Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #60 on: August 02, 2019, 03:32:33 PM »
Find a source other than your own opinion. Show us where it says that the Sun-Earth-Moon system is able to be simulated with the Three Body Problem.

OK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_model_of_the_Solar_System

Quote
All of the mainstream sources say that it's impossible: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

An analytical solution is beyond us. A numerical solution which gives results good enough to be useful is possible with modern computing power.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #61 on: August 02, 2019, 05:25:58 PM »
'Numerical' is a generic term and does not refer to the Three Body Problem. Ptolmy uses 'numerical computation' in the Almagest. Was he solving Newton's Laws and Three Body Problems?

https://books.google.com/books?id=JVhTtVA2zr8C&pg=PA29&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false



---

Dr. Gopi Krishna Vijaya says that Newtonian astronomers use perturbations/epicycles with a gravitational disguise.

https://reciprocalsystem.org/PDFa/Replacing%20the%20Foundations%20of%20Astronomy%20(Vijaya,%20Gopi%20Krishna).pdf

Epicycles Once More

“ Following the Newtonian era, in the 18th century there were a series of mathematicians – Bernoulli, Clairaut, Euler, D’Alembert, Lagrange, Laplace, Leverrier – who basically picked up where Newton left off and ran with it. There were no descendants to the wholistic viewpoints of Tycho and Kepler, but only those who made several improvements of a mathematical nature to Newtonian theory. Calculus became a powerful tool in calculating the effects of gravitation of all the planets upon each other, due to their assumed masses. The motion of the nearest neighbor – the Moon – was a surprisingly hard nut to crack even for Newton, and several new mathematical techniques had to be invented just to tackle that.

In the process, a new form of theory became popular: Perturbation theory. In this approach, a small approximate deviation from Newton's law is assumed, based on empirical data, and then a rigorous calculation of differential equation is used to nail down the actual value of the deviation. It does not take much to recognize that this was simply the approach taken before Kepler by Copernicus and others for over a thousand years – adding epicycles to make the observations fit. It is the same concept, but now dressed up in gravitational disguise: ”



“ In other words, the entire thought process took several steps backwards, to redo the same process as the Ptolemaic - Copernican epicycle theory, only with different variables. The more logical way of approach would have been to redirect the focus of the improved mathematical techniques to the assumptions in Newton’s theory, but instead the same equations were re-derived with calculus, without examining the assumptions. Hence any modern day textbook gives the same derivation for circular and elliptical motion that Newton first derived in his Principia. The equivalence of the epicycle theory and gravitational theory has not been realized, and any new discovery that fits in with the mathematical framework of Newtonian gravity is lauded as a “triumph of the theory of gravitation.” In reality, it is simply the triumph of fitting curves to the data or minor linear extrapolations – something that had already been done at least since 2nd century AD. Yet the situation is conceptually identical. ”

From the VSOP talk page, the solar system model which is linked at the bottom of the page you provided:

“ Modelling VSOP on a ubiquitous PC computer program, starting with only one element for each of the three parameters (L, B R) and then slowly incrementing the number of elements, gives a sense of irony that it is in fact nothing more than a more complex development of the ancient deferent / epicycle system used by Ptolemy. A system that despite being totally dismissed out of hand for being intellectually "wrong", was able to provide a prediction service accurate enough to match the observational resolution available (naked eye, with no reliable mechanical timekeeping). A system that, astoundingly to this author, was able to detect and measure, accurately, the lunar evection, one of the still-used perturbations of the Earth-Moon system. Summing powers of sines and cosines is certainly tantamount to circles upon (or perhaps within) circles; recursing, or perhaps simply nesting, almost endlessly. Whilst of course this is totally irrelevant to the mathematics, it perhaps behoves Wikipedia's wider terms of reference to include this as a philosophical point. ”

All of this tells me that it's not truly a simulation of gravity.

Dr. Vijaya says:

" The Dead End

In the late 19th century, one of the French mathematicians – Henri Poincaré – had already discovered that many of the terms being used in the “perturbation” series by mathematicians like Laplace and Lagrange were becoming infinite for long periods of time, making the system unstable. In simple words, the solutions ‘blow up’ fairly quickly. He also showed that the general problem of 3 mutually gravitating bodies was insoluble through any mathematical analysis! Many physicists and mathematicians built up modern “Chaos theory” based on these ideas, to show simply that one cannot calculate the movements of the planets accurately. Thus began the field of non-linear
dynamics.

In the middle of the 20th century, with computers entering the field, the mathematicians pretty much gave up on calculating the orbits by themselves and programmed the computer to do it, even though it was mathematically shown that these orbits were incalculable. They had to be satisfied with approximations or numerical methods (or “brute force” methods.) The result of it all was that after 300 years, Newtonian/Einsteinian thought lands in the same spot that Kepler ended: the orbits point to a living or chaotic system. Only now, there is the additional baggage of all the wrong concepts introduced with regard to “inverse-square law”, “gravitational attraction”, “gravitational mass” and “curved space-time” along with uncountable number of minor assumptions. In this process, an enormous amount of human effort was put to derive thousands of terms in equations over centuries. The entire enterprise has been a wild goose chase "
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 08:18:40 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #62 on: August 02, 2019, 07:11:07 PM »
I get it that you are clearly dedicated to the cause of proving that the likes of Newton, Kepler and Einstein didn't know what they were talking about.  Fair enough, I will take your word for it.

However, how do you account for the fact that modern software simulations such as that I have mentioned are quite capable of correctly predicting what we see in the sky? I'm guessing that you would dismiss modelling based on the 3 body problem so what methods to you think the software uses to achieve what it does very well?  Computers only speak the language of mathematics and binary maths at that. So any patterns that are used would have to be mathematically generated. I know it works because I use it all the time and it exactly matches what I see in the sky. So perhaps you guys can tell me how it does this?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2019, 11:06:09 PM by newhorizons »
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #63 on: August 03, 2019, 08:55:05 PM »
'Numerical' is a generic term and does not refer to the Three Body Problem.
It doesn't refer to any particular problem. It's just a method of solving certain problems where there is no perfect analytical solution.
The three body problem is an example where it can be used.
Equations which perfectly predict the future state of the system are beyond us. So there's no equations you can plug in the initial positions and velocities and then plug in a parameter for time, 't' and the solution to those equations is the future velocities and positions.
But numerical techniques which break the problem down and solve it for a number of time steps do provide, with modern computing power, very good results
Another link here:

https://www.quora.com/How-can-the-solar-systems-behavior-be-correctly-simulated

That link references this, a very technical paper on the subject:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0689.pdf

Quote
Dr. Gopi Krishna Vijaya says that Newtonian astronomers use perturbations/epicycles with a gravitational disguise.
Yeah. In the 18th century. So?
We are talking about how simulations work now. They didn't have the raw computing power which we do now and which enables numerical solutions to be effective and accurate.

Later in the paper you linked to it says:

Quote
In the middle of the 20th century, with computers entering the field, the mathematicians pretty much gave up on
calculating the orbits by themselves and programmed the computer to do it, even though it was mathematically
shown that these orbits were incalculable. They had to be satisfied with approximations or numerical methods (or
“brute force” methods.)

I see you quoted that bit too which is odd as it backs up exactly what I'm claiming.
Sorry Tom but this is another example of you just not understanding something as well as you think you do.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #64 on: August 03, 2019, 10:00:08 PM »
What you posted is using perturbation theory. Do a search for "perturb" in the top quora answer link and the pdf you posted.

You claim that perturbations were only used in the 18th century and then link us to a PDF with a bunch of references to the use of perturbations. Odd logic. Almost as if you just blindly posted the first thing you googled.

It's not enough to find something that says numerical. The perturbation and epicycles methods are also numerical.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2019, 01:15:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #65 on: August 04, 2019, 08:54:55 AM »
What you posted is using perturbation theory.

And what is that?

Quote
Perturbation theory comprises mathematical methods for finding an approximate solution to a problem, by starting from the exact solution of a related, simpler problem. A critical feature of the technique is a middle step that breaks the problem into "solvable" and "perturbation" parts. Perturbation theory is applicable if the problem at hand cannot be solved exactly, but can be formulated by adding a "small" term to the mathematical description of the exactly solvable problem.

Its relevance to celestial simulations:

Quote
Since the planets are very remote from each other, and since their mass is small as compared to the mass of the Sun, the gravitational forces between the planets can be neglected, and the planetary motion is considered, to a first approximation, as taking place along Kepler's orbits, which are defined by the equations of the two-body problem, the two bodies being the planet and the Sun.
Since astronomic data came to be known with much greater accuracy, it became necessary to consider how the motion of a planet around the Sun is affected by other planets. This was the origin of the three-body problem; thus, in studying the system Moon–Earth–Sun the mass ratio between the Moon and the Earth was chosen as the small parameter. Lagrange and Laplace were the first to advance the view that the constants which describe the motion of a planet around the Sun are "perturbed", as it were, by the motion of other planets and vary as a function of time; hence the name "perturbation theory".
Perturbation theory was investigated by the classical scholars—Laplace, Poisson, Gauss—as a result of which the computations could be performed with a very high accuracy. The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1848 by Urbain Le Verrier, based on the deviations in motion of the planet Uranus (he sent the coordinates to Johann Gottfried Galle who successfully observed Neptune through his telescope), represented a triumph of perturbation theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perturbation_theory

So yeah, it is a numerical method, it's not just about cycles
And the discovery of Neptune came about because if it - a powerful vindication of the method and the heliocentric model it's modelling.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2019, 10:35:36 AM »
I get it that you are clearly dedicated to the cause of proving that the likes of Newton, Kepler and Einstein didn't know what they were talking about.  Fair enough, I will take your word for it.

However, how do you account for the fact that modern software simulations such as that I have mentioned are quite capable of correctly predicting what we see in the sky? I'm guessing that you would dismiss modelling based on the 3 body problem so what methods to you think the software uses to achieve what it does very well?  Computers only speak the language of mathematics and binary maths at that. So any patterns that are used would have to be mathematically generated. I know it works because I use it all the time and it exactly matches what I see in the sky. So perhaps you guys can tell me how it does this?
Again, I think you misunderstand.

I do not think Tom is, "...clearly dedicated to the cause of proving that the likes of Newton, Kepler and Einstein didn't know what they were talking about," and I know I am certainly not.

The point is, these three are trotted out like Lippizaners and we are told, "...here's the bona fide math."

Well, math is math certainly.

Computers are the IDEAL tool for RENDERING VISUAL OUTPUTS of math.

Yet, when challenged for such a simple demonstration of these wonderful maths, crickets...
« Last Edit: August 05, 2019, 03:27:32 PM by totallackey »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #67 on: August 05, 2019, 04:21:12 PM »
Crickets...?

My point is I don't need to know the mechanics and physics of an internal combustion engine to drive my car. As long as it works I'm happy.  Similarly the mechanics and math behind how celestial simulators work would be interesting to know, but I don't need to know it to use the software do I.  As long as I can fire up the software, connect it to my telescope mount (using ASCOM) and get it to point accurately to my targets that is enough.  It satisfies a function.
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #68 on: August 06, 2019, 10:44:01 AM »
Crickets...?

My point is I don't need to know the mechanics and physics of an internal combustion engine to drive my car. As long as it works I'm happy.  Similarly the mechanics and math behind how celestial simulators work would be interesting to know, but I don't need to know it to use the software do I.  As long as I can fire up the software, connect it to my telescope mount (using ASCOM) and get it to point accurately to my targets that is enough.  It satisfies a function.
You are not driving the solar system, though, and the operation of your car does depend, in some way, on people who do know the mechanics and physics of automobiles in general, so spare everyone the strawman comparison.

You made claims:
1) Einstein, Kepler, and Newton all have math explaining how it is possible for all of the solar system to exist as depicted in science textbooks;
B) These maths work in concert;
III) There are computer simulations showing the solar system AS IS to good people of the earth and these simulations utilize the math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein for such simulation and rendering.

Me?

I stated computers were an excellent tool for rendering MATH in VISUAL FORM (a statement of indisputable veracity), and asked you to present evidence of just such evidence...a rendered simulation of the solar system, based on the combined math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein...

Crickets...

It would nice for once, if you simply and readily admit these simulations are not utilizing math from Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, and EVEN IF THEY WERE, you wouldn't have a clue.

Thank you.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 11:49:40 AM by totallackey »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #69 on: August 06, 2019, 02:09:31 PM »
As I said previously you would have to ask the developers of the software the framework around which it is designed. They might or might not be taking into account the maths of Newton etc. It really doesn't matter to me.

What I do know is that the positions of natural satellites and artificial satellites is presented very accurately. Furthermore data on new objects such as comets etc is added each time you load the software. So my guess is that several data sources are used. I believe you can download a free copy for trial purposes if you'd like to test it out.
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #70 on: August 06, 2019, 03:35:37 PM »
As I said previously you would have to ask the developers of the software the framework around which it is designed. They might or might not be taking into account the maths of Newton etc. It really doesn't matter to me.

What I do know is that the positions of natural satellites and artificial satellites is presented very accurately. Furthermore data on new objects such as comets etc is added each time you load the software. So my guess is that several data sources are used. I believe you can download a free copy for trial purposes if you'd like to test it out.
So, if in testing it is clearly demonstrated the inputs of these programs include nothing containing the math from Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, where does that leave you?

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #71 on: August 06, 2019, 04:46:34 PM »
It leaves me exactly where I am now. As I said feel free to contact Simulation Curriculum yourself and see if they will give you details of the inner workings of Starry Night and the other products they offer then feel free. If you have an iPad you might like to give SkySafari a try. It is much cheaper but equally accurate in my experience.

An aspect of FET which I can't quite fathom is the assertion that the stars are much closer than they actually are. There are several ways in which that can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. Tom has also mentioned how some stars apparently have diameters about one tenth of the Moons diameter. According to some FE Theorists anyway. Which ones are they?
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 402
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #72 on: August 06, 2019, 05:31:13 PM »
I think if there is a 3d software that shows the solar system which matches our own observations then the ball is really in the flat earthers court, either make a 3D representation of the flat earth that matches observations or stop asking whether or not software like Starry Night uses the correct math. What does that matter when it matches what we see and is a globe earth representation? When there is a 3D representation of the flat earth that matches the skies and land exactly as we observe in real life then you can question what math was used to make a globe version. Until then it's kind of a moot point
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #73 on: August 06, 2019, 06:42:20 PM »
Exactly. I've certainly got nothing to prove. I've been using SN for years and it has always worked for the purpose that I use it for. When I first tried it out I didn't immediately start asking myself 'Wow.. I wonder if this is based on celestial and orbital mechanics as predicted by Newton or Kepler...if not I stop using it right now!'

I have never seen a version of SN that is based on FET but I'm sure if those in the know on such things were to contact a software developer and present a strong enough case that convinced them it was worth the investment in terms of time and budget then I'm sure they would do it. Whether they could make it work or not is another matter!  I'm sure it was Tom who admitted sometime ago that not much is known about the celestial objects. Someone on here has it attached to their signature. In that case isn't it about time you caught up!
« Last Edit: August 06, 2019, 06:47:09 PM by newhorizons »
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #74 on: August 07, 2019, 10:24:55 AM »
I think if there is a 3d software that shows the solar system which matches our own observations then the ball is really in the flat earthers court, either make a 3D representation of the flat earth that matches observations or stop asking whether or not software like Starry Night uses the correct math. What does that matter when it matches what we see and is a globe earth representation? When there is a 3D representation of the flat earth that matches the skies and land exactly as we observe in real life then you can question what math was used to make a globe version. Until then it's kind of a moot point
There is such a 3D representation of the flat earth skies.

It is called a planetarium.

The floor is flat and the roof is a dome.

Matches perfectly what we see in the skies above and also doesn't use Kepler, Newton, or Einstein, in the modeling of the skies above.

So again, the ball is in the RE court.

According to RE adherents, the entire skies above are operating under the math and laws of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

When asked to produce a mathematical visual rendering of these movements, RE has not (because they cannot).

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #75 on: August 07, 2019, 11:43:21 AM »
If you think planetariums are based on the assertion that the Earth is flat then you are mistaken. Just turn on the option to view the celestial grid.

Of course the representation of the ground in a planetarium is a flat surface. But that doesnt mean the entire Earth is flat does it.

The ball remains very firmly in the court of the flat Earthers. By the way did you see my own images of the Moon I posted under Moon Appearance? I was tracking the Moon using Starry Night at the time. I also used the software to aim at the Moon. Spot on as always.
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #76 on: August 07, 2019, 11:50:29 AM »
If you think planetariums are based on the assertion that the Earth is flat then you are mistaken. Just turn on the option to view the celestial grid.
A celestial grid does not reflect upon the shape of the surface.

So, yeah, the observing surface being flat is based on the same viewing surface you have outdoors.
Of course the representation of the ground in a planetarium is a flat surface. But that doesnt mean the entire Earth is flat does it.
I contend it does.
The ball remains very firmly in the court of the flat Earthers. By the way did you see my own images of the Moon I posted under Moon Appearance? I was tracking the Moon using Starry Night at the time. I also used the software to aim at the Moon. Spot on as always.
Yeah, but nothing in Starry Night utilizes Kepler, Newton, or Einstein, math or laws, as you admit.

All of these programs simply enter some form of math to render visual outputs.

That math, since it has nothing to do with Kepler, Newton, or Einstein, is by default NOT based on RE dogma or the heliocentric model.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #77 on: August 07, 2019, 12:16:02 PM »
You can contend whatever you wish.

The celestial grid you might have noticed is like looking at the inside of a huge and imaginary sphere. This is an illusion based on the fact that you cannot determine the various distances of celestial objects directly.

I haven't admitted anything of the sort. If I knew either way I would have told you but since I didn't develop the software how can I possibly know? I suggested you contact the company who does produce SN so you can find out for yourself. Have you done that yet?

SN is predicting a shadow transit of Jupiters moon Io tonight. I will take an image of the real Jupiter tonight with my telescope and see how close the two match. I will post the image for you to see. Providing skies are clear of course.
RET seeks the truth as it actually is. FET seeks the truth as some would like it to be.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #78 on: August 07, 2019, 12:27:34 PM »
You can contend whatever you wish.

The celestial grid you might have noticed is like looking at the inside of a huge and imaginary sphere. This is an illusion based on the fact that you cannot determine the various distances of celestial objects directly.
But it's not imaginary.

That is why a planetarium has a dome.

Your program at home has no dome, but it can render one.
I haven't admitted anything of the sort. If I knew either way I would have told you but since I didn't develop the software how can I possibly know? I suggested you contact the company who does produce SN so you can find out for yourself. Have you done that yet?
Intellectual honesty places that burden on you.

You introduced the software as evidence of the heliocentric model.

If it is, then the routines governing its operation, by default, are based on the laws and maths proposed by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

The reason you won't contact the developers of the software is simple.

You know the emperor is wearing no clothes.

So yes, by failing to to research fully the evidence you offer,or even asking the developers regarding the math inputs, you have admitted something.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that, by the way.
SN is predicting a shadow transit of Jupiters moon Io tonight. I will take an image of the real Jupiter tonight with my telescope and see how close the two match. I will post the image for you to see. Providing skies are clear of course.
Great!

Again, that is based on past performance and not some future predictor offered by anyone.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 12:30:58 PM by totallackey »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #79 on: August 07, 2019, 01:21:03 PM »
You introduced the software as evidence of the heliocentric model.

If it is, then the routines governing its operation, by default, are based on the laws and maths proposed by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein.

The reason you won't contact the developers of the software is simple.

You know the emperor is wearing no clothes.

If I understand you correctly you don't believe that planetarium software makes use of Kepler's equations. Well Starry Night is commercial software, so you can't easily look at the source code, however there is a very good open source alternative Stellarium and you can easily check the code for yourself.

https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/blob/master/plugins/Satellites/src/gsatellite/sgp4ext.cpp

Take a look at line 159 onwards:

Quote
function newtonnu ... this function solves keplers equation...

Basically it's using Kepler's equation and a simplified perturbation model SGP4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_perturbations_models for satellite calculations.

I can't speak for Starry Night, but certainly something in Stellarium utilizes Kepler.

If I were sitting in a candlelit room with a quill pen and some trig tables trying to work out a planetary position, I'd no doubt be trying to use Kepler's equation, however these days we have powerful computers and we have far more sophisticated models which use numerical methods to deal with the perturbations inherent in the N-body problem.

For obvious reasons the JPL have a vested interest in celestial mechanics and they have produced a whole series of more and more refined models over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory_Development_Ephemeris.

So if I were trying to write my own planetarium software today and wanted really accurate results, my starting point would be VSOP87 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets) which is based on JPL's DE200 ephemeris model. This is what Stellarium and a number of other similar projects use, I don't know about Starry Night.

Using VSOP87 is reasonably straightforward. Understanding it less so. http://neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/vsop87_theory_paper/VSOP87%20Theory%20Paper.pdf however it certainly does include a lot of math!

The section of this paper explaining how the VSOP87 solution is derived states:

Quote
We must first solve Kepler's equation in order to get the expressions of the variables X, Y, Z.

So it seems that VSOP87 (upon which Stellarium's planetary positioning is based) does indeed make use of a lot of math and Kepler's equation.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 01:28:29 PM by robinofloxley »