Recent Posts

1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Last post by Bobby Shafto on Today at 05:44:11 AM »
I will, but be aware that my evening skies are not reliably clear this time of year. Here's what the simulator predicts:

2
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581 (three body problem paradox, dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, Hamiltonian formulation of the equations of celestial mechanics, homoclinic tangles)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1935048#msg1935048 (orbital stability of the heliocentrical solar system, 300 year limit for the RE calculations, Nekhoroshev's theorem, Saari's theorem)
3
Flat Earth Theory / UA is debunked
« Last post by DuniyaGolHai on Today at 05:02:51 AM »
How the FErs want to take on the video where UA is debunked.

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on Today at 04:57:22 AM »
Thus just in: Trump Sucks Putin's Dick, says its the strongest, best dick ever.


https://www.npr.org/2018/07/16/629554155/disgraceful-pushover-deeply-troubled-reaction-to-the-trump-putin-summit
5
As my last note on the subject, I'm convinced more than ever that we're not using the same vocabulary. We must be seeing the same things, but they mean something different to each of us. I'll once again back up until I think we're on common ground...

All I can point out is, again, that the article you posted is not talking about the position of mercury in the sky. It's talking about a particular observation mercury is seen to do when the pattern of its motion on the sky repeats itself. Einstein's version of gravity is a little different, and so on a high level "basic gravity simulator," or otherwise simple model, the bodies closer to the center would move a little differently.

Since the Flat Earth theory also has the planets moving around the sun, with Mercury at the closest position, I don't find it odd that a different version of the phenomena that keeps the planets moving around the sun could cause the most interior body to move a little differently in its repeating patterns in the sky.

This is a basic modification to a high level and theoretical system. But we are just talking about basic orbit types on a basic and high level model, and slight adjustments to make some interior planet move faster or slower based on your imagined central pulling phenomena. It is an imagined explanation.

To prove the model there would need to be a prediction of a body in the sky and expression of the celestial mechanics. If the article you had posted claimed that Einstein predicted the position of Mercury in the sky this would be a very different conversation. He did not do that, and the articles surrounding this event admit as such.

Quote
But then once we have that, how do we tell where they will be in our sky at any given place on the Earth? In that NOAA spreadsheet you have mentioned, I would like to draw your attention to cells B3 and B4.

These are the observer's latitude and longitude. The locations of the bodies is presented given the observer's lat/long under the assumption that the Earth is a globe. Take a look at cell W2:
=DEGREES(ACOS(COS(RADIANS(90.833))/(COS(RADIANS($B$3))*COS(RADIANS(T2)))-TAN(RADIANS($B$3))*TAN(RADIANS(T2))))
Notice that the latitude is going into some trig there. That isn't projecting the sun onto a flat earth. That's RE math there.

Why do you think it has anything to do with a Round Earth? Cell W2 is the sunset column. The time of sunset must have some sort of relationship to do with your longitude, even in the Flat Earth model. Using trig manipulations to find the relationship is entirely possible.

Quote
Edit: One last note. You seem really fascinated with the N-body problem. We have no analytical solution for this. Meaning, there does not exist a mathematical formula to solve this in general. All that means is we have to do it with computer simulations instead. Not really a flaw in RE in any way.

The impossibility for an analytical solution of the Three Body Problem means that we can't create formulas to turn the positions and movements of bodies into equations that will predict future occurrences under the heliocentric model. It means that it is impossible to create a program like Stellarium that predicts things under a Heliocentric or Round Earth model. The idea that such programs are possible is the crux of many arguments that the Round Earth model is true.

If such programs are impossible, and the prediction of bodies is really made on patterns and trends from past occurrences then it means that the Heliocentric Theory is much weaker.

It is more of a blow and punch to the nose. It shows that the model is much closer to a hypothesis than its supporters believe.

The inability to predict suggests that it is either the science or the model that is incorrect, or both. The inability to predict the positions of bodies does not lend support to the heliocentric model, and only subtracts from it. It detracts from the reputation of classical mechanics, mathematics, astronomy, et all.
6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?
« Last post by ICanScienceThat on Today at 04:45:52 AM »
Hey Bobby,
My camera is still crapped out. (It uses a custom battery, and I can't find my charger anywhere.) Think you could take pictures of the moon at sunset on the 24th? I'd like to have real-world observations to validate the math and simulation.

Tom, if you want to take some pictures too and post them, that'd be super cool. Or anybody! Just tell me where you are when you take it, and we can compare the sim against your photos.
7
I'd really like to help you to understand this, but it's going to take some time. I'm going back to the tilt illusion for now. As my last note on the subject, I'm convinced more than ever that we're not using the same vocabulary. We must be seeing the same things, but they mean something different to each of us. I'll once again back up until I think we're on common ground...

The formulas and charts to predict the future locations of the planets ARE based on past observations. They break those observations down into patterns and extend those patterns forward in time. We agree so far.

Extending the pattern forward in time like this is a prediction, and it works in a geocentric model or a heliocentric model. Yeah I'm agreeing that these predictions worked under the geocentric model. We're on common ground. The geocentric model was every bit as accurate as the later heliocentric model. The only real difference was that the heliocentric model was a lot simpler. The math was simpler, and the diagrams were simpler. So the heliocentric model gained favor rapidly.

Here we're going to start to diverge, but I'm still talking history here...
It wasn't until Newton's insight about the inverse-square law that the elliptical orbits of the planets suddenly made sense. The heliocentric model already had the elliptical model based on pure observation, and Newton used that to deduce his inverse square law of gravity. Disagree with his conclusions if you like, but that's how he came up with it, and hopefully we agree on that part.

Edit: Still talking history here, I'd like to note that both the geocentric and the heliocentric models at this point had a round Earth. That was not in dispute.

Here's where our ideas are about to diverge...
We can use either the geocentric or the heliocentric models to predict the future locations of the planets. I think you'll find these charts all use the heliocentric model these days because that model is a lot simpler. (That simply means assuming the planets move in ellipses around the Sun and adding precession if they are accurate enough. No they don't generally re-simulate the paths of the orbits based on the mass of the Sun or any of that... just the historical patterns of the planets.) But then once we have that, how do we tell where they will be in our sky at any given place on the Earth? In that NOAA spreadsheet you have mentioned, I would like to draw your attention to cells B3 and B4. These are the observer's latitude and longitude. The locations of the bodies is presented given the observer's lat/long under the assumption that the Earth is a globe. Take a look at cell W2:
=DEGREES(ACOS(COS(RADIANS(90.833))/(COS(RADIANS($B$3))*COS(RADIANS(T2)))-TAN(RADIANS($B$3))*TAN(RADIANS(T2))))
Notice that the latitude is going into some trig there. That isn't projecting the sun onto a flat earth. That's RE math there.

Edit: One last note. You seem really fascinated with the N-body problem. We have no analytical solution for this. Meaning, there does not exist a mathematical formula to solve this in general. All that means is we have to do it with computer simulations instead. Not really a flaw in RE in any way.
8
I'm already busy with the moon tilt illusion I'm working on for you, so I don't have much time for this. Here are a few googles you might find interesting:
http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/comp/ppcomp.html

It is apparent that Celestial Mechanics can attempt to describe orbital motions, and "positions" can be "computed." The problem is that they are unable to predict anything.

Quote
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219

That's an article. I can imagine that a different version of gravity would probably better explain why mercury moves faster or differently in the sky compared to other planets too. It is not a demonstration of celestial mechanics, or showcase its predictive power. You would need to demonstrate that this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

We can take the current three body problem models of Celestial Mechanics and change around the gravity of the sun to show that bodies generally can behave quicker when near it depending on our theory of gravity. None of this is a demonstration that the model can actually predict the positions of bodies into the future. That is far from prediction of the planets in the sky.
I'm sitting here scratching my head. I think we mean different things by the word "prediction." That's got to be the explanation. I'm not sure what you mean by "prediction," but I can tell you what I mean. What I mean is that if you tell me where a body is in it's orbit around the Sun with it's position and current velocity, I can predict for you where it's likely to go in the future. The accuracy of the prediction is going to vary based on how accurate the initial information was, and it will also depend highly on how accurate my model of the other objects in the solar system is. As the prediction goes forward in time, it is likely to drift farther away from accuracy. So, yes we can make predictions. We know when objects are coming our way. We know of many large asteroids, but we're pretty sure that none of them will endanger us any time soon. How do we know? Because we've used these formulas to predict the future trajectory of every large object we are aware of. That's a "prediction." You must mean something else.

Just look at what you linked us to:

Quote
The Precession of Mercury

The orbits of the planets are slight ovals, with the sun located toward one end of the oval. The point at which the planet comes closest to the sun is the perihelion, and the farthest point of the oval is the aphelion. The oval orbits themselves move. As if the sun were a pin stuck into them, the orbits slowly rotate around it, in a motion called precession.

It's talking about about its assumed orbit, and why the planet Mercury's "motions in the sky" are odd compared to the other planets.

Here is a basic gravity simulator: https://www.testtubegames.com/gravity.html

We can change the elements and see that if we change gravity, we can get the little elements to move differently. Since Mercury seems to move too fast in its changing positions of the sky, another version of gravity may seem to work a little better. We are just changing gravity on an incredibly basic model.

Explaining why the apparent changing position Mercury moves a little more off from its pattern repeating patterns (assumed orbits) might work better with a different type of gravity, is something that is vastly different than a model of orbital mechanics that can predict the position of mercury in the sky.

Read what it it talking about. It is not talking about the prediction of the position of mercury in the sky. Not at all. It is talking about some elements of its assumed orbit when the patterns in the sky repeat themselves that would work better if gravity were different.

Placing little balls on an online gravity simulator to 'orbit' each other, and trying to find the right version of gravity that makes the closest ball move a little more in its repeating patterns, because in reality it moves more in its repeating patterns, and under your interpretation on what is happening when seen from earth, is not what we are talking about here. It is possible to analyze the heliocentric model on a very simple level like this, and change the reach of gravity to maybe "explain" something a little better on a high theoretical level about the assumed system, but using the motions of those bodies to actually predict the future position of a body is, due to the 3 body/n-body problem, impossible.

The whole of astronomy is based on fictitious explanations to "explain" phenomena. Einstein's fictitious phenomena might be better than Newton's fictitious phenomena to explain something about a fictitious system. But until real prediction of bodies can be performed to validate the system, the fictitious system and the fictitious explanations that are a part of it remain just that -- fiction.
9
I'm already busy with the moon tilt illusion I'm working on for you, so I don't have much time for this. Here are a few googles you might find interesting:
http://www.stjarnhimlen.se/comp/ppcomp.html

It is apparent that Celestial Mechanics can attempt to describe orbital motions, and "positions" can be "computed." The problem is that they are unable to predict anything.

Quote
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-200-year-old-mystery-of-mercurys-orbit-solved-1458642219

That's an article. I can imagine that a different version of gravity would probably better explain why mercury moves faster or differently in the sky compared to other planets too. It is not a demonstration of celestial mechanics, or showcase its predictive power. You would need to demonstrate that this has anything to do with what we are talking about.

We can take the current three body problem models of Celestial Mechanics and change around the gravity of the sun to show that bodies generally can behave quicker when near it depending on our theory of gravity. None of this is a demonstration that the model can actually predict the positions of bodies into the future. That is far from prediction of the planets in the sky.
I'm sitting here scratching my head. I think we mean different things by the word "prediction." That's got to be the explanation. I'm not sure what you mean by "prediction," but I can tell you what I mean. What I mean is that if you tell me where a body is in it's orbit around the Sun with it's position and current velocity, I can predict for you where it's likely to go in the future. The accuracy of the prediction is going to vary based on how accurate the initial information was, and it will also depend highly on how accurate my model of the other objects in the solar system is. As the prediction goes forward in time, it is likely to drift farther away from accuracy. So, yes we can make predictions. We know when objects are coming our way. We know of many large asteroids, but we're pretty sure that none of them will endanger us any time soon. How do we know? Because we've used these formulas to predict the future trajectory of every large object we are aware of. That's a "prediction." You must mean something else.
10
This is a companion to my previous article, the NOAA Solar Calculator, and should both be read.
Well, your article on the NOAA calculator was wrong and I explained why.  I'll give your new article a read though and see what it says.