*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #80 on: July 21, 2018, 07:53:54 PM »
Their model is accurate out to 100,000,000 years and 99% accurate after that. This doesn’t seem to matter to you. All that matters to you is that it is 1% likely to be unstable after 100,000,000 years. It was found to be accurate using the laws of motion and observation of initial conditions. There isn’t much more to be said. Now, perhaps you should concentrate on developing a model that can show exactly the sun travels over a FE?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6543
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #81 on: July 21, 2018, 08:06:53 PM »
Rama, look at the quotes Sandokan gave in response to edby about the millions of years stability stuff.



Where did he get his data on "eccentricity" and "orbital shape," one may ask? From the place all astronomers get it from under in their fantasy conjecture: The sky!

Smooth out over "long term trends." This clearly indicates a statistical analysis.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 08:13:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #82 on: July 21, 2018, 08:09:34 PM »
Rama, look at the quote Sandokan gave in response to edby.



Where did he get his data on "eccentricity" and "orbital shape" one may as? From the place all astronomers get it from under in their fantasy conjecture: The sky!

Smooth out over "long term trends." This clearly indicates a statistical analysis.

I have no idea what Sandokhan is even sourcing.  Do you?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6543
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #83 on: July 21, 2018, 08:13:26 PM »
He's sourcing the millions of years stability analysis:


*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5681
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #84 on: July 21, 2018, 08:14:33 PM »
He's sourcing the millions of years stability analysis:



No, whose critique is it? Nature?  Cosmopolitan?
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #85 on: July 21, 2018, 08:33:04 PM »
KAM (Kolmogorov-Arnold-Moser) theory tells us that essentially all Hamiltonian systems which are not integrable are chaotic.

Since the solar system is not integrable, and experiences unpredictable small perturbations, it cannot lie permanently on a KAM torus, and is thus chaotic.

An initial condition not lying precisely on a KAM torus will eventually admit chaos, but with a time scale that depends critically on the initial condition.

The validity of symplectically-integrated numerical solutions also depends critically upon the integration time step h, with the longevity of the solution’s validity scaling as e^(a/h) (for some constant a).

Thus, different researchers who draw their initial coniditions from the same ephemeris at different times can find vastly different Lyapunov timescales.


As if this wasn't enough, astronomers have to deal with the phenomenal discovery made by Dr. Robert W. Bass.

Dr. Robert W. Bass

Ph.D. (Mathematics) Johns Hopkins University, 1955 [Wintner, Hartman]
A. Wintner, world's leading authority on celestial mechanics
Post-Doctoral Fellow Princeton University, 1955-56 [under S. Lefschetz]
Rhodes Scholar
Professor, Physics & Astronomy, Brigham Young University

"In a resonant, orbitally unstable or "wild" motion, the eccentricities of one or more of the terrestrial planets can increase in a century or two until a near collision occurs. Subsequently the Principle of Least Interaction Action predicts that the planets will rapidly "relax" into a configuration very near to a (presumably orbitally stable) resonant, Bode's-Law type of configuration. Near such a configuration, small, non-gravitational effects such as tidal friction can in a few centuries accumulate effectively to a discontinuous "jump" from the actual phase-space path to a nearby, truly orbitally stable, path. Subsequently, observations and theory would agree that the solar system is in a quasi-periodic motion stable in the sense of Laplace and orbitally stable. Also, numerical integrations backward in time would show that no near collision had ever occurred. Yet in actual fact this deduction would be false."

"I arrived independently at the preceding scenario before learning that dynamical astronomer, E. W. Brown, president of the American Astronomical Society, had already outlined the same possibility in 1931."

Dr. Robert Bass, Stability of the Solar System:

https://web.archive.org/web/20120916174745/http://www.innoventek.com:80/Bass1974PenseeAllegedProofsOfStabilityOfSolarSystemR.pdf

Dr. E.W. Brown

Fellowship, Royal Society
President of the American Mathematical Society
Professor of Mathematics, Yale University
President of the American Astronomical Society

What this means is that the interval of assured reliability for Newton's equations of gravitational motion is at most three hundred years.

Dr. W.M. Smart

Regius Professor of Astronomy at Glasgow University
President of the Royal Astronomical Society from 1949 to 1951






Within this 300 year time interval, we again have the huge problem of the sensitive dependence on initial conditions.

To show the importance and the dependence on the sensitivity of the initial conditions of the set of differential equations, an error as small as 15 meters in measuring the position of the Earth today would make it impossible to predict where the Earth would be in its orbit in just over 100 million years' time.

“The word ‘chaotic’ summarizes many fundamental concepts characterizing
a dynamical system such as complex predictability and stability. But above
all, it acts as a warming of the difficulties which are likely to arise when trying to
obtain a reliable picture of its past and future evolution. As an example, a
commonly accepted definition states that a system is ‘unstable’ if the trajectories of
two points that initially are arbitrarily close . . . diverge quickly in time. This has
strong implications, as small uncertainties in initial conditions . . . might [also] be
consistent with completely different future trajectories: The conclusion is that we
can exactly reproduce the motion of a chaotic system only if WE KNOW, WITH
ABSOLUTE PRECISION, THE INITIAL CONDITIONS – A STATEMENT
THAT, IN PRACTICE, CAN NEVER BE TRUE."

Alessandra Celletti, Ettore Perozzi, Celestial Mechanics: The Waltz of the Planets

If any proofs can be provided that the solar system underwent cataclysmic planetary collisions in recent historical times, this fact would render any kind of heliocentric orbital calculations as completely useless.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1936055#msg1936055 (part I)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938384#msg1938384 (part II)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938393#msg1938393 (part III)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1938396#msg1938396 (part IV)


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #86 on: July 21, 2018, 09:01:00 PM »
This explains it well.

It does not, on the contrary.

Scott Tremaine's arguments rest totally on Jacques Laskar's numerical simulations.

The passage you quote is from Newton, Einstein, and Velikovsky, is that correct? Ginenthal is the founder and principal contributor to an online journal The Velikovskian.

[edit] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 09:03:30 PM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #87 on: July 21, 2018, 09:07:10 PM »
Quote
In general, Velikovsky's theories have been ignored or vigorously rejected by the academic community. Nonetheless, his books often sold well and gained an enthusiastic support in lay circles, often fuelled by claims of unfair treatment for Velikovsky by orthodox academia. The controversy surrounding his work and its reception is often referred to as "the Velikovsky affair". Velikovsky's work is frequently cited as a canonical example of pseudoscience and has been used as an example of the demarcation problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky

Quote
The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and non-science, including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs. The debate continues after over two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite broad agreement on the basics of scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem
The Demarcation Problem was what brought me to this site, as it happens.

Quote
Worlds in Collision is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky and first published April 3, 1950. The book postulated that around the 15th century BC, Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object, and passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes that were mentioned in early mythologies and religions around the world. Many of the book's claims are completely rejected by the established scientific community as they are not supported by any available evidence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision

Quote
The plausibility of the theory was summarily rejected by the physics community, as the cosmic chain of events proposed by Velikovsky contradicts basic laws of physics.

Quote
As Friedlander recounts, "When I gave each example, [Velikovsky's] response was 'Where did I write that?'; when I showed a photo copy of the quoted pages, he simply switched to a different topic."
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 09:12:19 PM by edby »

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #88 on: July 21, 2018, 09:15:29 PM »
The Demarcation Problem was what brought me to this site, as it happens.

Right.

Then, you'll happy to find out that Kepler fudged/faked/falsified the entire set of data in the New Astronomy.

This data in turn lead to the law of universal gravitation published by Newton.

This law was then used to derive the nonlinear differential equations approach to orbital mechanics.

Kepler published his first law of planetary motion based on the data gathered by Tycho
Brahe in 1609. The law states that planets orbit the sun in ellipses with the sun at one focus.


“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .

“But a close study of Kepler’s New Astronomy . . . shows that the plotted points
[he used] do not fall exactly on the ellipse (of course, measurements rarely fall
exactly on a theoretical curve because they usually have random error sources
incorporated into them.) Curtis Wilson (1968), however, carries error argument
further. The lack of precision inherent in the method . . . would have forced Kepler
to use the plotted points only as a guide to his theorizing . . .
“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical. Donahue reasons that Kepler must have gone back to revise his earlier
calculations that were made prior to his understanding that the orbit of Mars was
actually elliptical. Thus, anyone who cared to check Kepler’s tables would find
numbers that are consistent with the elliptical orbit [he] postulated for Mars and
would be inclined to believe that the numbers represented observational data. In
fact, they were computed from the hypothesis of an elliptical orbit and then
modified for measurement error; such data, if they were truly observations, would
be prime facie evidence of the theories’ correctness.

“So Donahue . . . realized that the theory was not obviously derivable from the
observations, . . . ‘Not only would the numbers be confused, but Kepler saw clearly
that no satisfactory theory could come from such a procedure. . . [Instead], he chose
a short cut.’ He became so convinced of what drove these physical processes that he subjectively projected his personal nonobservational-based belief onto the reporting scene to convince others in the scientific community of the validity of his theories.”

Thus, the very first law of planetary motion was built not on observation but on theory
and the mathematics was then employed to prove the theory not test it.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988JHA....19..217D

Kepler's fabricated figures, by W.H. Donohue

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.

The discovery was made by Dr. Donahue, a science historian, while translating Kepler's master work, ''Astronomia Nova,'' or ''The New Astronomy,'' into English. Dr. Donahue, who lives in Sante Fe, N.M., described his discovery in a recent issue of The Journal of the History of Astronomy.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer. After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''


Thus, the notion that a planet orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit was a simple fabrication, based on fudged data.

In fact, a strong argument for the validity of Newton’s laws of motion and gravity was that they could be used to derive Kepler’s laws.

But the entire Nova Astronomia was faked/falsified, each and every entry.




Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in the natural sciences (C.C. Lin/L.A. Segel), chapter 2: Deterministic systems and ordinary differential equations (pg. 36-70)

To accomplish a mathematical formulation, we adopt a polar coordinate system (r, θ) with the sun as the origin.

The second law of Kepler then states that, following the orbit (r(t), θ(t)) of a planet,

r2dθ/dt = h

The first law of Kepler states that the orbit can be described by the simple formula,

r = p/(1 + ecosθ)

Then one can show that the acceleration in the radial direction is

ar = d2r/dt2 - r(dθ/dt)2 = -h2/pr2

Thus the acceleration is inversely proportional to the square of the radial distance.

Newton, by combining the above results with his second law of motion, was led to formulate the present form of the law of universal gravitation.

This, in turn, leads to a system of N particles in gravitational interaction; e.g., the solar system comprising the sun and the nine major planets.



Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #89 on: July 21, 2018, 09:31:57 PM »

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #90 on: July 21, 2018, 09:34:35 PM »
Since you do not like Charles Ginenthal's formidable works, here is an analysis of J. Laskar's assumptions using only mainstream sources.

Laskar's entire theory rests on the hypothesis that the Milankovitch cycle is correct (expansion and contraction of ice caps).

“A team led by Jacques Laskar . . . has released new computational results for
the long-term evolution and rotational motion of the Earth. Following
Milankovitch’s theory of paleoclimate that describe how major, climatic changes
of the Earth are affected by astronomical events, these [astronomical] results have
been employed to provide a new calibration to the sedimentary records over the 0
to 23.03 Myr [million years] geological period (the so-called Neogene period). . . .
It is the first time that astronomical computations have been used to establish . . .
geological chronology over a full geological period.”

Astronomy & Astrophysics, Jacques Laskar, “New results refine the Geological Time Scale” (Oct 25, 2004)

However, the data concerning the Milankovitch cycle totally contradicts Laskar's astronomical analysis.

“We are puzzled by the table in the Scientific Correspondence by Emiliani.
He rejects the conventionally used (glacial, interglacial transitions) as time
markers and focuses on bathythermals (the coldest portions of glacial cycles),
which he deems to be sharper and, therefore, more precise time markers. He
claims that bathythermals in the Devils Hole . . . chronology occur at times when
the orbital parameters of [the Earth’s] obliquity [axial tilt] and eccentricity to the
sun] are both low . . . thereby supporting the Milankovitch mechanism . . .
“We show [in a table] . . . the seven astronomical ‘low’ events that Emiliani
gives . . . We are puzzled as to why Emiliani omitted [from his table] two welldefined
‘low’ events . . . and note that they do not correspond to bathythermals in
either the Devils Hole or the marine chronologies. Indeed, the ‘low’ [or coldest]
event occurs during a peak interglacial time [when it was warmest]. We also note
that Emiliani’s designation of a ‘low’ event [for two periods] does not fit the earlier
stated definition.
“Also show[n] in our table] . . . are eight major . . . minima denoting times of
full glacial climate, found in the Devils Hole chronology, and the subset of six
events that Emiliani gives . . . in his table . . . He does not mention the two Devils
Hole isotope minima which do not correspond to an astronomical ‘low’ event.
“In comparing the astronomical ‘low’ events predicted by the specific definition
with the minimal isotope events in the Devils Hole chronology, one sees that though
there are four ‘matches,’ there are six ‘non-matches,’ twice when a bathythermals
would be predicted but did not happen, and four times when one did occur but not
during an astronomical ‘low’ event.”

J. M. Landwehr, Isaac J. Winograd, T. B. Copen, “No Verification of Milankovitch,” Nature, Vol. 368 (Apr 14, 1994), p. 594

“One of the fundamental tenets of paleoclimate modeling, the Milankovitch
theory, is called into doubt by isotope analyses of a calcite vein [Devils hole] just
reported in Science, by Winograd and colleagues. The [Milankovitch] theory,
which is backed up by a compelling bank of evidence, suggests that the ice ages are
driven by periodic variations in the Earth’s orbit. But the timing of the ice ages
determined, with unprecedented accuracy in the new [Devils Hole] record, cannot
be reconciled with planetary cyclicity.”

Walter S. Broecker, “Upset for Milankovitch Theory,” Nature, Vol. 359 (Oct 29, 1992), p. 779

Richard A. Kerr, editor of Science, published the following:

“The Devils Hole Record traced climate swings of about the same length as the
marine record, but they were out of step with the variations of Earth’s orbit. Most
glaringly, the carbonates indicated a profound warming trend which appeared to
signal the end of the penultimate ice age thousands of years before orbital variations
could have begun to melt ice. If the Devils Hole chronology was a true record of
the world’s ice age, researchers would have to dump the astronomical mechanism
and look for something new.”

Richard A. Kerr, “Second Clock Supports Orbital Pacing of the Ice Ages,” Science, Vol. 276 (May 2, 1997), p. 680

K. R. Ludwig, et al., write: “The Devils Hole data . . . remains a challenge to the
Milankovitch hypothesis.”

K. R. Ludwig, et al., “Last Interglaciation in Devils Hole, Nature, Vol. 362 (Apr 15, 1993), p. 596

“Perhaps the most convincing evidence that neither local nor regional
hydrologic or synoptic climatological factors are the predominant ones influencing
the DH [Devils Hole] . . . signal is the strong linear correlation of this record with
SPECMAP VOSTOK . . . [climate archives].
“Local or regional hydrologic or synoptic – climatological factors are
improbable as the predominant causes . . .”
“In my estimation, the New Devils Hole Chronology is more firm than another
available isotopic age in this range. Nowhere else has such a high degree of
concordance between – 238U and 230 Th and 230 Th – 234U ages been achieved.
No other archive is better preserved. No other record has so many stratigraphically
ordered radiometric ages . . . [Although Broecker was a long-time supporter of
Milankovitch, he adds] one side will have to give – just to be safe – climate
modelers should start preparing themselves for a world without Milankovitch.”

Broecker, “Upset for Milankovitch Theory,” p. 780

“The study of sediment cores from the deep Atlantic and ice cores from
Greenland does not confirm the gradual transition from glacial to interglacial and
back again that is implied by the astronomical [Milankovitch] cycles and partly
documented by the oxygen isotope record. Instead, as on the land the response of
the North Atlantic Ocean – atmosphere system looks like a series of abrupt flipflops
from one stage to another.”

Tjeed H. Van Andel, New Views of an Old Planet, 2ed. (Cambridge, UK 1994), p. 97

“Then there is the question of whether waxing and waning of ice sheets in the
Northern Hemisphere could, as the Milankovitch theory assumes, drive all the
other climate changes that have accompanied ice ages – the cooling and glaciation
of the Southern hemisphere, for example, glaciers in the Andes and Antarctica
have advanced at roughly the same times as those in the north, that is, at times
when the [Milankovitch] orbital calculations should have been getting a lot of
summer sunlight. There is no generally accepted explanation of why ice ages
should be globally synchronized if driven by [Milankovitch] orbital
fluctuations.”

Robert Kunzig, “Ice Cycles,” Discover (May 1989), p. 78

“. . . Slight changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis give only negligible solar
variations at equatorial latitudes; yet the last ice age produced the great glaciers on
Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea in Hawaii and Mount Elgon in Uganda. Obviously
something drastic happened in the tropics for which the Milankovitch theory cannot
account.”
Walter Broecker, an earlier proponent of Milankovitch, had this to say in 1997:
“An important piece of information in this regard is the state of Earth’s system
during the extreme cold millenniums of glacial times. At these times, all of Canada
and a major part of the northeastern and mid-western United States were covered
by ice sheets. The snow line descended about 1 km [3280 feet] on mountains
elsewhere on Earth. Geomorphologists have traversed the globe comparing the
elevation of the present-day mountain snowlines with those for the last glaciation .
. . Everywhere from 40° S to 40° N [latitude] snowlines descended . . . Thus, the
southern Andes and New Zealand’s South Island, which now have very small
glaciers, had quite large ones.
“What this tells us is that somehow, [the entire] Earth was in a much colder
condition during the glacial periods. To my way of thinking, no one [including
Milankovitch] has adequately explained how this could happen. We now have new
evidence from glacial-age corals and from glacial-age ground water . . . that the
tropics may have been as much as 5° C (9° F) colder during glacial times. How
could the climate of the Earth have changed so much . . . ?”

Sir Fred Hoyle, Ice (NY 1981), p. 70.
Walter S. Broecker, GSA Today (May 1997), pp. 4-5


Laskar's entire 20 million year stability analysis is only based on the deeply flawed Milankovitch theory.


Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #91 on: July 21, 2018, 09:43:48 PM »
Since you do not like Charles Ginenthal's formidable works ..
Let's stick with Donahue. Anyone who translates these post medieval Latin works into English has done a great service to scholarship. This review suggests Donahue is on the mark.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4027649?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

It is not unknown for scientists to fudge the raw data to support a hunch. The question is (i) how much did Kepler fudge the data and (ii) was he right? Is the orbit of Mars in fact elliptical, or not?

[edit]

Quote
Dr. Donahue, like many other experts, feels the episode does little to diminish Kepler's reputation. ''He had a difficult job trying to convince people that the ellipse was correct,'' he said. ''So he fudged a little. This doesn't take him down a notch. It was a small point in the argument.'' https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/after-400-years-a-challenge-to-kepler-he-fabricated-his-data-scholar-says.html 
« Last Edit: July 21, 2018, 09:47:48 PM by edby »

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #92 on: July 22, 2018, 05:11:17 AM »
Let's put your word to the test.








Kepler faked/fudged/falsified the entire set of data obtained from Brahe, and used the ellipse to calculate the final entries for his tables.

Kepler FAKED THE ENTIRE SET OF DATA, and announced to the world he got it from a nonexistent elliptical orbit.

The elliptical orbit WAS NOT based on observational astronomical data.

It was simply written in by Kepler.

As such, his book is a work of FICTION.

No science involved.

The observational input is nil.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.

Kepler used the elliptical hypothesis to calculate the tables.


That is not the same as computing the Mars-Sun distances from Brahe's observational data (directly from observations).

Moreover the longitudes in Kepler's tables were calculated with the aid of the area law of the ellipse AND NOT from direct observational values.


Since, according to his own words Kepler had no idea of the correct form of the orbital path, HOW COULD HE KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW TO CALCULATE THE TABLES WITH THE AID OF THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS?


“Almost 400 years later, William H. Donohue undertook the task of translating
Kepler’s 1609 Astronomia Nova into the English New Astronomy (Donohue 1992)
when in the course of his work he redid many of Kepler’s calculations, he was
startled to find some fundamental inconsistencies with Kepler’s reporting of these
same calculations (Donohue 1988). Writing of Donohue’s pathbreaking work in
The New York Times, William Broad (1990) summarized Donahue’s findings
saying that although Kepler claimed to have confirmed the elliptical orbit by
independent observations and calculations of the position of Mars, in fact Kepler
derived the data from the theory instead of the other way around . . .

After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical
."

Kepler faked his entire set of data to match the ellipse.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''


There is no such thing as an elliptical orbit.




DONAHUE'S CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON TYCHO BRAHE'S DATA.

KEPLER'S FAKE ENTRIES RELY ON THE ELLIPSE.


How in the world could Kepler know in advance which geometrical path to use?

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

The only thing Kepler knew in advance was the fact that the circles with epicycles WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE ELLIPSE, and all he had to do is FAKE THE ENTRIES.

He faked all of the entries.




KEPLER MODIFIED THE ENTRIES IN THE FINAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 53: HE SIMPLY ADJUSTED THEM TO FIT THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS WITH NO OBSERVATIONAL INPUT WHATSOEVER.



For the longitudes, Kepler claimed to have used the vicarious hypothesis: yet, the calculations show he used the area law for the ellipse.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=12&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1988JHA....19..217D&db_key=AST&page_ind=16&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

The only sheer work involved was that of faking and replacing the correct entries by fudged entries.

Kepler simply replaced everything with data which suited his purpose.

Is this what you call science?

There was no observational input at all.

None whatsoever.

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

That is why Kepler's work is a total fraud.






Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #93 on: July 22, 2018, 06:02:02 AM »
I asked (i) how much did Kepler fudge the data and (ii) was he right? Is the orbit of Mars in fact elliptical, or not?

From the passages quoted by Donahue, quite a lot. On the other hand we have this, which I quote again:
Quote
Dr. Donahue, like many other experts, feels the episode does little to diminish Kepler's reputation. ''He had a difficult job trying to convince people that the ellipse was correct,'' he said. ''So he fudged a little. This doesn't take him down a notch. It was a small point in the argument.'' https://www.nytimes.com/1990/01/23/science/after-400-years-a-challenge-to-kepler-he-fabricated-his-data-scholar-says.html 

Then there is my second question: Is the orbit of Mars in fact elliptical, or not?

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #94 on: July 22, 2018, 06:40:10 AM »
After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical."



DONAHUE'S CALCULATIONS ARE BASED UPON TYCHO BRAHE'S DATA.

KEPLER'S FAKE ENTRIES RELY ON THE ELLIPSE.


How in the world could Kepler know in advance which geometrical path to use?

Kepler portrayed the source of the tables as other than it was, with the obvious goal of making the elliptical hypothesis look as if it had greater computational support than it actually had.

The only thing Kepler knew in advance was the fact that the circles with epicycles WERE EQUIVALENT TO THE ELLIPSE, and all he had to do is FAKE THE ENTRIES.

He faked all of the entries.


For the NYT article, Dr. Donahue tried his best to minimize the extent of Kepler's monumental fudging.

Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.

''He fudged things,'' Dr. Donahue said, adding that Kepler was never challenged by a contemporary. A pivotal presentation of data to support the elliptical theory was ''a fraud, a complete fabrication,'' Dr. Donahue wrote in his paper. ''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

But when Dr. Donahue started working through the method to make sure he understood the basis for Kepler's chart, he found his numbers disagreeing with those of the great astronomer. After repeatedly getting the wrong answers for the numbers displayed on Kepler's chart, Dr. Donahue started trying other methods. Finally, he realized that the numbers in the chart had been generated not by independent calculations based on triangulated planetary positions, but by calculations using the area law itself.

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''



Of course the orbit of Mars is not elliptical: the data obtained by Tycho Brahe (circles with epicycles) is correct.

Kepler faked the entire data to give the impression that the orbit is elliptical in shape, which it is not.

The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and non-science, including between science, pseudoscience, and other products of human activity, like art and literature, and beliefs.

Do you understand the meaning of the words fake/fudge/falsify?

Does faking an entire set of data to suit one's own purposes count as NON-SCIENCE?

Kepler's entire Nova Astronomia is a work of fiction: it is based entirely on fraudulent data.

Just take a look at the fake data published by Kepler:



Since, according to his own words Kepler had no idea of the correct form of the orbital path, HOW COULD HE KNOW IN ADVANCE HOW TO CALCULATE THE TABLES WITH THE AID OF THE ELLIPTICAL HYPOTHESIS?

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #95 on: July 22, 2018, 07:06:38 AM »
Then there is my second question: Is the orbit of Mars in fact elliptical, or not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_Mars
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 08:02:08 AM by edby »

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #96 on: July 22, 2018, 08:13:54 AM »
Quote
Neptune is not visible to the unaided eye and is the only planet in the Solar System found by mathematical prediction rather than by empirical observation. Unexpected changes in the orbit of Uranus led Alexis Bouvard to deduce that its orbit was subject to gravitational perturbation by an unknown planet. Neptune was subsequently observed with a telescope on 23 September 1846 by Johann Galle within a degree of the position predicted by Urbain Le Verrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune

Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #97 on: July 22, 2018, 08:26:59 AM »
Of course the orbit of Mars is not elliptical: the data obtained by Tycho Brahe (circles with epicycles) is correct.

The wikipedia page on the orbit of Mars contains two blatant falsehoods.

A key discovery was that the motion of Mars followed an elliptical path.

Kepler faked/fugded/falsified the entire crucial set of data in Chapter 53 pertaining to the supposed orbital path of Mars.

His model with a circular orbit did not match the observations of Mars.

Tycho Brahe's circle/epicycle model matched very precisely the observations of Mars, that is why Kepler had to falsify them in order to introduce to the public the heliocentric version.

Neptune

"The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus. Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance (Principia, Book III, Proposition V, Corr. V)."


Scott Tremaine's arguments rest totally on Jacques Laskar's numerical simulations.

As we have seen, Laskar committed some monumental errors, not the least of which is the hypothesis that the Milankovitch cycle is correct.

“The word ‘chaotic’ summarizes many fundamental concepts characterizing
a dynamical system such as complex predictability and stability. But above
all, it acts as a warming of the difficulties which are likely to arise when trying to
obtain a reliable picture of its past and future evolution. As an example, a
commonly accepted definition states that a system is ‘unstable’ if the trajectories of
two points that initially are arbitrarily close . . . diverge quickly in time. This has
strong implications, as small uncertainties in initial conditions . . . might [also] be
consistent with completely different future trajectories: The conclusion is that we
can exactly reproduce the motion of a chaotic system only if WE KNOW, WITH
ABSOLUTE PRECISION, THE INITIAL CONDITIONS – A STATEMENT
THAT, IN PRACTICE, CAN NEVER BE TRUE."

Alessandra Celletti, Ettore Perozzi, Celestial Mechanics: The Waltz of the Planets

Sussman and Wisdom's 1992 integration of the entire solar system displayed a disturbing dependence on the timestep of the integration (measurement of the Lyapunov time).

Thus, different researchers who draw their initial conditions from the same ephemeris at different times can find vastly different Lyapunov timescales.

Wayne Hayes, UC Irvine

“Instead of using full equations of motion, Laskar focused on a special
formulation that spotlights gradual but cumulative changes in an orbit’s shape
[eccentricity] and orientation [inclination]. He worked with equations that smooth
out the recurring wiggles and wobbles in planetary orbits leaving only long term
trends . . .

“By applying a similar strategy to celestial curves [eccentricities], Laskar could
isolate these [non-gravitational] parts of a planet’s motion that correspond to lasting
changes in key characteristics of its orbit.”

Ivars Peterson, Newton’s Clock

“This differential system is a close approximation to the real solar system, and in
particular, the inner solar system . . . but the exact meaning of ‘close’ is still difficult to evaluate.”

J. Laskar

When one employs non-gravitational theory instead of “full equations of motion” to prove
stability, one has removed the solution of the problem from reality. But even believing in these
non-gravitational equations, Laskar cannot tell what a “close approximation” is. It is a theoretical
construct that comes out of non-gravitational math.

C. Ginenthal

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1079
    • View Profile
Re: Round Earth Celestial Mechanics Cannot Predict the Solar System
« Reply #98 on: July 22, 2018, 08:59:52 AM »
You are quoting Velikovsky without attribution. It would help if you provide clear citations for all your sources.

It's very hard to find any literature on Velikovsky except Velikovsky himself, or his close supporters.

Quote
Since Adams and Leverrier expected to find a planet of the size of Uranus ca. 1,750,000,000 miles beyond the orbit of Uranus, and it was found ca. 1,000,000,000 miles beyond Uranus, the mass of Neptune was overestimated by a factor of three.
https://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm#f_31
What is the source for this claim?

[edit]
Ah.

Quote
The criticism was soon afterwards made, that both Adams and Le Verrier had been over-optimistic in the precision they claimed for their calculations, and both had, by using Bode's law, greatly overestimated the planet's distance from the sun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

Quote
The hypothesis correctly anticipated the orbits of Ceres (in the asteroid belt) and Uranus, but failed as a predictor of Neptune's orbit and was eventually superseded as a theory of Solar System formation. It is named for Johann Daniel Titius and Johann Elert Bode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titius%E2%80%93Bode_law

However, the difference in distance given in the Wikipedia table does not match Velikovsky's claim. So what is the source for Velikovsky's claim?
« Last Edit: July 22, 2018, 09:16:38 AM by edby »