*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #20 on: March 24, 2019, 12:34:52 PM »
Would nature treat multiple body system as two body systems and ignore gravity between some bodies to keep the system together?

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #21 on: March 24, 2019, 02:06:03 PM »
Would nature treat multiple body system as two body systems and ignore gravity between some bodies to keep the system together?

Yes, that’s the whole point. Nature is guiding the model. In the Sun Earth Moon system, nature is not ignoring anything, nor are they. Nature’s gravitational influence on the Earth moon interaction from the Sun is so small, that the model can accurately predict the earth moon rotations without it.

Then, nature treats the equivalent two body problem of the Earth-Moon’s center of mass with the Sun. This makes RE sense, given that the Earth and moon rotate around each other, and that center point orbits the Sun.

So you see, it isn’t that nature “ignores” anything. Sometimes things are just small in certain regimes. For example, we use a ruler to measure a table. Does nature “ignore” the size of atoms? No of course not, but the size of an atom is so small compared to a ruler, that we can safely get a good measurement for a table without worrying about atoms.

This is the analogous situation with orbits and multi-body central forces.

To be rather direct, if I may, the best avenue to attack RE theory is the failure of it to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity. This is its greatest weakness, and it is here you will find traction. If FET can address this weakness successfully then it will become instantly recognised. Scientists will have no choice in the matter.
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 #22 on: March 24, 2019, 04:27:56 PM »
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.

Would nature treat multiple body system as two body systems and ignore gravity between some bodies to keep the system together?

Yes, that’s the whole point. Nature is guiding the model. In the Sun Earth Moon system, nature is not ignoring anything, nor are they. Nature’s gravitational influence on the Earth moon interaction from the Sun is so small, that the model can accurately predict the earth moon rotations without it.

Then, nature treats the equivalent two body problem of the Earth-Moon’s center of mass with the Sun. This makes RE sense, given that the Earth and moon rotate around each other, and that center point orbits the Sun.

So you see, it isn’t that nature “ignores” anything. Sometimes things are just small in certain regimes. For example, we use a ruler to measure a table. Does nature “ignore” the size of atoms? No of course not, but the size of an atom is so small compared to a ruler, that we can safely get a good measurement for a table without worrying about atoms.

This is the analogous situation with orbits and multi-body central forces.

To be rather direct, if I may, the best avenue to attack RE theory is the failure of it to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity. This is its greatest weakness, and it is here you will find traction. If FET can address this weakness successfully then it will become instantly recognised. Scientists will have no choice in the matter.

I decided I would join in this conversation. The moon is always being affected by the Sun's gravitational pull. But, in order for the moon to escape Earth's gravitational pull, it would have to be traveling at around 1.2 km/s at that distance, known as the escape velocity. The moon is currently traveling at 1 km/s, so it is safe... sort of.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #23 on: March 25, 2019, 02:39:04 AM »
Would nature treat multiple body system as two body systems and ignore gravity between some bodies to keep the system together?

Yes, that’s the whole point. Nature is guiding the model. In the Sun Earth Moon system, nature is not ignoring anything, nor are they. Nature’s gravitational influence on the Earth moon interaction from the Sun is so small, that the model can accurately predict the earth moon rotations without it.

Then, nature treats the equivalent two body problem of the Earth-Moon’s center of mass with the Sun. This makes RE sense, given that the Earth and moon rotate around each other, and that center point orbits the Sun.

So you see, it isn’t that nature “ignores” anything. Sometimes things are just small in certain regimes. For example, we use a ruler to measure a table. Does nature “ignore” the size of atoms? No of course not, but the size of an atom is so small compared to a ruler, that we can safely get a good measurement for a table without worrying about atoms.

This is the analogous situation with orbits and multi-body central forces.

To be rather direct, if I may, the best avenue to attack RE theory is the failure of it to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity. This is its greatest weakness, and it is here you will find traction. If FET can address this weakness successfully then it will become instantly recognised. Scientists will have no choice in the matter.

The N-Body orbit and family galleries represent direct experimental evidence for possibilities under the laws of Newton, and which were created with great effort by researchers manually and via supercomputer.

Should we expect to see what you describe, with bodies of different masses and close enough approximations somewhere in these galleries? It seems that we have access to a vast amount of experimental evidence on the matter and we should be able to see it for ourselves to put the matter to bed.

Flat Earth Theory as the Grand Unified Theory would be a good topic to discuss. As I can see, Special Relativity was a flavor of relativity created to explain lack of horizontal motion (Michelson-Morley), and General Relativity was created to explain why the earth seems to be accelerating upwards. Perhaps you can help us on that topic.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 02:56:55 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 3875
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #24 on: March 25, 2019, 04:17:10 AM »
Tom, considering all of the difficulties of n-body modeling the RE solar system that you like to point out, do you think that the FE sun, moon and planetary system would be any easier to n-body model?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline QED

  • *
  • Posts: 863
  • As mad as a hatter.
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2019, 12:39:40 PM »
Would nature treat multiple body system as two body systems and ignore gravity between some bodies to keep the system together?

Yes, that’s the whole point. Nature is guiding the model. In the Sun Earth Moon system, nature is not ignoring anything, nor are they. Nature’s gravitational influence on the Earth moon interaction from the Sun is so small, that the model can accurately predict the earth moon rotations without it.

Then, nature treats the equivalent two body problem of the Earth-Moon’s center of mass with the Sun. This makes RE sense, given that the Earth and moon rotate around each other, and that center point orbits the Sun.

So you see, it isn’t that nature “ignores” anything. Sometimes things are just small in certain regimes. For example, we use a ruler to measure a table. Does nature “ignore” the size of atoms? No of course not, but the size of an atom is so small compared to a ruler, that we can safely get a good measurement for a table without worrying about atoms.

This is the analogous situation with orbits and multi-body central forces.

To be rather direct, if I may, the best avenue to attack RE theory is the failure of it to unify quantum mechanics with general relativity. This is its greatest weakness, and it is here you will find traction. If FET can address this weakness successfully then it will become instantly recognised. Scientists will have no choice in the matter.

The N-Body orbit and family galleries represent direct experimental evidence for possibilities under the laws of Newton, and which were created with great effort by researchers manually and via supercomputer.

Should we expect to see what you describe, with bodies of different masses and close enough approximations somewhere in these galleries? It seems that we have access to a vast amount of experimental evidence on the matter and we should be able to see it for ourselves to put the matter to bed.

Flat Earth Theory as the Grand Unified Theory would be a good topic to discuss. As I can see, Special Relativity was a flavor of relativity created to explain lack of horizontal motion (Michelson-Morley), and General Relativity was created to explain why the earth seems to be accelerating upwards. Perhaps you can help us on that topic.

It is difficult for me to identify what evidence will “put the matter to bed” for you, because I am uncertain a) how much is being understood from my expository replies, and b) the willingness of the FE community to adjust their stances on topics of relevance.

Now, verification of my claims regarding three body problems as detailed in my previous replies can be found in just about any upper division undergraduate text on classical mechanics. You will find no published research on this item because it is not researchable. It is too basic. Just like you can find no research on 1+1=2 (a silly example).

It is not my intention to frustrate your efforts here. Rather, due to my training I can identify several points of criticism of RET on these forums that are not viable avenues. These mostly appear to result from a lack of understanding of RE/traditional physics.

I recognize and appreciate the caution and reservation with which you would view my input.

My training permits me to contrast the rigor and formal address between FET and RET, and it is my conclusion that FET is vastly outmatched. I do see attempts made by e.g., Parsifal and Sandokhan, but these efforts are amateur, plagiarized, and contain errors.


My goal is to raise the standard of address for FET so that it can receive proper consideration. True science hides no idea. To the extend that I can make progress here, that is what I will do.

I am happy to guide efforts to position FET as a competitor to GUT.
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

Re: Gravity
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2019, 06:42:24 PM »
That depends on the FE model.

I have a question about Gravity as well.  On the wiki, it says you guys believe the earth is disc shaped and moves ‘upward’ at 9.8m/s.  According to this, if I threw a pingpong ball upwards at a speed less than 9.8 m/s, wouldnt it explode once the earth caught up to it?  Technically isnt jumping not possible?  What about a plane?  If a plane tries to take off and the earth catches up to it, wont it explode? 

*

Offline TomFoolery

  • *
  • Posts: 404
  • Seeking truth, the flatter the better
    • View Profile
Re: Gravity
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2019, 04:05:09 AM »
That depends on the FE model.

I have a question about Gravity as well.  On the wiki, it says you guys believe the earth is disc shaped and moves ‘upward’ at 9.8m/s.  According to this, if I threw a pingpong ball upwards at a speed less than 9.8 m/s, wouldnt it explode once the earth caught up to it?  Technically isnt jumping not possible?  What about a plane?  If a plane tries to take off and the earth catches up to it, wont it explode?

It's just like jumping in an accelerating elevator. Vertical acceleration up just feels like more gravity, and down feels like less gravity.