Offline yisfat

  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Gravity
« on: March 20, 2019, 10:06:09 PM »
If the sun orbits above the Earth, why doesn't the sun fall down onto the Earth. The same goes for the moon.

*

Offline NotSoSkeptical

  • *
  • Posts: 165
  • Live for the Antichtone
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2019, 11:42:23 PM »
That depends on the FE model.

Offline yisfat

  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #2 on: March 21, 2019, 04:22:09 PM »
Oh, okay. But regarding the model that the above is true, how would the sun (and moon) float up above the earth.
Also,  can you include a picture of which model has the sun not revolving above the Earth? Just curious.

Nick428

Re: Gravity
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2019, 07:59:23 PM »
Exactly, they can't explain what force is keeping the Sun and Moon moving above Earth in a circle. The Sun is a major problem for them. They can't even explain what makes the Sun travel faster during the Southern Hemisphere Summer.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2019, 09:58:32 PM by Nick428 »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2019, 04:20:13 AM »
Exactly, they can't explain what force is keeping the Sun and Moon moving above Earth in a circle. The Sun is a major problem for them. They can't even explain what makes the Sun travel faster during the Southern Hemisphere Summer.

Well, to be fair, I don’t think you can either. Saying “gravity does it” really isn’t an explanation, just a claim. Do you understand the dynamics of the Earth-Moon-Sun three body system? If so, I would love to see a technical description of it from you, beginning with the general central force problem, and finding the equations of motion from minimizing the action. Of course, you’ll need to construct the Lagrangian first. But do feel free to use Hamiltonian dynamics if you prefer.

Until then, maybe you can take your foot out of your mouth long enough to eat the slice of humble pie I got fer ya.

Bud.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2019, 12:35:03 PM »
But to be fair, the FE community either throws out the 3 body problem on the basis that it can't be solved or some other inane reason. And the only proposal I can see that allows for the sun and moon to be above the earth is Universal Acceleration. However, it is not explicitly stated that the sun and the moon are affected by UA. And in the wiki itself,

"The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."

So either the earth shields everything above the earth or it passes through. It seems like to me that when someone proposed the former, someone complained that if UA were blocked how could a celestial body directly above the stay above the earth at a constant height. (Ad hoc explanations). I had proposed the idea (not that I support it) that UA was the effect of flow of the aether and that it flowed across the dome and then allowed other celestial bodies to be "supported." It would be necessary for FE theory at this point to include a dome, because if there was no dome the boundary lines of flow would fold in on the earth and force celestial objects to the center of the earth.
BobLawBlah.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2019, 03:02:07 PM »
But to be fair, the FE community either throws out the 3 body problem on the basis that it can't be solved or some other inane reason. And the only proposal I can see that allows for the sun and moon to be above the earth is Universal Acceleration. However, it is not explicitly stated that the sun and the moon are affected by UA. And in the wiki itself,

"The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA. Alternatively, it is possible that the force of UA can actually pass through objects, but its effect on smaller bodies is negligible (similar to gravity in RET cosmology, which only has a noticeable affect on very large objects)."

So either the earth shields everything above the earth or it passes through. It seems like to me that when someone proposed the former, someone complained that if UA were blocked how could a celestial body directly above the stay above the earth at a constant height. (Ad hoc explanations). I had proposed the idea (not that I support it) that UA was the effect of flow of the aether and that it flowed across the dome and then allowed other celestial bodies to be "supported." It would be necessary for FE theory at this point to include a dome, because if there was no dome the boundary lines of flow would fold in on the earth and force celestial objects to the center of the earth.

Well I think that’s nonsense. The three body problem has no closed-form analytics solution, but it can be solved numerically very well. Heck, entire galaxies worth of bodies have been computed by folks who study galaxy formation and dark matter. Throwing this out just because no closed-form solution exists, when I bet folks who do this wouldn’t even understand what a closed-form solution says, is a bit ridiculous.

Anyway, what I’m getting at is this REer is criticizing FE for not understanding something fundamental to FE, when they don’t understand the analogous RE topic fundamental to it.

In my opinion, aether is an idea without legs. A flow that achieves what is needed to explain observables would have other obvious features that are not apparent. Like pressure gradients at different altitudes which we would feel. We’d literally feel a compression around us when going up/down an elevator in a skyscraper. The fact that this is not observed indoors is sufficient to render aether a non-starter.

There are better FE lines of inquiry that actually might show promise.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline WellRoundedIndividual

  • *
  • Posts: 605
  • Proverbs 13:20 is extremely relevant today.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2019, 05:15:22 PM »
I agree with what you have said. I don't attempt to answer FE baiting about the 3 body solution because I have never studied the 3 body problem. I only know the simplistic explanations that are found on the interwebs.

I also agree with your statements about the aether.
BobLawBlah.

Nick428

Re: Gravity
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2019, 05:49:05 PM »
Exactly, they can't explain what force is keeping the Sun and Moon moving above Earth in a circle. The Sun is a major problem for them. They can't even explain what makes the Sun travel faster during the Southern Hemisphere Summer.

Well, to be fair, I don’t think you can either. Saying “gravity does it” really isn’t an explanation, just a claim. Do you understand the dynamics of the Earth-Moon-Sun three body system? If so, I would love to see a technical description of it from you, beginning with the general central force problem, and finding the equations of motion from minimizing the action. Of course, you’ll need to construct the Lagrangian first. But do feel free to use Hamiltonian dynamics if you prefer.
Well you haven't explained how the Sun and Moon is physically possible to circle above the Earth, only used a word salad to fill the blank. Are you a flat earther? Can you please explain how the Sun moves faster/slower depending on the time of year? That was my original question in the first place. I'm still confused on the simple fundamentals of the AE model.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #9 on: March 23, 2019, 05:54:24 PM »
Exactly, they can't explain what force is keeping the Sun and Moon moving above Earth in a circle. The Sun is a major problem for them. They can't even explain what makes the Sun travel faster during the Southern Hemisphere Summer.

Well, to be fair, I don’t think you can either. Saying “gravity does it” really isn’t an explanation, just a claim. Do you understand the dynamics of the Earth-Moon-Sun three body system? If so, I would love to see a technical description of it from you, beginning with the general central force problem, and finding the equations of motion from minimizing the action. Of course, you’ll need to construct the Lagrangian first. But do feel free to use Hamiltonian dynamics if you prefer.
Well you haven't explained how the Sun and Moon is physically possible to circle above the Earth, only used a word salad to fill the blank. Are you a flat earther? Can you please explain how the Sun moves faster/slower depending on the time of year? That was my original question in the first place. I'm still confused on the simple fundamentals of the AE model.

Physically possible? Sure. The Sun and moon are following trajectories defined by a potential well, which is identified by the laplacian of a potential function.

Now, your turn.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #10 on: March 23, 2019, 10:39:33 PM »
Hi QED, do you know of any source to a working numerical Three Body Problem solution of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or a heliocentric system?

As far as I know, none of the solutions or methods can make a heliocentric system.

Poliastro, an astrodynamics software developer shared several numerical Restricted Three Body Problem solutions as applied to the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

https://twitter.com/poliastro_py/status/993418078036873216

Quote
Look at this beautiful plot of several numerical methods for the restricted three body problem taken from Harier et al. "Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I". The use of high order Runge-Kutta methods is pervasive in Celestial Mechanics. Happy Monday!


It doesn't quite look like anything like the proposed heliocentric model which claims that it is possible to have a sun with a planet that has a moon.

Also, the solutions must have at least two bodies of the same mass and are incredibly sensitive that fall apart with the slightest adjustment to any parameters or influence by outside gravitational influences

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.

Here are some selected quoted from a New Scientist article: "Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions"

Quote
The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.

...

Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.

But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane.

Knot-like paths

In addition, the researchers did not test the orbits’ stability. It’s possible that the tiniest disturbance in space or rounding error in the equations could rip the objects away from one another.

These orbits have nothing to do with astronomy, but you’re solving these equations and you’re getting something beautiful,” says Vanderbei.

...

Aside from giving us a thousand pretty pictures of knot-like orbital paths, the new three-body solutions also mark a starting point for finding even more possible orbits, and eventually figuring out the whole range of winding paths that three objects can follow around one another.

...

This is kind of the zeroth step. Then the question becomes, how is the space of all possible positions and velocities filled up by solutions?” says Richard Montgomery at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These simple orbits are kind of like a skeleton to build the whole system up from.”

To me it appears to be saying that the stable orbits that can be found have nothing that looks like heliocentric astronomy. The system, at its very basic level, is unable to be created.

The "thousands of stable solutions" are scenarios where the bodies have the same mass or where one of the bodies is mass-less. All of these scenarios are incredibly sensitive, and none represent anything that looks like a heliocentric system. They are crazy loopy orbits, based on situations that would not happen in nature, and which fall apart with the slightest touch.

They further appear to admit that they are on the zeroth step.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 10:53:08 PM by Tom Bishop »

Nick428

Re: Gravity
« Reply #11 on: March 23, 2019, 10:59:39 PM »
Exactly, they can't explain what force is keeping the Sun and Moon moving above Earth in a circle. The Sun is a major problem for them. They can't even explain what makes the Sun travel faster during the Southern Hemisphere Summer.

Well, to be fair, I don’t think you can either. Saying “gravity does it” really isn’t an explanation, just a claim. Do you understand the dynamics of the Earth-Moon-Sun three body system? If so, I would love to see a technical description of it from you, beginning with the general central force problem, and finding the equations of motion from minimizing the action. Of course, you’ll need to construct the Lagrangian first. But do feel free to use Hamiltonian dynamics if you prefer.
Well you haven't explained how the Sun and Moon is physically possible to circle above the Earth, only used a word salad to fill the blank. Are you a flat earther? Can you please explain how the Sun moves faster/slower depending on the time of year? That was my original question in the first place. I'm still confused on the simple fundamentals of the AE model.

Physically possible? Sure. The Sun and moon are following trajectories defined by a potential well, which is identified by the laplacian of a potential function.

Now, your turn.
So the sun can just randomly (de)accelerates whenever it wants to? You don't even have evidence that the sun randomly changes it's path every season. If it's following a fixed trajectory above Earth, we would see the Sun change angular size throughout the day. It would increase/decrease by nearly a multiple of 4. There are videos on YouTube with a time lapse and a solar filter showing that the Sun stays the same size, so this trajectory you speak of isn't right. Also, flat earthers claim that the sun goes out of our sight because it gradually decreases angular size as it sets but in reality, it's the exact opposite. The sun actually appears to look larger when it sets, contradicting the flat earth claim. Science is always testable and repeatable experiments/observations, so I'll share mine.

I live in California, and the sun always sets at around North West North. If you look at the flat earth model, I should be seeing sunsets almost 90 degrees eastward (depending on the season), and I would have to be facing land instead of ocean to see the sunset. I can record my observations on camera and share if you would like.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #12 on: March 23, 2019, 11:04:04 PM »
Here is some more information on the Three Body Problem that I have come across. Askamathematician.com describes the Three Body Problem solutions as follows:

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).

Henri Poincare studied the Three Body Problem. Here is a quote from 'Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems in Natural Sciences' about Poincare's discoveries on the sensitivity of these solutions.

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.

Here is a recent paper on unequal masses and the Three Body Problem by the people with the supercomputer:

Over a thousand new periodic orbits of a planar three-body system with unequal masses

Quote
Abstract

The three-body problem is common in astronomy, examples of which are the solar
system, exoplanets, and stellar systems. Due to its chaotic characteristic, discovered by
Poincare, only three families of periodic three-body orbits were found in 300 years, until ´
2013 when Suvakov and Dmitra ˇ sinovi ˇ c ( ´ 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 114301) found 13 new
periodic orbits of a Newtonian planar three-body problem with equal mass. Recently,
more than 600 new families of periodic orbits of triple systems with equal mass were
found by Li and Liao (2017, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron., 60, 129511). Here, we report
1349 new families of planar periodic orbits of the triple system where two bodies have
the same mass and the other has a different mass.
None of the families have ever been
reported, except the famous “figure-eight” family. In particular, 1223 among these 1349
families are entirely new, i.e., with newly found “free group elements” that have been
never reported, even for three-body systems with equal mass. It has been traditionally
believed that triple systems are often unstable if they are non-hierarchical. However,
all of our new periodic orbits are in non-hierarchical configurations, but many of them
are either linearly or marginally stable. This might inspire the long-term astronomical
observation of stable non-hierarchical triple systems in practice. In addition, using these
new periodic orbits as initial guesses, new periodic orbits of triple systems with three
unequal masses can be found by means of the continuation method, which is more
general and thus should have practical meaning from an astronomical viewpoint.

Feel free to do a search for "numerical" in that paper.

Their supercomputer found three body problem solutions where two of the bodies had exactly the same mass and one of the masses was different.

Hence, we see another reference suggesting that the possibilities of these orbits is very limited. To me it appears that none of this is anything like the imaginary astronomy proposed by Copernicus.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2019, 11:39:10 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2019, 02:09:16 AM »
Hi Tom,

So you are restricting your search for analytical solutions. That is officially called the three body problem. The issue is not with physics, we simply have not yet developed the mathematics to do it yet.

Numerically, one can solve the three body problem using computers. Folks have modelled thousands of masses interacting via the central force in order to understand galaxy formation.

So, there is not an issue with the physics here. The central force theory accurately describes orbits. Your beef is with the mathematics. It is unfortunate that we cannot express analytics solutions. But it really only bums out the mathematicians.

Here’s another case: atoms. We have a complete analytical solution to the hydrogen atom. We know everything about it. Completely. But helium? Can’t do it analytically. We have to solve it numerically. But when we do the numerical solutions yield predictions that are realised in experiments. Hell, there are nuclear reactors that produce energy from Uranium. That’s a loooooong way past helium.

The three body problem is not a good avenue for attacking RE theory, because it is not a failure or limitation. The only reason they still search for analytical solutions is because it would be more aesthetically pleasing to have it.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2019, 02:11:05 AM »
Exactly, they can't explain what force is keeping the Sun and Moon moving above Earth in a circle. The Sun is a major problem for them. They can't even explain what makes the Sun travel faster during the Southern Hemisphere Summer.

Well, to be fair, I don’t think you can either. Saying “gravity does it” really isn’t an explanation, just a claim. Do you understand the dynamics of the Earth-Moon-Sun three body system? If so, I would love to see a technical description of it from you, beginning with the general central force problem, and finding the equations of motion from minimizing the action. Of course, you’ll need to construct the Lagrangian first. But do feel free to use Hamiltonian dynamics if you prefer.
Well you haven't explained how the Sun and Moon is physically possible to circle above the Earth, only used a word salad to fill the blank. Are you a flat earther? Can you please explain how the Sun moves faster/slower depending on the time of year? That was my original question in the first place. I'm still confused on the simple fundamentals of the AE model.

Physically possible? Sure. The Sun and moon are following trajectories defined by a potential well, which is identified by the laplacian of a potential function.

Now, your turn.
So the sun can just randomly (de)accelerates whenever it wants to? You don't even have evidence that the sun randomly changes it's path every season. If it's following a fixed trajectory above Earth, we would see the Sun change angular size throughout the day. It would increase/decrease by nearly a multiple of 4. There are videos on YouTube with a time lapse and a solar filter showing that the Sun stays the same size, so this trajectory you speak of isn't right. Also, flat earthers claim that the sun goes out of our sight because it gradually decreases angular size as it sets but in reality, it's the exact opposite. The sun actually appears to look larger when it sets, contradicting the flat earth claim. Science is always testable and repeatable experiments/observations, so I'll share mine.

I live in California, and the sun always sets at around North West North. If you look at the flat earth model, I should be seeing sunsets almost 90 degrees eastward (depending on the season), and I would have to be facing land instead of ocean to see the sunset. I can record my observations on camera and share if you would like.

Isthatafactnow? All year round it does this?

I would like to see you present evidence for this. Thanks for the offer.
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2019, 02:30:06 AM »
Hi QED. I am aware that there are no analytical solutions, and that only numerical solutions are available.

However, the numerical solutions need to have at least two of the bodies of the same mass, and seem to only exist in odd loopy orbits that look nothing like a heliocentric orbit.

The solutions I referenced above are not analytical solutions, since, as you have pointed out, no analytical solutions exist. Shouldn't we see numerical solutions with bodies of different masses and in configurations that look like heliocentric ones in the n-body orbit galleries and the information that can be found online? Surely not all possible three body configurations are possible.

It seems to me that these are the only solutions, that the authors are all talking about the same thing, and there is not a hidden set of solutions that we haven't been able to find on the internet, despite us repeatedly asking for them for the last ten years.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 02:39:51 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #16 on: March 24, 2019, 02:55:17 AM »
Hi QED. I am aware that there are no analytical solutions, and that only numerical solutions are available.

However, the numerical solutions need to have at least two of the bodies of the same mass, and seem to only exist in odd loopy orbits that look nothing like a heliocentric orbit.

The solutions I referenced above are not analytical solutions, since, as you have pointed out, no analytical solutions exist. Shouldn't we see numerical solutions with bodies of different masses and in configurations that look like heliocentric ones in the n-body orbit galleries and the information that can be found online? Surely not all possible three body configurations are possible.

It seems to me that these are the only solutions, that the authors are all talking about the same thing, and there is not a hidden set of solutions that we haven't been able to find on the internet, despite us repeatedly asking for them for the last ten years.

Uhh, I think I’m getting a better picture of the issue here. Let’s see.

The reason why you don’t find numerical solutions for this that look like our solar system is because it doesn’t make any sense to use the three body problem in that way. The interactions between the planets are negligible compared to their interaction with the Sun. So there is no point in accounting for the gravitational effect on the Earth from Mars when discussing its orbit.

You learn how to model the orbits in undergrad. You have a bunch of 2-body problems, one for each planet.

The reason your references show weird loopy orbits is because they are studying cases where the “planets” are so close together that they are in an orbit around each other. So they look very different.

This is not the case in the RE solar system. 99% of the solar system’s Mass is in the Sun. So sure, you can set up the 9 body problem for everything. Then, if you want to find the Earth’s orbit, all the other interactions with the other planets will have such an incredibly small effect that you can solve for the Earth without worrying about it.

There are very easy ways to show how small these effects are. One commonly used is a Taylor expansion.

I imagine that the reason no one is providing you with the 9 body problem solution despite 10 years of asking is because it is frankly bizarre to care about it. It’s like me asking a carpenter for the length of a certain table, and insisting he account for the uncertainty in knowing exactly how big the atoms are at the edges. He’d probably raise his eyebrows and walk the other way.

I hope this helps. Here’s a reasonable preprint which discusses this research in more detail. When you have a true 3-body interaction, things get complicated very quickly. It’s cool to learn about. The RE solar system is not like this though.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 02:57:07 AM by QED »
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior

Nick428

Re: Gravity
« Reply #17 on: March 24, 2019, 03:00:38 AM »
Exactly, they can't explain what force is keeping the Sun and Moon moving above Earth in a circle. The Sun is a major problem for them. They can't even explain what makes the Sun travel faster during the Southern Hemisphere Summer.

Well, to be fair, I don’t think you can either. Saying “gravity does it” really isn’t an explanation, just a claim. Do you understand the dynamics of the Earth-Moon-Sun three body system? If so, I would love to see a technical description of it from you, beginning with the general central force problem, and finding the equations of motion from minimizing the action. Of course, you’ll need to construct the Lagrangian first. But do feel free to use Hamiltonian dynamics if you prefer.
Well you haven't explained how the Sun and Moon is physically possible to circle above the Earth, only used a word salad to fill the blank. Are you a flat earther? Can you please explain how the Sun moves faster/slower depending on the time of year? That was my original question in the first place. I'm still confused on the simple fundamentals of the AE model.

Physically possible? Sure. The Sun and moon are following trajectories defined by a potential well, which is identified by the laplacian of a potential function.

Now, your turn.
So the sun can just randomly (de)accelerates whenever it wants to? You don't even have evidence that the sun randomly changes it's path every season. If it's following a fixed trajectory above Earth, we would see the Sun change angular size throughout the day. It would increase/decrease by nearly a multiple of 4. There are videos on YouTube with a time lapse and a solar filter showing that the Sun stays the same size, so this trajectory you speak of isn't right. Also, flat earthers claim that the sun goes out of our sight because it gradually decreases angular size as it sets but in reality, it's the exact opposite. The sun actually appears to look larger when it sets, contradicting the flat earth claim. Science is always testable and repeatable experiments/observations, so I'll share mine.

I live in California, and the sun always sets at around North West North. If you look at the flat earth model, I should be seeing sunsets almost 90 degrees eastward (depending on the season), and I would have to be facing land instead of ocean to see the sunset. I can record my observations on camera and share if you would like.

Isthatafactnow? All year round it does this?

I would like to see you present evidence for this. Thanks for the offer.
Sure, I'll upload on my YouTube channel within the next few days, showing the sun setting at my angle. Then, I'll go on the flat earth model, and see if they align. Hopefully I don't forget lol. When I'm finished, I'll private message you my video.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #18 on: March 24, 2019, 03:32:19 AM »
QED, from your response I think you agree that the only available three body problem solutions require at least two bodies of equal masses and that they exist in odd (and sensitive) orbits that look nothing like a heliocentric system.

If it's not possible to have a sun with a planet that has a moon, then surely it is not possible to have a sun with multiple planets that have moons.

The matter, to me, suggests that the earth-moon-sun system and the solar system cannot be simulated with the laws of Newton. After hundreds of years there is no working model.

We were told in school that it was possible to have a sun with planets that had moons around them. Yet that basic premise does not appear to be possible to simulate mathematically. I consider this a piece of evidence that the heliocentric system with the laws of gravity as depicted in mainstream science cannot exist.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 03:37:13 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #19 on: March 24, 2019, 03:43:37 AM »
QED, from your response I think you agree that the only available three body problem solutions require two bodies of equal masses and that they exist in odd orbits that look nothing like a heliocentric system.

If it's not possible to have a sun with a planet that has a moon, then surely it is not possible to have a sun with multiple planets that have moons.

The matter, to me, suggests that the earth-moon-sun system and the solar system cannot be simulated with the laws of Newton. After hundreds of years there is no working model.

We were told in school that it was possible to have a sun with planets that had moons around them. Yet that basic premise cannot be simulated mathematically. I consider this a piece of evidence that the heliocentric system with the laws of gravity as depicted in mainstream science cannot exist.

Since the moon and earth are gravitationally bound, computing their orbits around each other is a two body problem. What you can then do, is use the center of mass of the moon earth system, the reduced mass, and compute the orbit of the earth moon system around the Sun.

So I am confused why you think this can not exist. We did this in undergrad.

The three body problem is only a PROBLEM when all three masses have non-negligible contributions to the zeroth order interaction.

So I agree with your first paragraph. The second paragraph omits the very important consideration:

If you have two bodys interacting close by, and a third body so far away that it’s interaction is negligible to how the first two interact with each other, then you have a decoupled three body problem.

So not only is it possible to have a Sun and a planet with a Moon. But it becomes nice and easy. You can find this stuff in most upper division texts on classical mechanics. They’ll walk you through the process.

Again, these decoupled cases are not what folks study with three body problems. The solar system can be modelled as a decoupled 9 body problem into 8 two body problems: each planet with the Sun. The interactions of the other planets on each other’s orbits are soooooo smaaaall.

So it’s not a problem, Tom!
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 03:49:12 AM by QED »
The fact.that it's an old equation without good.demonstration of the underlying mechamism behind it makes.it more invalid, not more valid!

- Tom Bishop

We try to represent FET in a model-agnostic way

- Pete Svarrior