[BRrollin]

A fairly recent published scientific article is provided below, which analyzes possible bounded orbits using Newtonian central force in the case of 3 bodies.

The analysis demonstrates evidence that:

1. Closed bounded orbits arise from central force considerations

2. The bounded orbits identified have also been verified using numerical computations (see references therein)

3. There is a demonstrably mathematical distinction between analytical solutions, the application in numerical methods, and the application to chaotic dynamics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0410149.pdf

[existoid]

A fairly recent published scientific article is provided below, which analyzes possible bounded orbits using Newtonian central force in the case of 3 bodies.

The analysis demonstrates evidence that:

1. Closed bounded orbits arise from central force considerations

2. The bounded orbits identified have also been verified using numerical computations (see references therein)

3. There is a demonstrably mathematical distinction between analytical solutions, the application in numerical methods, and the application to chaotic dynamics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0410149.pdf

I'm very new to this site, and this seems to represent a neat opportunity for me to learn some cool physics. 

I have no personal background in science, but I do love to learn - to wit, can you help elaborate, in simple terms, the "3 body problem" ?  Regularly Wikipedia is too dense for me. And in reading the Wiki on this site, I'm still pretty confused about certain things.  What makes it a "problem"?  And what are its implications for astrophysics?  And why is it such a hangup for the FET? 

Here's an example of why it's hard for a laymen like me to wrap my head around:  I get that it's referring to three bodies in orbit with each other, but how does that exactly matter for the solar system anyway?  The moon isn't directly orbiting the sun, it's orbiting the earth, right? So, my very limited understanding of physics makes me think that in terms of gravitational forces it's really just "two" bodies we're dealing with - the sun, and the earth/moon as if it were ONE body.  "3 bodies in orbit with each other" sounds like a system that has three stars all orbiting each other or something odd? 

I'd love to understand - but with as little actual math as possible 

[JSS]

I have no personal background in science, but I do love to learn - to wit, can you help elaborate, in simple terms, the "3 body problem" ?  Regularly Wikipedia is too dense for me. And in reading the Wiki on this site, I'm still pretty confused about certain things.  What makes it a "problem"?  And what are its implications for astrophysics?  And why is it such a hangup for the FET? 

Here's an example of why it's hard for a laymen like me to wrap my head around:  I get that it's referring to three bodies in orbit with each other, but how does that exactly matter for the solar system anyway?  The moon isn't directly orbiting the sun, it's orbiting the earth, right? So, my very limited understanding of physics makes me think that in terms of gravitational forces it's really just "two" bodies we're dealing with - the sun, and the earth/moon as if it were ONE body.  "3 bodies in orbit with each other" sounds like a system that has three stars all orbiting each other or something odd? 

I'd love to understand - but with as little actual math as possible 

I'm not surprised you are confused after reading the wiki here.

Let me try something simple. Hopefully.

Imagine a pool table.  It has some billiard balls and 4 sides.

Now if you hit a ball and it strikes another ball, it's a simple calculation to predict the two balls will be going.  Hit a ball straight on and it goes in the same direction. Hit a ball with a glancing blow, the balls fly off in different directions.

So anyone would agree, we know how to calculate two balls bouncing off each other.  Video games do physics like this all the time. Nobody could claim we don't know how basic geometry works.

But what if we add a third ball? Now we have a problem, the equation we have is for two balls colliding. How can we possibly know how three will interact?

The solution again is simple, we just calculate pairs of billiards one at a time.  Start with one, move it a tiny bit, run the equations for each of the other balls to see if there is a collision. Repeat this enough and you can simulate a full pool table.

The same with orbits. Newtons laws describe two bodies. We don't know a simple formula for 3. But we can calculate them in pairs in small steps and get answers.

Nobody says we have a "three billiard ball problem" and therefore, pool tables don't actually exist, and they are actually pool-triangles. They are real, and we can simulate them just fine. Nobody can describe a single equation that describes an entire table, but so what? Lots of problems don't have algebraic solutions, but we can solve them with other methods just fine.

Coming at it from another angle is, how did we get a probe to Pluto if we can't calculate orbits and understand how gravity behaves?

[BRrollin]

A fairly recent published scientific article is provided below, which analyzes possible bounded orbits using Newtonian central force in the case of 3 bodies.

The analysis demonstrates evidence that:

1. Closed bounded orbits arise from central force considerations

2. The bounded orbits identified have also been verified using numerical computations (see references therein)

3. There is a demonstrably mathematical distinction between analytical solutions, the application in numerical methods, and the application to chaotic dynamics.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0410149.pdf

I'm very new to this site, and this seems to represent a neat opportunity for me to learn some cool physics. 

I have no personal background in science, but I do love to learn - to wit, can you help elaborate, in simple terms, the "3 body problem" ?  Regularly Wikipedia is too dense for me. And in reading the Wiki on this site, I'm still pretty confused about certain things.  What makes it a "problem"?  And what are its implications for astrophysics?  And why is it such a hangup for the FET? 

Here's an example of why it's hard for a laymen like me to wrap my head around:  I get that it's referring to three bodies in orbit with each other, but how does that exactly matter for the solar system anyway?  The moon isn't directly orbiting the sun, it's orbiting the earth, right? So, my very limited understanding of physics makes me think that in terms of gravitational forces it's really just "two" bodies we're dealing with - the sun, and the earth/moon as if it were ONE body.  "3 bodies in orbit with each other" sounds like a system that has three stars all orbiting each other or something odd? 

I'd love to understand - but with as little actual math as possible 

Diddo what JSS said.

Also, when you have 3 bodies interacting gravitationally, the differential equations become tangled. So mathematicians like to worry about this and try to find mathematical solutions for them that are “analytical.” That is, the solutions are completely describable using the algebraic structures in math.

In physics, they don’t really care about that, so they find solutions that are not analytically closed, but solve the differential equations to the desired accuracy that is needed.

The reason FEers get stuck on this, and really it’s just Tom Bishop, is that in order to promote their FE idea, they want to show that modern science is somehow wrong.

Their approach here is to take the fact that since analytic solutions to the 3 body problem have not been found by mathematicians, that then Newton’s laws (which produce the equations) are wrong, and hence the fundamental basis for physics is wrong.

It really is not a problem, but FEers have a vested interest in maintaining that it somehow is.

If you can’t solve the 3 body problem, then how can you describe the solar system (which has many more bodies)?

Hope this helps. And this is all my take on it.

[existoid]

Thank you, both. All that REALLY helps clarify a few things.

As I wrote in other threads, I'm NOT a math guy. But I am a logic guy.

And doesn't this argument of Tom/FEers completely destroy their own FET?

Let me rephrase it to see what I mean (although I'm sure you already do, but for the sake of others who read this thread) -

The argument goes:
"Since this one thing [3 body problem] cannot be fully mathematically described, it must therefore mean physics is wrong, so we cannot rely on it to determine that gravity and the solar system operate the way science says it does." 

The exact same reasoning would immediately lead anyone to conclude that FET is wrong.       There's almost nothing in FET that is mathematically described in a consistent/coherent way. Almost everything follows a short road, then ends with "well, beyond this point we aren't sure."  Examples are endless (what's the size of any celestial body we see? What's the actual path that even ONE of them take that also accounts for every single phenomena that all humans observe?).

From a non-scientist's standpoint, it seems like the more they push this argument while failing to fully mathematically describe basically all parts of their theory, the more it's clear they're missing the galaxy for the trees (so to speak  ).

BUT, I do have one question -

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!

(EDIT: also, and I say this with complete sincerity, I am thrilled that I am learning tidbits of actual science on a website where I expected to be informed of none).






 

[ChrisTP]

Thank you, both. All that REALLY helps clarify a few things.

As I wrote in other threads, I'm NOT a math guy. But I am a logic guy.

And doesn't this argument of Tom/FEers completely destroy their own FET?

Let me rephrase it to see what I mean (although I'm sure you already do, but for the sake of others who read this thread) -

The argument goes:
"Since this one thing [3 body problem] cannot be fully mathematically described, it must therefore mean physics is wrong, so we cannot rely on it to determine that gravity and the solar system operate the way science says it does." 

The exact same reasoning would immediately lead anyone to conclude that FET is wrong.       There's almost nothing in FET that is mathematically described in a consistent/coherent way. Almost everything follows a short road, then ends with "well, beyond this point we aren't sure."  Examples are endless (what's the size of any celestial body we see? What's the actual path that even ONE of them take that also accounts for every single phenomena that all humans observe?).

From a non-scientist's standpoint, it seems like the more they push this argument while failing to fully mathematically describe basically all parts of their theory, the more it's clear they're missing the galaxy for the trees (so to speak  ).

BUT, I do have one question -

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!






 

I get what you're saying and I've noticed that no FE idea seems to stand together/make sense with other FE ideas. For example being able to totally see that rockets aren't leaving the atmosphere but are curving off into the distance which is somehow proof that we have never gone to space, while also claiming things like extreme bendy light to explain an extremely distorted perspective view of the world or why the sun is somehow hitting near half of the world and not the other half, and yet while claiming bendy light also complain when things are explained on a round earth with mirages (like being able to see a city in the distance where you normally couldn't, in very specific conditions) "Look see, we can see that city so it proves there is no curve, bendy light is just an excuse!"

So yea, flat earth ideas/explanations (lets call them X, Y and Z) don't work together. if X, Y cant happen, if Y, Z cant happen etc etc. but they still use Y to explain a specific thing while almost intentionally staying ignorant of X and Z

I guess X Y Z is the true 3 body problem that FE have yet to solve.

[BRrollin]

Thank you, both. All that REALLY helps clarify a few things.

As I wrote in other threads, I'm NOT a math guy. But I am a logic guy.

And doesn't this argument of Tom/FEers completely destroy their own FET?

Let me rephrase it to see what I mean (although I'm sure you already do, but for the sake of others who read this thread) -

The argument goes:
"Since this one thing [3 body problem] cannot be fully mathematically described, it must therefore mean physics is wrong, so we cannot rely on it to determine that gravity and the solar system operate the way science says it does." 

The exact same reasoning would immediately lead anyone to conclude that FET is wrong.       There's almost nothing in FET that is mathematically described in a consistent/coherent way. Almost everything follows a short road, then ends with "well, beyond this point we aren't sure."  Examples are endless (what's the size of any celestial body we see? What's the actual path that even ONE of them take that also accounts for every single phenomena that all humans observe?).

From a non-scientist's standpoint, it seems like the more they push this argument while failing to fully mathematically describe basically all parts of their theory, the more it's clear they're missing the galaxy for the trees (so to speak  ).

BUT, I do have one question -

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!

(EDIT: also, and I say this with complete sincerity, I am thrilled that I am learning tidbits of actual science on a website where I expected to be informed of none).

Yes, well, from my experience FEers tend to hold different standards for their own claims. I’ve witnessed a FEer criticize a piece of published RE evidence detailing valid mathematical prescriptions to a level where they pick out certain technical terms and compare them to what Poincare said, yet post a hazy video from some person of a shoreline and claim it proves the earth is flat!

So you can make your own conclusions about that.

In terms of stability, the FE argument, IMO, becomes unfocused quickly. First, there are known (and proven) stable 3-body systems. So the fundamental claim they make is untrue.

However, they are correct in that most 3-body systems are unstable, but they don’t seem to recognize what that means. Stability means that a perturbation from an equilibrium point will return. That’s all. So it’s not a question of whether systems are stable, but what timescales the instability will manifest observable differences.

For example, it is known that the earth is in an unstable orbit around the Sun. If you wait long enough, the Earth will spiral into the Sun. The time it will take to do this is longer than the lifetime of the Sun.

Hence, the whole focus on stability doesn’t aid the FE objective, IMO. Effectively, they are arguing a detail that never presents a problem in RE scenarios.

[JSS]

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!

(EDIT: also, and I say this with complete sincerity, I am thrilled that I am learning tidbits of actual science on a website where I expected to be informed of none).

I'll focus on this question and add I've learned a lot here too, both from having things explained and being forced to look stuff up in detail to try and argue.

Any complex orbital system is going to be unstable. We found some stable 3-body solutions that work in pure math, but once you throw things into the real world stuff goes haywire eventually.

But yes, it's a matter of zillions of years.  The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are unstable. That's why they have rings, former moons that were literally torn apart. But they won't fly apart tomorrow. But in a billion years? Sure, they will have likely changed.

In the long term, Earth could be ejected from the solar system or moved to another orbit eventually. But we call it stable because that would likely take billions or tens of billions of years. Hard to tell.  But that's reality. Like with the pool table, i can't tell you exactly how a break will turn out, but if someone claims they will all end up stacked and balanced on each other up to the ceiling, i can say NO.

Just because we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING.

[existoid]

What's up with the idea that it says in the Wiki on this site that 3+ bodies become inherently unstable over time?  Is that a red herring?  Is it a "given zillions of years" issue?  The 3 body problem section of the Wiki here devotes quite a bit of space to it, so I'd like to understand a  bit more.

Thanks!!!!

(EDIT: also, and I say this with complete sincerity, I am thrilled that I am learning tidbits of actual science on a website where I expected to be informed of none).

I'll focus on this question and add I've learned a lot here too, both from having things explained and being forced to look stuff up in detail to try and argue.

Any complex orbital system is going to be unstable. We found some stable 3-body solutions that work in pure math, but once you throw things into the real world stuff goes haywire eventually.

But yes, it's a matter of zillions of years.  The moons of Jupiter and Saturn are unstable. That's why they have rings, former moons that were literally torn apart. But they won't fly apart tomorrow. But in a billion years? Sure, they will have likely changed.

In the long term, Earth could be ejected from the solar system or moved to another orbit eventually. But we call it stable because that would likely take billions or tens of billions of years. Hard to tell.  But that's reality. Like with the pool table, i can't tell you exactly how a break will turn out, but if someone claims they will all end up stacked and balanced on each other up to the ceiling, i can say NO.

Just because we don't know EVERYTHING doesn't mean we don't know ANYTHING.

Yes, it is making a LOT of sense to me conceptually (which is all that can happen, because there's no way I'll understand the maths), thanks to you and BRollin. 

Also, this tracks with reality, IMO.  I don't know much about inertia, gravity, momentum, etc., but I can grasp them in my everyday life enough to suspect that it would NOT make sense for the solar system to NEVER become "unstable" and change.  Just like a car when you take your foot off the gas, you will have inertia or momentum that carries you for some time, even on a totally flat road, but eventually other forces (gravity?  friction?) work on the car and it will stop even on an endless flat road.

I have no idea if I'm super conflating something in saying this, but it's like the idea that "you can't have a perpetual motion machine" and so, the solar system, at a certain point, can't be sustained forever stably - otherwise it WOULD be a "perpetual motion machine" in the big picture.   Or are those two things tooooootally different?


   

[JSS]

Yes, it is making a LOT of sense to me conceptually (which is all that can happen, because there's no way I'll understand the maths), thanks to you and BRollin. 

Also, this tracks with reality, IMO.  I don't know much about inertia, gravity, momentum, etc., but I can grasp them in my everyday life enough to suspect that it would NOT make sense for the solar system to NEVER become "unstable" and change.  Just like a car when you take your foot off the gas, you will have inertia or momentum that carries you for some time, even on a totally flat road, but eventually other forces (gravity?  friction?) work on the car and it will stop even on an endless flat road.

I have no idea if I'm super conflating something in saying this, but it's like the idea that "you can't have a perpetual motion machine" and so, the solar system, at a certain point, can't be sustained forever stably - otherwise it WOULD be a "perpetual motion machine" in the big picture.   Or are those two things tooooootally different?

They are quite different actually.

There is no friction in space. If you had just the Earth and the Sun, the Earth would continue orbiting forever with no changes. It takes no power to keep Earth in it's orbit, as far as the Earth is concerned it's moving in a straight line. It's just that line is bent into a closed circle by the Suns gravity. It's not a "perpetual motion machine" because it doesn't produce or consume energy, it is just stable.

With multiple bodies it's more complex, but energy is still conserved.  If a small asteroid gets too close to Jupiter, it can get pulled in and flung out at high speeds, but Jupiter will also lose a tiny fraction of it's momentum. So you have one object going faster and one going slower, but that asteroid could loop back and hit Jupiter and give it's kinetic energy back too. So humans can use Jupiter to fling spacecraft into deep space and it is effectively an infinite source of gravitational energy, but if we used it enough we could drop Jupiter into the sun by stealing it all. If we keep doing it for, oh, a trillion years.

So the Earth won't stop, but if other bodies get close it can be nudged into other orbits, possibly out of the solar system or into the sun.  But not for a LOOOOOOONG time, If ever.

[existoid]

Yes, it is making a LOT of sense to me conceptually (which is all that can happen, because there's no way I'll understand the maths), thanks to you and BRollin. 

Also, this tracks with reality, IMO.  I don't know much about inertia, gravity, momentum, etc., but I can grasp them in my everyday life enough to suspect that it would NOT make sense for the solar system to NEVER become "unstable" and change.  Just like a car when you take your foot off the gas, you will have inertia or momentum that carries you for some time, even on a totally flat road, but eventually other forces (gravity?  friction?) work on the car and it will stop even on an endless flat road.

I have no idea if I'm super conflating something in saying this, but it's like the idea that "you can't have a perpetual motion machine" and so, the solar system, at a certain point, can't be sustained forever stably - otherwise it WOULD be a "perpetual motion machine" in the big picture.   Or are those two things tooooootally different?

They are quite different actually.

There is no friction in space. If you had just the Earth and the Sun, the Earth would continue orbiting forever with no changes. It takes no power to keep Earth in it's orbit, as far as the Earth is concerned it's moving in a straight line. It's just that line is bent into a closed circle by the Suns gravity. It's not a "perpetual motion machine" because it doesn't produce or consume energy, it is just stable.

With multiple bodies it's more complex, but energy is still conserved.  If a small asteroid gets too close to Jupiter, it can get pulled in and flung out at high speeds, but Jupiter will also lose a tiny fraction of it's momentum. So you have one object going faster and one going slower, but that asteroid could loop back and hit Jupiter and give it's kinetic energy back too. So humans can use Jupiter to fling spacecraft into deep space and it is effectively an infinite source of gravitational energy, but if we used it enough we could drop Jupiter into the sun by stealing it all. If we keep doing it for, oh, a trillion years.

So the Earth won't stop, but if other bodies get close it can be nudged into other orbits, possibly out of the solar system or into the sun.  But not for a LOOOOOOONG time, If ever.

Once again, so good at explaining!   Okay, so, after the first sentence that there's no friction in space, my brain went "oh, cool, so maybe we COULD have a perpetual motion machine...IN SPACE? Friction is the problem!"  But after reading everything, this is not the case. 

I do love the idea that an alien civilization with a timespan measured in trillions of years, can accidentally come to the point of sending a planet in their solar system out of orbit by using it countless times to fling spacecraft into deeper space, thereby reducing its kinetic(?) energy until it can't sustain its orbit.   by the way, what is actually happening there, in terms of its change in course?  Is its orbit getting infinitesimally smaller? Or bigger? Or it depends?

[JSS]

Once again, so good at explaining!   Okay, so, after the first sentence that there's no friction in space, my brain went "oh, cool, so maybe we COULD have a perpetual motion machine...IN SPACE? Friction is the problem!"  But after reading everything, this is not the case. 

I do love the idea that an alien civilization with a timespan measured in trillions of years, can accidentally come to the point of sending a planet in their solar system out of orbit by using it countless times to fling spacecraft into deeper space, thereby reducing its kinetic(?) energy until it can't sustain its orbit.   by the way, what is actually happening there, in terms of its change in course?  Is its orbit getting infinitesimally smaller? Or bigger? Or it depends?

Thanks, I do try.

An orbit will get larger if you add energy to it, and smaller if you take it away. So if Jupiter looses a bit of speed with each spacecraft boost, it will eventually fall into the sun.

I may have vastly underestimated the amount of time it would take to do this however.  Reading up, the Voyager 1 spacecraft stole enough speed from Jupiter to slow the planet down by one foot per trillion years.  So a trillion years from now, it will be one foot behind in it's orbit. That's not much!

To drop it into the Sun that way would likely take longer than I care to calculate, by a lot. Of course, if they start launching small moons, that would speed things up.

[existoid]

Once again, so good at explaining!   Okay, so, after the first sentence that there's no friction in space, my brain went "oh, cool, so maybe we COULD have a perpetual motion machine...IN SPACE? Friction is the problem!"  But after reading everything, this is not the case. 

I do love the idea that an alien civilization with a timespan measured in trillions of years, can accidentally come to the point of sending a planet in their solar system out of orbit by using it countless times to fling spacecraft into deeper space, thereby reducing its kinetic(?) energy until it can't sustain its orbit.   by the way, what is actually happening there, in terms of its change in course?  Is its orbit getting infinitesimally smaller? Or bigger? Or it depends?

Thanks, I do try.

An orbit will get larger if you add energy to it, and smaller if you take it away. So if Jupiter looses a bit of speed with each spacecraft boost, it will eventually fall into the sun.

I may have vastly underestimated the amount of time it would take to do this however.  Reading up, the Voyager 1 spacecraft stole enough speed from Jupiter to slow the planet down by one foot per trillion years.  So a trillion years from now, it will be one foot behind in it's orbit. That's not much!

To drop it into the Sun that way would likely take longer than I care to calculate, by a lot. Of course, if they start launching small moons, that would speed things up.

Ah, yes.  So, as with lots of things in the universe, it's really hard to grasp.  A trillion years is like two hundred times longer than the age of the earth, so it's functionally the same as saying "Jupiter will NEVER fall into the sun."  It goes to the same thing you or someone said earlier (I think) that the sun will die before the earth's orbit will decay into it.

[Tom Bishop]

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial systems past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

[ChrisTP]

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

Can you point to any credible scientists today that have said that n-body problems means the world isn't spherical?

[JSS]

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

I have no idea how you can keep repeating this.  What sources say we can't predict the motion of celestial systems past two bodies?  Nobody. All you can find are math papers saying we can't solve the problems using ONE method, but there are thousands talking about other methods that work just fine.  Plus we have all those spacecraft zooming all over that seem to find their way, and the oft-mentioned comets hitting Jupiter that were predicted perfectly.

No matter how many times you say we can't, predictions prove you are wrong.

[Tom Bishop]

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

I have no idea how you can keep repeating this.  What sources say we can't predict the motion of celestial systems past two bodies?  Nobody. All you can find are math papers saying we can't solve the problems using ONE method, but there are thousands talking about other methods that work just fine.  Plus we have all those spacecraft zooming all over that seem to find their way, and the oft-mentioned comets hitting Jupiter that were predicted perfectly.

No matter how many times you say we can't, predictions prove you are wrong.

Are you going to give us a source explaining how physcists were able to overcome the Three Body Problem to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system, in contradiction to the Nova documentary's contrary statements of what happened after Newton published his laws? Or will you continue to cite your own self?

The basic scheme of RE cosmology says that it is possible to have a star with a planet and a moon. Hundreds of years of research by the greatest mathematicians have been unable to get that to work, however.

It is pretty damning that the basic idea of a star with a planet and a moon can't stay together and that the accepted model does not have working laws.

[stack]

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

I have no idea how you can keep repeating this.  What sources say we can't predict the motion of celestial systems past two bodies?  Nobody. All you can find are math papers saying we can't solve the problems using ONE method, but there are thousands talking about other methods that work just fine.  Plus we have all those spacecraft zooming all over that seem to find their way, and the oft-mentioned comets hitting Jupiter that were predicted perfectly.

No matter how many times you say we can't, predictions prove you are wrong.

Are you going to give us a source explaining how physcists were able to overcome the Three Body Problem to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system, in contradiction to the Nova documentary's contrary statements of what happened after Newton published his laws? Or will you continue to cite your own self?

The basic scheme of RE cosmology says that it is possible to have a star with a planet and a moon. Hundreds of years of research by the greatest mathematicians have been unable to get that to work, however.

Here's an interesting paper, "Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem", that discusses all of the solutions from Kepler on up through Newton to roughly today. A lot of stuff has happened since Newton. All with ever increasing accuracy. The bottom line is that for our purposes we can accurately predict the Moon-Earth-Sun system movement to a high degree of precision.
http://sites.apam.columbia.edu/courses/ap1601y/Moon-Earth-Sin%20RMP.70.589.pdf

It is pretty damning that the basic idea of a star with a planet and a moon can't stay together and that the accepted model does not have working laws.

It's more damning that FET has no knowledge of where a star and a moon are in relation to a planet at all. Helio can give a pretty precise approximation and prediction as evidenced by some of the work referenced in the paper above. FET has no knowledge of any celestial mechanics. Zero. FET doesn't know where any objects in the heavens are or their size let alone being able to predict anything. Your time may be better spent trying to show how the Sun, Moon, and planets, even comets, work within FET rather than looking for holes in Newton.

 

[JSS]

All sources on this subject admit that they failed at predicting the motion of celestial system past two bodies. Can you point me to the part in history where scientists were able to use the three and n-body problems to describe the solar system based on Newton's laws? Surely this would have been mentioned somewhere in conventional knowledge materials.

I have no idea how you can keep repeating this.  What sources say we can't predict the motion of celestial systems past two bodies?  Nobody. All you can find are math papers saying we can't solve the problems using ONE method, but there are thousands talking about other methods that work just fine.  Plus we have all those spacecraft zooming all over that seem to find their way, and the oft-mentioned comets hitting Jupiter that were predicted perfectly.

No matter how many times you say we can't, predictions prove you are wrong.

Are you going to give us a source explaining how physcists were able to overcome the Three Body Problem to describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system, in contradiction to the Nova documentary's contrary statements of what happened after Newton published his laws? Or will you continue to cite your own self?

The basic scheme of RE cosmology says that it is possible to have a star with a planet and a moon. Hundreds of years of research by the greatest mathematicians have been unable to get that to work, however.

It is pretty damning that the basic idea of a star with a planet and a moon can't stay together and that the accepted model does not have working laws.

Round and round we go.

We predicted Comet Shoemaker–Levy's multiple impacts with Jupiter over a year in advance using Newton's math. Explain how we did that if the math doesn't work?

[Tom Bishop]

Here's an interesting paper, "Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest three-body problem", that discusses all of the solutions from Kepler on up through Newton to roughly today. A lot of stuff has happened since Newton. All with ever increasing accuracy. The bottom line is that for our purposes we can accurately predict the Moon-Earth-Sun system movement to a high degree of precision.
http://sites.apam.columbia.edu/courses/ap1601y/Moon-Earth-Sin%20RMP.70.589.pdf

Funny, the author of that paper concludes in the ending section of that paper that Newton's laws are not a sufficient explanation:

Many physicists may be tempted to see in Newton’s equations of motion and his universal gravitation a sufficient explanation for the three-body problem, with the details to be worked out by the technicians. But even a close look at the differential equations (29) and (30) does not prepare us for the idiosyncracies of the lunar motion, nor does it help us to understand the orbits of asteroids in the combined gravitational field of the Sun and Jupiter.

We predicted Comet Shoemaker–Levy's multiple impacts with Jupiter over a year in advance using Newton's math. Explain how we did that if the math doesn't work?

That was discussed in the other thread on that matter. They only predicted a portion of an orbit, and are using other methods such as epicycles.