris providing  earth/moon/sun location and motion are divinely granted or calculated based on a perfect solution to the 3-body problem of these 3 bodies, with or without perturbation by other solar system or galactic bodies. It doesn't matter. That's a distraction. Either intentional or misguided.

The ability to calculate where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc. doesn't hinge on solving the n-body problem.  There is no flat earth model analog for how Fred Espenak performs his calculations by using an ephemeris of a rotating globe earth, orbited by a globe moon, orbiting a spherical sun. It's based on spherical geometry and absolutely requires input of position and motion of the 3-bodies. It's not "patterns" at all.

Tom has managed to derail this and get everyone debating aspects how the ephemerides are produced, under the illogical reasoning that if a million-year stable n-body solution can't be calculated using Newtonian mechanics, that the entire edifice collapses and all that remains is "patterns."

When eclipse #58 in Saros Cycle 127 begins, it will occur and have the characteristics predicted. That prediction won't be just a table look up of a pattern. It will be calculated based on the shape of the earth, the shape of the moon's shadow on the convex surface of the globe earth, based on position and motion of the 3-body earth-moon-sun system taken from an ephemeris, the utility or accuracy of which doesn't require a solution to the n-body problem.

So, back to the OP's question: "My question is there anyone that follows the FE model that can work out a schedule of lunar and solar eclipses based on the FE view of orbital mechanics and planetary motions?  If FE theory can predict lunar and solar eclipses based on a separate set of celestial and orbital mechanics different from RE theory, that would be very interesting."
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: manicminer on February 01, 2019, 11:36:33 AM
In all of my experience, and that goes back quite a few years now, predictions for solar and lunar eclipses made using conventional and proven scientific methods - as described by the OP -  have always been very accurate. Necessarily so because in the case of total solar eclipses astronomers and other interested individuals book up expensive trips, often a few years in advance, just so that they can witness for themselves the spectacle of the total solar eclipse.

So on that basis, do we really need anything else?  If one theory does the job then surely that says something about it doesn't it?



Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: garygreen on February 01, 2019, 03:18:20 PM
Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

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

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

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

Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: iamcpc on February 01, 2019, 05:27:25 PM
What "one thing"? RET can't be modeled and doesn't work.


Tom,

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

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

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


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

The flat disk model struggles with distances. The repeating plane model does not.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 05:34:15 PM
Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Quote
Q: What is the three body problem?

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

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

It says directly that very few scenarios are possible. None look like heliocentric orbits, all are incredibly sensitive and can only exist in those exact velocities and configurations, and all require at least two bodies of equal masses.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 05:58:00 PM
But  a round earth traditional gravity system can be modeled.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now add a third body, and everything falls apart. The problem goes from one that a smart undergraduate can tackle to one that has defied solution for 400 years. There are a few special cases that are much easier to solve. If the third body is so small that it doesn't affect the motion of the other two, then it just moves around in the gravitational field of the first two bodies as they orbit each other.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on February 01, 2019, 06:09:17 PM
But  a round earth traditional gravity system can be modeled.

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

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

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

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

Where are the solutions with the suns that have planets and moons? Don't tell us. Show us. Until you guys can demonstrate your case that it does work, the mathematician above who says that it doesn't work is likely better qualified to answer the matter.
All this discussion and you still do have not have any measurements to work out what you might accept as the shape of the earth.  It is clearly not flat or else flight times would be wrong.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on February 01, 2019, 06:12:33 PM
Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Quote
Q: What is the three body problem?

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

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

It says directly that very few scenarios are possible. None look like heliocentric orbits, all are incredibly sensitive and can only exist in those exact velocities and configurations, and all require at least two bodies of equal masses.
Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

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

This supports what comes up every single time you raise this objection. There's no analytical solution to the 3-body problem. But that doesn't mean it can't be solved/simulated to a near arbitrary degree of accuracy short of 100% for long spans of time.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 06:18:15 PM
Quote
Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

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

Really? It says that? Quote it.

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

No. You guys are using words and opinion, and never quote anything which supports what you imagine the case to be. I feel embarrassed on your behalf that you believe that a gravity solution exists for the solar system or the sun-earth-moon system, yet are unable to support that belief.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 06:20:23 PM
The mathematician Henri Poincare couldn't do it either:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Demo: Figure-Eight Three Body Problem

(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.

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

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

If you are claiming that there are working Sun-Earth-Moon gravity models, why not just post it or at least quote something that supports your case?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 06:26:26 PM
If you are claiming that there are working Sun-Earth-Moon models, why not just post it?

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

How about simply answering the OP:

"so my question is there anyone that follows the FE model that can work out a schedule of lunar and solar eclipses based on the FE view of orbital mechanics and planetary motions.  If FE theory can predict lunar and solar eclipses based on a separate set of celestial and orbital mechanics different from RE theory, that would be very interesting."
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 06:27:49 PM
Consult our literature. The celestial dynamics and attracting mechanisms in FET  are unknown.

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

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

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

The OP, or anyone who believes that a gravity model exists for the Sun-Earth-Moon system exists, needs to support their case.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on February 01, 2019, 06:32:57 PM
Quote
Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

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

Really? It says that? Quote it.

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

Quote
The unsolvableness of the 3-body problem, rather than being an embarrassing hole in physics, an obvious but unsolved problem, is actually the norm.  In physics, the number of not-baby-simple, exactly solvable problems can be counted on the fingers of one hand (that’s missing some fingers), and that includes the 2-body problem.
A statement that informs you are correct, we cannot exactly solve the 3-body problem. In fact, even the 2-body problem isn't exactly solvable.

Quote
The dynamics of two bodies, while not trivial, can be reduced by pretending that one body is sitting still, and then restricting all of your attention to the other body.  Using that technique, you find (or, at least, Newton found) that the motion of a body under gravity is an ellipse.
2-body problems can be solved by restricting what you're looking at as a form of 'trick' to make things simpler.

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

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

Quote
So, if you want to calculate the orbits of all the planets, a “2-body approximation” will get you more than 99% of the way to the right answer.
Using a series of 2-body approximations can get you to greater than 99% accuracy in the movement of the planets around the sun.

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

So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 06:34:17 PM
Quote
So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on February 01, 2019, 06:50:50 PM
Quote
So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.
I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 06:55:21 PM
Quote
So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.
I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....

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

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

You have no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system. It is admitted that it cannot be done.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on February 01, 2019, 07:44:27 PM
Quote
So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.
I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....

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

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

You have no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system. It is admitted that it cannot be done.
Who is 'you' you refer to?  Have you ever discussed this subject with anyone else other than on this or a similar forum?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 07:56:35 PM
Quote
So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.
I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....

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

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

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

If RE has no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system, how is it that RE can predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth? If if you say it's just patterns, then why can't FE pattern predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Curious Squirrel on February 01, 2019, 08:17:52 PM
Quote
So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.
I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....

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

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

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

Edit: For the record he DOES explicitly state they can achieve a 99% accuracy percentile using computational algorithms and modeling, although my second statement in regards to the remaining 1% is an extrapolation of the information he provides rather than an explicit quote. I've already qouted both of where I pulled these things from above however, so maybe you can find them again by actually with the intent to learn for once.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 08:36:52 PM
I'm sorry you need someone to state exactly what I've put forth in my TL;DR in order to believe it.

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

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

Yes, there is no point for you to continue this. Stop posting and go away. You do not have a working model, only four hundred years of ridiculous failure. Newton's equations don't work with three or more bodies, except with very specific and unrealistic scenarios. You have shown nothing to demonstrate that it does work. Your quotes admit this. The mathematicians admit this. The dancing around in this thread admits this.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 08:46:20 PM
If RE has no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system, how is it that RE can predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth? If if you say it's just patterns, then why can't FE pattern predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

No. of Results: 13,700

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

No. of Results: 2 (duplicate text)

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

Three Body and n-Body Solutions, the mathematical simulation of the Solar System using Newton's Laws, are not used.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: iamcpc on February 01, 2019, 08:49:08 PM
No, it can't. I disagree. Anyone who asserts that the RET system can be modeled has no idea what they are talking about, and is engaging in wishful thinking.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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


http://time.com/4897581/total-solar-eclipse-years-next/
http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/solar.html#recent
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/solar.html
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 08:53:09 PM
If RE has no models of the solar system or of the sun-earth-moon system, how is it that RE can predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth? If if you say it's just patterns, then why can't FE pattern predict exactly when and where an eclipse is viewable for any point on earth?

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

Location, location, location. RE can predict exactly where an eclipse can be observed. FE cannot. Why is that?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 09:26:45 PM
Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. A eclipse will repeat 18 years from now.

You can also use a moon or sun calculator or make your own calculator to see if the body will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astronomy is based on patterns, not RET.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: iamcpc on February 01, 2019, 09:36:16 PM
Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. The eclipse would be seen where it was seen 18 years ago.

You can also use a moon calculator or make your own calculator to see if the moon will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky for to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astonomy is based on patterns, not RET.

18 years ago there was not an eclipse that covered most of the United States visible from Wyoming. This model is not only able to predict when the eclipse will be but also the exact time and location (down to a few feet). When the locations are drawn on a spherical representation of the earth they are at least partially based on RET.

Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 09:46:18 PM
Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. The eclipse would be seen where it was seen 18 years ago.

You can also use a moon calculator or make your own calculator to see if the moon will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky for to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astonomy is based on patterns, not RET.

18 years ago there was not an eclipse that covered most of the United States visible from Wyoming. This model is not only able to predict when the eclipse will be but also the exact time and location (down to a few feet). When the locations are drawn on a spherical representation of the earth they are at least partially based on RET.

There is no spherical representation. What evidence has been posted for that? Only imagination. What evidence has been posted in this thread for the assertion that it is based on a spherical model? None.

The patterns of the sun and moon repeat themselves. The eclipses come in patterns. All of that is entirely predictable with patterns.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: ChrisTP on February 01, 2019, 09:53:24 PM
Show me where the heliocentric orbits are in the three body family galleries are. Lets see something that looks like a star with a planet that has a moon.

I did in this very thread but you seemed to have ignored it entirely. Before you go calling it a "cartoon" which I know you probably will, I'll ask you once again to actually look at it, play with it, you can mess with the velocity, mass and directions of the bodies to see how they play out. They interact with each other using maths, it's a simulation of calculations in real time and not just a pre-set animation.

All chaotic movement leads to patterns eventually. Just look at the weather and how wind eventually leads to twisters and tornados. How all the chaotic movements of wind creates waves in the oceans can that lead to huge bodies of water moving all in one direction. Draining a large body of water through a hole leads to a very specific twisting, spinning formation as it all rotates around a point of attraction. If you throw a bunch of rocks out into a small vacuum together under the assumption gravity is real, you will eventually get clumps of rocks spinning together as they move along in empty space. Our solar system and all of the planets movements didn't just pop into existence perfectly static, planets were formed over time from chaos and eventually start to settle into an orbit. It's really not hard to even imagine. You might even consider the rings of rocks that orbit saturn a similar situation to the rocks and planets that orbit the sun. You can even see Saturn for yourself.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: ChrisTP on February 01, 2019, 09:56:14 PM
Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. A eclipse will repeat 18 years from now.
The same website that says the earth is a spheroid? The website you refuse to believe anything else for unless you can use it for a flat earth argument? Come on now, this is literal cherry picking. Either don't believe NASA or do but stop cherrypicking when you feel it fits the agenda.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 10:03:11 PM
Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. The eclipse would be seen where it was seen 18 years ago.

You can also use a moon calculator or make your own calculator to see if the moon will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky for to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astonomy is based on patterns, not RET.

18 years ago there was not an eclipse that covered most of the United States visible from Wyoming. This model is not only able to predict when the eclipse will be but also the exact time and location (down to a few feet). When the locations are drawn on a spherical representation of the earth they are at least partially based on RET.

There is no spherical representation. What evidence has been posted for that? Only imagination. What evidence has been posted in this thread for the assertion that it is based on a spherical model? None.

The patterns of the sun and moon repeat themselves. The eclipses come in patterns. All of that is entirely predictable with patterns.

Sure there is a spherical representation:

(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/Saros145-big.JPG)

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

And strange that eclipse predicted locations are pinpoint accurate on the globe model/map. But the are not on a flat earth model/map. Perhaps because there is no flat earth model nor any flat earth map.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on February 01, 2019, 10:04:45 PM
Tom has still not explained how he would measure the size and shape of the earth, but has time to move to another topic. Says it all.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 10:17:02 PM
Sure there is a spherical representation:

(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/Saros145-big.JPG)

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

And strange that eclipse predicted locations are pinpoint accurate on the globe model/map. But the are not on a flat earth model/map. Perhaps because there is no flat earth model nor any flat earth map.

That looks more like the Flat Earth map to me.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

Quote
A solar eclipse occurs when an observer on Earth passes through the shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks the Sun. This happens when the Sun, Moon and observer are nearly aligned on a straight line when the Moon is close to the ecliptic. In a total eclipse, the disk of the Sun is fully obscured by the Moon. In partial and annular eclipses, only part of the Sun is obscured.

Solar Eclipse Comparison

Of interest is that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png/975px-RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png)

On the Flat Earth map the paths appear to be perfect arcs:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/8/85/AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg/975px-AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg)

From  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm p.113

 “ Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of[Pg 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200[Pg 115] B. C. to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years. ”

Further Reference

Also see this interesting comparison:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/0/03/Solar_Eclipse_REvsFE.jpg/975px-Solar_Eclipse_REvsFE.jpg)
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 10:23:16 PM
Sure there is a spherical representation:

(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/Saros145-big.JPG)

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

And strange that eclipse predicted locations are pinpoint accurate on the globe model/map. But the are not on a flat earth model/map. Perhaps because there is no flat earth model nor any flat earth map.

That looks more like the Flat Earth map to me.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

Quote
A solar eclipse occurs when an observer on Earth passes through the shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks the Sun. This happens when the Sun, Moon and observer are nearly aligned on a straight line when the Moon is close to the ecliptic. In a total eclipse, the disk of the Sun is fully obscured by the Moon. In partial and annular eclipses, only part of the Sun is obscured.

Solar Eclipse Comparison

Of interest is that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/70/RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png/975px-RE-FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png)

On the Flat Earth map the paths appear to be perfect arcs:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/8/85/AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg/975px-AE-TwentyYearsOfEclipses.jpg)

From  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm p.113

 “ Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of[Pg 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200[Pg 115] B. C. to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years. ”

Further Reference

Also see this interesting comparison:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/0/03/Solar_Eclipse_REvsFE.jpg/975px-Solar_Eclipse_REvsFE.jpg)

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 10:28:37 PM
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 10:41:56 PM
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.
No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 10:47:39 PM
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.
No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map then? Strong evidence there.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on February 01, 2019, 10:49:01 PM
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.
No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and circles on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.
Are distances correct on your model or map?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 11:00:55 PM
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.
No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 11:02:36 PM
A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: inquisitive on February 01, 2019, 11:03:49 PM
As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.
No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.
Which is not consistent with any current proof.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 01, 2019, 11:32:06 PM
A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

I have, several times. ENAG doesn't change the fact that there is no flat earth map and that FE cannot predict precisely where an eclipse can be observed for any point on earth - Whereas RE can calculate and predict with pinpoint accuracy where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc.  No matter which way you twist in the wind, those are the facts.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 01, 2019, 11:34:09 PM
A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

I have, several times. ENAG doesn't change the fact that there is no flat earth map and that FE cannot predict precisely where an eclipse can be observed for any point on earth - Whereas RE can calculate and predict with pinpoint accuracy where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc.  No matter which way you twist in the wind, those are the facts.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse at the end of his eclipse chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Rowbotham demonstrates that the matter is predictable with patterns. Where is the Round Earth model?

Where is the RE exhibited in the Saros Cycle or the moon calculators that tell you where you can see the moon from? I see words. No demonstration. Show us where RE is exhibited in the eclipse predictions.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 02, 2019, 12:22:44 AM
A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

I have, several times. ENAG doesn't change the fact that there is no flat earth map and that FE cannot predict precisely where an eclipse can be observed for any point on earth - Whereas RE can calculate and predict with pinpoint accuracy where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc.  No matter which way you twist in the wind, those are the facts.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse at the end of his eclipse chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

None of what he states references exact location, as RE can and does.

He closes the chapter with:

"The formulæ above quoted are entirely superfluous, because they add nothing to our knowledge of the causes of eclipses, and would not enable us to predict anything which has not hundreds of times already occurred. Hence all the labour of calculation is truly effort thrown away, and may be altogether dispensed with by adopting the simple process referred to at page 153, and calling that which eclipses the moon the "lunar eclipsor," or the moon's satellite, instead of the "earth's shadow," just as the moon is the sun's eclipsor."

Rowbotham demonstrates that the matter is predictable with patterns. Where is the Round Earth model?

He demonstrates nothing regarding location.

Where is the RE exhibited in the Saros Cycle or the moon calculators that tell you where you can see the moon from? I see words. No demonstration. Show us where RE is exhibited in the eclipse predictions.

Right here, in the NASA link you keep referencing:

"Eclipse Predictions by Fred Espenak, NASA/GSFC Emeritus"

From Fred Espenak's site regarding one of many eclipses, for example:

"Predictions for the Partial Solar Eclipse of 2019 Jan 06 were generated using the JPL DE406 solar and lunar ephemerides."

What's a JPL DE? The (DE) models consist of computer representations of positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering a specified span of years.

Here are some of Fred's predictions he represents on a Globe:

(http://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEping/2001-2100/SE2019-01-06P.gif) (http://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEping/1901-2000/SE1958-10-12T.gif)



Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2019, 12:56:57 AM
The sun and moon positions in the eclipse predictions that tell you where you can see the sun or the moon from come from JPL DE. From JPL DE's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris):

Quote
"Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws."

Obviously, the n-body problems of astronomy were not really solved.

The perturbation methods don't solve the n-body problems.

From our Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Quote
Gravitation Vs. Relativity
by Charles Lane Poor, PhD

Motion of the Planets p.132

  “ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”

Perturbations = Epicycles

Quote
Motion of the Planets p.138

  “ The Tide Predicting Machine of the Coast and Geodetic Survey at Washington is a note-worthy example of the application of the mechanical method [of prediction via epicycles]. The rise and fall of the tide at any port is a periodic phenomenon, and it may, therefore, be analyzed, or separated into a number of simple harmonic, or circular components. Each component tide will be simple, will have a definite period and a constant amplitude; and each such component may be represented mechanically by the arm of a crank, the length of which represents the amplitude; each crank arm being, in fact, the radius of one of the circles in our diagram.

Such a machine was invented by Sir William Thomson and was put in operation many years ago. The machine at present in use at Washington was designed by William Ferrel. It provides for nineteen components and directly gives the times and heights of high and low waters. In order to predict the tides for a given place and year, it is necessary to adjust the lengths of the crank arms, so that each shall be the same proportion of the known height of the corresponding partial tide, and to adjust the periods of their revolutions proportionally to the actual periods. Each arm must also be set at the proper angle to represent the phase of the component at the beginning of the year. When all these adjustments have been made, the machine is started and it takes only a few hours to run off the tides for a year, or for several years. This machine probably represents the highest possible development of the graphical or mechanical method. It is a concrete, definite mechanical adaptation of the epicyclic theory of Hipparchus.

But, because the Coast Survey represents and predicts the movements of tidal waters by a complicated mass of revolving cranks and moving chains, does any one imagine for a moment that the actual waters are made up of such a system of cranks? No more did Hipparchus believe that the bodies of the solar system were actually attached to the radial arms of his epicycles; his was a mere mathematical, or graphical device for representing irregular, complicated motions.

While the graphical, or mechanical method is limited to a few terms, the trigonometrical, or analytical method is unlimited. It is possible to pile epicycle upon epicycle, the number being limited only by the patience of the mathematician and computer. ”

Epicycles = Patterns

Quote
From the Wikipedia section on Special Perturbations (Archive):

  “ In methods of special perturbations, numerical datasets, representing values for the positions, velocities and accelerative forces on the bodies of interest, are made the basis of numerical integration of the differential equations of motion.[6] In effect, the positions and velocities are perturbed directly, and no attempt is made to calculate the curves of the orbits or the orbital elements.[2] Special perturbations can be applied to any problem in celestial mechanics, as it is not limited to cases where the perturbing forces are small.[4] Once applied only to comets and minor planets, special perturbation methods are now the basis of the most accurate machine-generated planetary ephemerides of the great astronomical almanacs.[2][7] ”

The prediction in astronomical almanacs also = patterns.

Quote
General Application

Perturbation methods are, in fact, prevalent in many areas of science. From Perturbations in Complex Molecular Systems | (Archive) we read the following:

  “ In general perturbation methods starts with a known exact solution of a problem and add “small” variation terms in order to approach to a solution for a related problem without known exact solution. Perturbation theory has been widely used in almost all areas of science. Bhor's quantum model, Heisenberg's matrix mechanincs, Feyman diagrams, and Poincare's chaos model or “butterfly effect” in complex systems are examples of perturbation theories. ”

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory (Archive) echoes the same:

  “ This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula. ”

It appears that you are showing us the pattern-based models of astronomy.

You are mistaken on these matters of astronomy and astronomical prediction. Our website clearly demonstrates superior knowledge of these matters, compared to the dogma and assumptions that you guys are giving us.

Sadly, despite this, you guys will be unable to recognize that you are providing inferior demonstration of knowledge.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 02, 2019, 02:08:23 AM
It appears that you are showing us the pattern-based models of astronomy.

Nope.

From JPL DE Wikipedia page:
"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]

The observational data in the fits has been an evolving set, including: ranges (distances) to planets measured by radio signals from spacecraft,[8] direct radar-ranging of planets, two-dimensional position fixes (on the plane of the sky) by VLBI of spacecraft, transit and CCD telescopic observations of planets and small bodies, and laser-ranging of retroreflectors on the Moon, among others. DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations.
"

If RE eclipse predictions are simply pattern based, which they have been endlessly shown to not be, but if you think they are, prove it. Take the Saros cycle data and Rowbotham's formulae and map out the eclipse predictions and pinpoint accurate locations on earth. Should be easy if it's all just pattern based.

You are mistaken on these matters of astronomy and astronomical prediction. Our website clearly demonstrates superior knowledge of these matters, compared to the dogma and assumptions that you guys are giving us.

Sadly, despite this, you guys will be unable to recognize that you are providing inferior demonstration of knowledge.

I can't see how this website demonstrates anything remotely akin to  superior knowledge regarding these matters when FE can't determine the location of an eclipse with even a smidge of the accuracy that RE can, if at all. As well, there is no FE map so sadly, you have provided no demonstration of literally anything that is observed by billions of people.

Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2019, 02:25:26 AM
Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 02, 2019, 02:43:42 AM
Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

Nope, wrong again. Apparently your education on the matter is insufficient. From the JPL DE:

"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]"
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on February 02, 2019, 02:46:35 AM
Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

Nope, wrong again. Apparently your education on the matter is insufficient. From the JPL DE:

"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]"

An incorrect Wikipedia article writer thinking that the n-body problems have been solved does not make them solved. You need to demonstrate your case. That same article also claims that the perturbation methods "solve the n-body problems".

Why do you think that the n-body problems have been solved in the face of 400 years of mathematical failure? What was the solution?

Why would a n-body simulator use pattern-based epicycles? JPL DE is clearly stated to be using perturbations/epicycles, even if some are ignorant to what they are.

Who solved the n-body problems? Can you point us to the Nobel Prize winner?

You will not be able to answer or show any of this. Because you are wrong. The N-Body problems have not been solved. The Three Body Problems have not been solved. You have been unable to demonstrate that it has been solved.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: stack on February 02, 2019, 04:39:38 AM
Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

Nope, wrong again. Apparently your education on the matter is insufficient. From the JPL DE:

"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]"

An incorrect Wikipedia article writer thinking that the n-body problems have been solved does not make them solved. You need to demonstrate your case. That same article also claims that the perturbation methods "solve the n-body problems".

Why do you think that the n-body problems have been solved in the face of 400 years of mathematical failure? What was the solution?

Why would a n-body simulator use pattern-based epicycles? JPL DE is clearly stated to be using perturbations/epicycles, even if some are ignorant to what they are.

Who solved the n-body problems? Can you point us to the Nobel Prize winner?

You will not be able to answer or show any of this. Because you are wrong. The N-Body problems have not been solved. The Three Body Problems have not been solved. You have been unable to demonstrate that it has been solved.

How is the wikipedia article all of a sudden incorrect when I cite it, but just fine when you do? Seems rather convenient.

I care not for the N-Body problem. The fact of the matter is that RE can predict with pinpoint accuracy eclipse event locations for any point on the planet. As exhaustively evidenced already these predictions work on a globe. FE cannot. That is an observable fact seated firmly in reality.

Again, if you believe it is all pattern based, prove it. Use your eclipse patterns and ENAG equations to show how FE can with the same pinpoint accuracy that RE does for any point on the planet. Go for it. Prove it's pattern based only - You need to demonstrate your case by showing how it can be done just based upon patterns. Have at it. I eagerly await your results.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: manicminer on February 02, 2019, 09:54:37 AM
I must return to a quote from Tom earlier in this thread..

Quote
The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work


Really? I thought there was a very definite round earth model in place. And I assume you mean they 'can't' get the heliocentric orbits to work.  That being the case can you explain how it is that astronomers can now predict the precise positions and movements of all solar system objects for any time in the future?  If I key in the predicted RA and Dec coordinates for any solar system object my telescope mount the telescope swings over to their position and puts them directly into my field of view day or night.  You can see bright stars and the bright planets in broad daylight in clear conditions through telescopes as you probably know.

If that isn't getting heliocentric orbits to work I don't know what is. There are several 'problems' in astronomy and science in general but that doesn't make astronomy a failure. That is what science is all about. Solving problems. I would suggest that there are a lot more unsolved 'problems' in flat Earth theory than there are in round Earth theory.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: BillO on February 09, 2019, 09:10:49 PM
Quote
Gravitation Vs. Relativity
by Charles Lane Poor, PhD

Motion of the Planets p.132

  “ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”
You do know that Poor was shown to be wrong, don't you?

Every time you hitch your wagon to history's losers you cut your credibility further.

Quote
If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.
Really Tom?  Can you demonstrate HOW a cell phone works?  How about the computer you use?  Or, maybe the internet?  Not demonstrate that they do work, but demonstrate HOW they work.  Can you?

Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 09, 2019, 10:12:03 PM
Really Tom?  Can you demonstrate HOW a cell phone works?  How about the computer you use?  Or, maybe the internet?  Not demonstrate that they do work, but demonstrate HOW they work.  Can you?
Are you somehow confused by basic electronics? There are schools that can help you with that, you know.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: BillO on February 09, 2019, 11:42:51 PM
Really Tom?  Can you demonstrate HOW a cell phone works?  How about the computer you use?  Or, maybe the internet?  Not demonstrate that they do work, but demonstrate HOW they work.  Can you?
Are you somehow confused by basic electronics? There are schools that can help you with that, you know.
Put your straw man away Pete, the question was for Tom, not me or you.  More to the point, it will require that you accept things that are not directly observable and can only be determined through using theory to predict indirect observations.  Would that not go against the FE interpretation of what a Zetetic is?
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: TomInAustin on February 12, 2019, 10:33:19 PM
How do explain that measured distances, which we use every day, show the earth is round. In detail the WGS84 model.

He explains it by denying it.   Remember, the distance from New Your to Paris is unknown.  Talk about farcical.
Title: Re: Predictive power of FE theory
Post by: TomInAustin on February 12, 2019, 10:41:19 PM
Are you somehow confused by basic electronics? There are schools that can help you with that, you know.

There are also schools that can help you learn about geography.