Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #80 on: August 07, 2019, 01:44:45 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.
Simply referring to Kepler or Newton does not in fact mean the program utilizes Kepler or Newton.

It certainly makes no reference to whether this particular section of code includes a resultant modeling output of all of the solar system, or even three body modeling.

So yes, while it makes mention, there is no real evidence those maths or equations are even utilized.
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.
It makes use of a lot of references to Kepler's equation is a more accurate statement.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 12:31:59 PM by totallackey »

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 402
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #81 on: August 07, 2019, 02:12:39 PM »
Totallackey. If you think that because a planetarium floor is flat therefore the earth is flat then I could just stand on a football and claim that as the reason the earth is a sphere...

Anyway, I don't think a planetarium is really the same as an application in full 3D that you can effectively explore and visually see. For example if you look in said software and dr a line in 3D space from the exact position of a star down to the exact location on the planet earth that you are, that line would be coming in at the exact angle and direction as to where you'd visibly see the same star in real life (apart from maybe some slight degrees for refraction maybe). Can you do the same thing in a 3D application using a flat earth? Is there any such software? I would like to see it. regardless of the math involved, if the positions and angles all match up to real life for a 3D flat earth application that would be lovely. I think if there was such a software you'd see a hell of a lot of bending and warping, which you'd then have to somehow explain why those crazy bending lines make more sense than the almost perfectly straight lines from a globe earth.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #82 on: August 07, 2019, 02:57:04 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.
Simply referring to Kepler or Newton does not in fact mean the program utilizes Kepler or Newton.

It certainly makes no reference to whether this particular section of code includes a resultant modeling output of all of the solar system, or even three body modeling.

So yes, while it makes mention, there is no real evidence those maths or equations are even utilized.
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.
It makes a use of a lot of references to Kepler's equation is a more accurate statement.

OK, you asked newhorizons for evidence of:

Quote
a rendered simulation of the solar system, based on the combined math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein

I have provided you evidence that a rendered simulation of the solar system (Stellarium) does (according to the authors) at the very least use Kepler's equation and I've literally pointed you at the lines of source code involved. I have provided evidence that the authors of the definitive paper describing VSOP87 (which is the method Stellarium - and others - uses for planetary positioning) also claim to use Kepler's equation.

You did not ask for proof, you asked for evidence. I have provided you with the evidence you asked for, so now you shift the goalposts and you appear to be accusing the authors of the software and the paper describing VSOP87 of lying when they make their claims about using Kepler's equation.

Just think about this for a second. The authors in both cases did not need to mention Kepler at all. By claiming, in publicly available media, they were using Kepler's equations, both sets of authors were exposing themselves to scrutiny from anyone capable of reading the math and/or understanding code. Why would they do this if the claims were bogus?

I think it's pretty clear that you didn't expect anyone to actually go to the trouble of digging out the evidence you said you wanted, so you now have to backpedal and dismiss the evidence and essentially say "prove the authors aren't lying".

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?

And where does this leave you now?

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #83 on: August 07, 2019, 03:25:29 PM »
Totallackey. If you think that because a planetarium floor is flat therefore the earth is flat then I could just stand on a football and claim that as the reason the earth is a sphere...
There is the issue concerning you see no sphericity from any vantage point while standing on flat ground.
Anyway, I don't think a planetarium is really the same as an application in full 3D that you can effectively explore and visually see.
Full 3D  is exactly what you see all around you, each and every day.
For example if you look in said software and dr a line in 3D space from the exact position of a star down to the exact location on the planet earth that you are, that line would be coming in at the exact angle and direction as to where you'd visibly see the same star in real life (apart from maybe some slight degrees for refraction maybe). Can you do the same thing in a 3D application using a flat earth?
As stated earlier and yet to be refuted...a planetarium.
Is there any such software? I would like to see it. regardless of the math involved, if the positions and angles all match up to real life for a 3D flat earth application that would be lovely. I think if there was such a software you'd see a hell of a lot of bending and warping, which you'd then have to somehow explain why those crazy bending lines make more sense than the almost perfectly straight lines from a globe earth.
If you are looking at software not clearly using Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, I think that, by default, qualifies as FE software.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 03:37:19 PM by totallackey »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #84 on: August 07, 2019, 03:33:15 PM »
OK, you asked newhorizons for evidence of:

Quote
a rendered simulation of the solar system, based on the combined math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein

I have provided you evidence that a rendered simulation of the solar system (Stellarium) does (according to the authors) at the very least use Kepler's equation and I've literally pointed you at the lines of source code involved.
No, you pointed me and other members to an overview of what the authors claim to contain such code.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the material you provided makes no claim or reference whether or not the lines of code or Kepler's equations are even utilized in performing the rendering or yielding a visual representation. 
I have provided evidence that the authors of the definitive paper describing VSOP87 (which is the method Stellarium - and others - uses for planetary positioning) also claim to use Kepler's equation.

You did not ask for proof, you asked for evidence. I have provided you with the evidence you asked for, so now you shift the goalposts and you appear to be accusing the authors of the software and the paper describing VSOP87 of lying when they make their claims about using Kepler's equation.
You are correct.

I asked for evidence.

I am not accusing anyone of lying, certainly not you or the programmers/developers of the software.

I have factually explained what was written in the source you provided and have shown what you have provided is evidence of mentioning Kepler and equations, not evidence it is utilized in rendering visuals.

Furthermore, when it comes VSOP87, I find this:

"The first step in computing the apparent position of a planet is computing the heliocentric coordinates (such as X,Y,Z) for both the planet and the Earth at the same moment."

So it appears that, even if this program is utilized, it does not render a 3 - body resolution to the rendering, nor can it render an entire solar system.
Just think about this for a second. The authors in both cases did not need to mention Kepler at all.
Quite true.

They did not.
By claiming, in publicly available media, they were using Kepler's equations, both sets of authors were exposing themselves to scrutiny from anyone capable of reading the math and/or understanding code. Why would they do this if the claims were bogus?
As I pointed out, there is nothing in writing indicating the use of Kepler's equation has anything to do with the visual outputs.
I think it's pretty clear that you didn't expect anyone to actually go to the trouble of digging out the evidence you said you wanted, so you now have to backpedal and dismiss the evidence and essentially say "prove the authors aren't lying".
I think it is actually quite clear, as explained here, I have done no such thing.
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?

And where does this leave you now?
Where I was prior to your reply to this thread.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2019, 04:10:00 PM by totallackey »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #85 on: August 07, 2019, 04:16:59 PM »
Quote
For example if you look in said software and dr a line in 3D space from the exact position of a star down to the exact location on the planet earth that you are, that line would be coming in at the exact angle and direction as to where you'd visibly see the same star in real life (apart from maybe some slight degrees for refraction maybe)

That is correct. If you were to place an astronaut floating freely in space somewhere they would see stars all around them. It would be as if they were located at the centre of some huge sphere and the stars were shining away from the inside surface of said sphere.  This is what astronomers call the celestial sphere although as I said before it is not really a sphere even if Totallackey thinks it is. 

It stands to reason then that our astronaut can see the whole of the celestial sphere from one spot.  They can look in whatever direction they want.  Now put the astronaut on a large spherical body also floating freely in space. He can walk freely all over the surface of the sphere and as he does so he will see different parts of the celestial sphere and hence different stars as the direction of his line of sight into space changes. This is exactly what happens on Earth.  We see different stars on the same night according to latitude and the rotation of the Earth and we see different stars seasonally due to the rotation of the Earth around the Sun.  Living in the northern hemisphere I never see the southern stars because my line of sight into space never allows for me to see them.

You simply cannot achieve this if you assert that the Earths surface is flat without introducing some serious levels of refraction that would distort beyond recognition the patterns of stars as we see them.
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 #86 on: August 07, 2019, 04:59:40 PM »
OK, you asked newhorizons for evidence of:

Quote
a rendered simulation of the solar system, based on the combined math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein

I have provided you evidence that a rendered simulation of the solar system (Stellarium) does (according to the authors) at the very least use Kepler's equation and I've literally pointed you at the lines of source code involved.
No, you pointed me and other members to an overview of what the authors claim to contain such code.

I provided a direct link to the C++ source code on github where the project is hosted. This is the actual source code used to build Stellarium. You can download this source code and build it yourself if you have the appropriate tools. I pointed you to a module called sgp4ext.cpp which contains a function called newtonnu, 248 lines of C++ source code which according to the author's comment "solves keplers equation". This is not an overview, it's actual source code. Whether the function does indeed solve Kepler's equation, I couldn't say, but this is clearly what the author claims.

Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the material you provided makes no claim or reference whether or not the lines of code or Kepler's equations are even utilized in performing the rendering or yielding a visual representation.

Well in an earlier post you said...

What makes him think it is simply pattern inputs is the fact if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein.

Now this is evidently published code and it does indeed contain something related to Kepler. If you now want proof that the code in question is used in the rendering, well that's moving the goalposts, this is not what you originally asked for. Stellarium contains about 700MB of source code. Tracing through that amount of someone else's unfamiliar code to determine if some return value is actually used for rendering would be a considerable undertaking and - call me cynical - but I think if I told you I'd done that and was satisfied, you would not take my word for it.

I have provided evidence that the authors of the definitive paper describing VSOP87 (which is the method Stellarium - and others - uses for planetary positioning) also claim to use Kepler's equation.

You did not ask for proof, you asked for evidence. I have provided you with the evidence you asked for, so now you shift the goalposts and you appear to be accusing the authors of the software and the paper describing VSOP87 of lying when they make their claims about using Kepler's equation.
You are correct.

I asked for evidence.

I am not accusing anyone of lying, certainly not you or the programmers/developers of the software.

I have factually explained what was written in the source you provided and have shown what you have provided is evidence of mentioning Kepler and equations, not evidence it is utilized in rendering visuals.

Furthermore, when it comes VSOP87, I find this:

"The first step in computing the apparent position of a planet is computing the heliocentric coordinates (such as X,Y,Z) for both the planet and the Earth at the same moment."

So it appears that, even if this program is utilized, it does not render a 3 - body resolution to the rendering, nor can it render an entire solar system.

Can I point you to page 311 of the paper where it says:

Quote
VSOP 87 contains the newtonian perturbations of the eight planets between themselves, the perturbations of the Moon on the Earth-Mood barycenter and on all the planets and the relativistic perturbations expressed in isotropic coordinates.

I think that speaks for itself.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #87 on: August 07, 2019, 07:16:53 PM »
I promised you an image of Jupiter and the compared prediction given by SN.  Please find attached. The shadow is highlighted by the red line and the Io satellite itself by the green line.  As you can see an almost perfect match. Lot of air currents rising still so Jupiter very fuzzy. Also still almost full daylight as Sun not quite set.
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 #88 on: August 07, 2019, 07:21:27 PM »
Larger scaled version of Jupiter image.
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 #89 on: August 07, 2019, 07:28:46 PM »
Just for good measure I increased the FOV of the camera slightly and increased the gain to reveal all four brightest satellites.  Still daylight so pleased I got them at all. I have highlighted with coloured lines the respective satellites which you can then identify on the SN screenshot.  Again a perfect match between real sky and simulation.  Being the largest of the satellites, and the largest natural satellite in the solar system, Ganymede shows the brightest image.
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 #90 on: August 07, 2019, 07:42:01 PM »
Finally for now, a nice close up of craters in the Moons southern hemisphere. 2000 frames stacked using Autostakkert and then sharpened with Registax.
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 #91 on: August 08, 2019, 10:53:59 AM »
I provided a direct link to the C++ source code on github where the project is hosted. This is the actual source code used to build Stellarium. You can download this source code and build it yourself if you have the appropriate tools. I pointed you to a module called sgp4ext.cpp which contains a function called newtonnu, 248 lines of C++ source code which according to the author's comment "solves keplers equation". This is not an overview, it's actual source code. Whether the function does indeed solve Kepler's equation, I couldn't say, but this is clearly what the author claims.
Kepler's equation being solved...

How does that relate to the supposed heliocentricity of the solar system?
Furthermore, as I have pointed out, the material you provided makes no claim or reference whether or not the lines of code or Kepler's equations are even utilized in performing the rendering or yielding a visual representation.

Well in an earlier post you said...

What makes him think it is simply pattern inputs is the fact if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein.
Correct, I did write that, and in context of the discussion, leads one to ask the question that I asked above.

Repeating: How does that relate to the supposed heliocentricity of the system?
Now this is evidently published code and it does indeed contain something related to Kepler. If you now want proof that the code in question is used in the rendering, well that's moving the goalposts, this is not what you originally asked for.
Not moving the goalposts as the OP itself is entitled "Problems with the heliocentric model."

IF the source code does contain math and equations specifically by Kepler, we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric.

Very basic stuff.
contains about 700MB of source code. Tracing through that amount of someone else's unfamiliar code to determine if some return value is actually used for rendering would be a considerable undertaking and - call me cynical - but I think if I told you I'd done that and was satisfied, you would not take my word for it.
IF you showed your work and the work was legit, what difference would it make if I or anyone else failed to take your word for it?
Can I point you to page 311 of the paper where it says:

Quote
VSOP 87 contains the newtonian perturbations of the eight planets between themselves, the perturbations of the Moon on the Earth-Mood barycenter and on all the planets and the relativistic perturbations expressed in isotropic coordinates.

I think that speaks for itself.
Yes, it does...

As you point out (quite correctly, incidentally) this does conclusively state nothing in terms of modeling a heliocentric solar system.

More shockingly, let us consider the following: If these computer simulations you offer in defense of an heliocentric solar system are in fact a representation of the real deal, wouldn't that be considered SOLVING THE 3-BODY PROBLEM?

Can't the programmers of the software quickly run to ANY ESTEEMED UNIVERSITY or NASA and say, with 100 percent certainty, "HEY ALL!!! LOOKIE HERE!!! 3-BODY PROBLEM SOLVED!!!"?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2019, 12:41:54 PM by totallackey »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #92 on: August 08, 2019, 11:01:57 AM »
Well I hope you liked the photos.

One thing I did notice in Stellarium yesterday is that it gives an absolute magnitude for Jupiter of -9.4.

The absolute magnitude is the brightness of a celestial body as seen from a standard distance of 10pc or 32.6 light years. Since the Sun has an absolute magnitude (correctly given by Stellarium) of +4.8 I am not sure where the -9.4 comes from.

Anyway I will leave you to argue between yourselves regarding the Stellarium source code for now.
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 #93 on: August 08, 2019, 11:37:01 AM »
Well I hope you liked the photos.

One thing I did notice in Stellarium yesterday is that it gives an absolute magnitude for Jupiter of -9.4.

The absolute magnitude is the brightness of a celestial body as seen from a standard distance of 10pc or 32.6 light years. Since the Sun has an absolute magnitude (correctly given by Stellarium) of +4.8 I am not sure where the -9.4 comes from.

Anyway I will leave you to argue between yourselves regarding the Stellarium source code for now.
Those photos are terrific!

You do excellent work!

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #94 on: August 08, 2019, 12:23:29 PM »
Well thank you. I can produce color images of Jupiter by using separate red, green and blue filters.

Fine details such as a very small feature on Jupiters disk are best recorded using a red filter as longer wavelengths of light are less affected by turbulence. I plan to get a 683nm filter which is a very deep red.

I have been imaging for sone years now so results are getting better. If there is anythng else you would like me to image for you (rings of Saturn is a popular request) then just let me know.
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 #95 on: August 08, 2019, 01:29:10 PM »
Kepler's equation being solved...

How does that relate to the supposed heliocentricity of the system?

What makes him think it is simply pattern inputs is the fact if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein.
Correct, I did write that, and in context of the discussion, leads one to ask the question that I asked above.

Repeating: How does that relate to the supposed heliocentricity of the system?

Not moving the goalposts as the OP itself is entitled "Problems with the heliocentric model."

IF the source code does contain math and equations specifically by Kepler, we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric.

Very basic stuff.

I think that speaks for itself.
Yes, it does...

As you point out (quite correctly, incidentally) this does conclusively state nothing in terms of modeling a heliocentric solar system.

Thank you.

I appreciate that the OP and the thread title are concerned with "Problems with the Heliocentric Model", however you've made various specific claims and challenges in regard to modelling software.

In particular, you asked newhorizons to "confirm the the product you offer utilizes the math utilized by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein" and then went on to claim "if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein".

Stellarium is open source which means all of the source is published, so I looked at the code myself and found code related to Kepler, directly addressing your claim.

You threw out a challenge saying "show me the code!" So I did.

How does this relate to heliocentricity? It doesn't. I've never mentioned heliocentricity. Our exchanges so far on this topic have all been about whether certain types of software does or does not contain code related to Kepler. Can we at least agree that I have shown you some code which meets the criteria of your original challenge? I accept that you do now want to qualify your original challenge and establish that the code is actually used in the rendering and I agree that's a perfectly valid question to ask, but it was not part of the original challenge and I'm not prepared to spend the time and effort on trying to figure that one out, so it'll have to remain an unanswered question.

You've also said "we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric". Well it depends what you mean. You can build a model based on Kepler's ideas alone and it'll give you reasonably accurate results, but time has moved on and better models have emerged (and continue to emerge) which produce ever more accurate results. If you want to build a planetarium model, or plan a mission to Titan you'd be silly not to use a more sophisticated model which handles the N-body problem and the perturbations which are introduced.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #96 on: August 08, 2019, 01:36:26 PM »
Well I hope you liked the photos.

One thing I did notice in Stellarium yesterday is that it gives an absolute magnitude for Jupiter of -9.4.

The absolute magnitude is the brightness of a celestial body as seen from a standard distance of 10pc or 32.6 light years. Since the Sun has an absolute magnitude (correctly given by Stellarium) of +4.8 I am not sure where the -9.4 comes from.

Anyway I will leave you to argue between yourselves regarding the Stellarium source code for now.
Those photos are terrific!

You do excellent work!

Well there's one thing at least we completely agree upon  :) - great photos!

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #97 on: August 09, 2019, 10:30:54 AM »
I appreciate that the OP and the thread title are concerned with "Problems with the Heliocentric Model", however you've made various specific claims and challenges in regard to modelling software.

In particular, you asked newhorizons to "confirm the the product you offer utilizes the math utilized by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein" and then went on to claim "if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein".
Yeah, any honest reading of what I wrote would understand the inclusion of MODELING the results of the math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, in visual form.

If, by chance, you didn't understand that when reading my written point, then please understand that point at this time.
Stellarium is open source which means all of the source is published, so I looked at the code myself and found code related to Kepler, directly addressing your claim.

You threw out a challenge saying "show me the code!" So I did.
And, as pointed out, what you referred to indicates Kepler's equation is solved, according to the overview.

There is only a statement it has been solved, and if it is contained in that software program, it would still have nothing to do with the rendering of visual outputs within Stellarium (or more precisely, a full visual rendering of the solar system).
How does this relate to heliocentricity? It doesn't. I've never mentioned heliocentricity. Our exchanges so far on this topic have all been about whether certain types of software does or does not contain code related to Kepler. Can we at least agree that I have shown you some code which meets the criteria of your original challenge?
We can agree you referred the members to an overview containing writing that Kepler's equation is solved.
I accept that you do now want to qualify your original challenge and establish that the code is actually used in the rendering and I agree that's a perfectly valid question to ask, but it was not part of the original challenge and I'm not prepared to spend the time and effort on trying to figure that one out, so it'll have to remain an unanswered question.
Okay.

Thank you.
You've also said "we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric". Well it depends what you mean. You can build a model based on Kepler's ideas alone and it'll give you reasonably accurate results, but time has moved on and better models have emerged (and continue to emerge) which produce ever more accurate results. If you want to build a planetarium model, or plan a mission to Titan you'd be silly not to use a more sophisticated model which handles the N-body problem and the perturbations which are introduced.
Well, any rendering would seem to have solved the three-body problem, correct?

If so, why no solution announced from on high?

Why no smoke from the chimney?

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #98 on: August 09, 2019, 11:48:20 AM »
I appreciate that the OP and the thread title are concerned with "Problems with the Heliocentric Model", however you've made various specific claims and challenges in regard to modelling software.

In particular, you asked newhorizons to "confirm the the product you offer utilizes the math utilized by Kepler, Newton, and Einstein" and then went on to claim "if you publish the code, you won't find anything related to Kepler, Newton, or Einstein".
Yeah, any honest reading of what I wrote would understand the inclusion of MODELING the results of the math of Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, in visual form.

If, by chance, you didn't understand that when reading my written point, then please understand that point at this time.

My "honest reading" of what you wrote led me to think you were confident there wouldn't be any code related to Kepler et al in the code and I went to the trouble of downloading and searching the codebase because I thought that's what you meant. Sorry.

Stellarium is open source which means all of the source is published, so I looked at the code myself and found code related to Kepler, directly addressing your claim.

You threw out a challenge saying "show me the code!" So I did.
And, as pointed out, what you referred to indicates Kepler's equation is solved, according to the overview.

There is only a statement it has been solved, and if it is contained in that software program, it would still have nothing to do with the rendering of visual outputs within Stellarium (or more precisely, a full visual rendering of the solar system).

Well now you are asserting that it would have nothing to do with the rendering, but that's pure speculation and common sense says that if the author has taken the trouble to write code to solve Kepler's equation, add it to the codebase and keep it there over time, then they must have had some reason for doing so and given the purpose of Stellarium is to render images, it makes more sense to me that this code is used in the rendering. And now I'm speculating too. In reality neither of us knows for sure at this point.

How does this relate to heliocentricity? It doesn't. I've never mentioned heliocentricity. Our exchanges so far on this topic have all been about whether certain types of software does or does not contain code related to Kepler. Can we at least agree that I have shown you some code which meets the criteria of your original challenge?
We can agree you referred the members to an overview containing writing that Kepler's equation is solved.
I accept that you do now want to qualify your original challenge and establish that the code is actually used in the rendering and I agree that's a perfectly valid question to ask, but it was not part of the original challenge and I'm not prepared to spend the time and effort on trying to figure that one out, so it'll have to remain an unanswered question.
Okay.

Thank you.
You've also said "we all know Kepler and his math and equations alone cannot explain a solar system that is heliocentric". Well it depends what you mean. You can build a model based on Kepler's ideas alone and it'll give you reasonably accurate results, but time has moved on and better models have emerged (and continue to emerge) which produce ever more accurate results. If you want to build a planetarium model, or plan a mission to Titan you'd be silly not to use a more sophisticated model which handles the N-body problem and the perturbations which are introduced.
Well, any rendering would seem to have solved the three-body problem, correct?

If so, why no solution announced from on high?

Why no smoke from the chimney?

Announcement of what exactly? There's no new discovery being claimed here.

There are no analytic solutions for the N-body problem and analytic solutions for the more restricted 3-body solution only exist for limited special cases. But there are numerical solutions dating back decades and these are used for planetarium software and mission planning. Numerical solutions are only approximations, but the most sophisticated ones are highly accurate and in very close agreement with observation - they are still solutions. Stellarium and other planetarium software claim to use VSOP 87 as the basis for determining planetary positions. VSOP 87 is described by Wikipedia as "semi-analytic" - being a mixture of analytical and numerical methods. The paper explaining VSOP 87 says "We must first solve Kepler's equation in order to get the expressions of the variables X, Y, Z" - that would belong to the analytic side of semi-analytic.

My belief is this:
  • Stellarium uses VSOP 87 (the authors claim this and I believe them)
  • VSOP 87 uses Kepler's equation (the authors claim this and I believe them)
  • Stellarium therefore uses Kepler's equation (for what we're not sure)
  • Stellarium's purpose is to render images of the night sky and celestial bodies
  • There's no point in having code in a codebase which is never used (common sense)
  • Therefore Stellarium relies on Kepler at some level or other for its rendering (again based on common sense)
No attempt to claim proof of anything here, just laying out my view.

*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #99 on: August 09, 2019, 10:35:01 PM »
If so, why no solution announced from on high?

Why no smoke from the chimney?
Numerical solutions and analytical solutions are not the same thing.
Either you already knew this and you're just trolling around, or you didn't know this and you should really go back to basics on this.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in