*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 2015
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2021, 05:20:26 AM »
Quote from: RazaTD
The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.

There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune

Quote from: stack
So what?

Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.

From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -



Again, so what? And enter stage right about 70 years later, Johannes Kepler (no more epicycles), and so on:



Do you think the study of heliocentrism came to a dead stop 450 years ago? Do you think we've learned nothing since Babylonian times?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8449
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2021, 05:35:39 AM »
Incorrect. Those are just simplified explanations. There were still epicycles in Kepler's version. He just reduced it a little more. You can see that Jupiter is on an epicycle in his version:

Dr. Samuel Herrick - https://ia802909.us.archive.org/18/items/the-foundations-of-astrodynamics/The%20Foundations%20of%20Astrodynamics.pdf

Quote


“ Physical celestial mechanics may be said to have begun with Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, and the laws of force and gravitation. Astrodynamics and mathematical celestial mechanics, on the other hand, date back at least to Heracleides of Pontus in the fourth century B.C. The Greek invention of epicycles and eccentrics was developed into a system by Apollonius of Perga in the third century and Hipparchus of Alexandria in the second century B.C. It was refined and published by Ptolemy of Alexandria in the second century A.D., and came to be known as the Ptolemaic system. It is generally assumed that the epicycle was discredited by Johannes Kepler some 1500 years later, but in point of fact epicycles have persisted in astrodynamics down to the present day, and have extended their domain into other areas of science under the guise of Fourier series!

  “ In modern perturbation theory we actually take account of the original epicyclic concept by combining several Fourier series that have arguments based upon different angular variables. ”
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 06:18:31 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2021, 08:14:15 AM »
Multiple two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under the laws of gravity and motion, but that you can't get it to work.
You're going to have to tell the rover sitting on Mars that it doesn't work.
I've listed some of the achievements our models have enabled. You're increasingly sounding like a Monty Python sketch again "What has the RE Model ever done for us?"
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2021, 10:27:38 AM »
The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read and address the arguments in the Wiki ...

The Wiki includes this graphic, showing a number of curved and almost semi-circular paths for the eclipses, and paths which are wider at the poles.



They take these paths, and have differing path widths because the eclipse shadow is passing over a curved surface, i.e. the surface of a globe. The path is more semi-circular at the poles, less so in equatorial regions.

What possible reason is there for the path to be anything other than a straight line on a flat earth?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8449
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2021, 10:56:31 AM »
The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read and address the arguments in the Wiki ...

The Wiki includes this graphic, showing a number of curved and almost semi-circular paths for the eclipses, and paths which are wider at the poles.



They take these paths, and have differing path widths because the eclipse shadow is passing over a curved surface, i.e. the surface of a globe. The path is more semi-circular at the poles, less so in equatorial regions.

What possible reason is there for the path to be anything other than a straight line on a flat earth?

When converting the Mercator Map to either the Monopole or Bi-Polar FE model the North and South is either compressed or stretched. Both of those models expect those areas to be modified too.

Multiple two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under the laws of gravity and motion, but that you can't get it to work.
You're going to have to tell the rover sitting on Mars that it doesn't work.
I've listed some of the achievements our models have enabled. You're increasingly sounding like a Monty Python sketch again "What has the RE Model ever done for us?"

This is a math and model problem which does not involve NASA. You are embarrassed about your math, and your solar system, and so you are invoking  an argument which requires increasingly more dependencies.

Your system doesn't work on paper. This is evidence against it. Claiming that NASA saw it is poor evidence for this failure.

NASA is ultimately the thing in doubt and under skepicism here. Assuming the theory that NASA explored the solar system is not confirming that it occured, but is assuming it to support another failing argument of yours. You are practically declaring that you have lost the discussion when you need to admit to the inherent model failures and try to argue that your model exists by telling us that NASA saw it.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 11:21:51 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2021, 11:51:40 AM »
Claiming that NASA saw it is poor evidence for this failure.

NASA is ultimately the thing in doubt and under skepicism here. Assuming the theory that NASA explored the solar system is not confirming that it occured, but is assuming it to support another failing argument of yours. You are practically declaring that you have lost the discussion when you need to admit to the inherent model failures and try to argue that your model exists by telling us that NASA saw it.

First orbital spacecraft - Sputnik, launched by Roscosmos, or the equivalent Russian space agency of the day.

Other agencies deploying orbital craft include ESA, SpaceX, JAXA and others.

First picture of Earth from space was a Russian one.

Pictures of Earth looking back from the surface, or the vicinity of the Moon, have been taken by Japanese, Chinese and American craft.

Multiple space agencies, not just NASA. Doubting only NASA's account is insufficient doubt.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8449
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2021, 12:09:48 PM »
Other agencies deploying orbital craft include ESA, SpaceX, JAXA and others.

There are doubts on the independence of these space programs. See these quotes:

https://www.planetary.org/explore/the-planetary-report/australia-space-program.html

Why Start A Space Program? Watching Australia Take A Bold Step Forward

Casey Dreier is director of space policy for The Planetary Society.

  “ The fact that so many countries seem to want a space program implies an inherent value to exploring space, but what is it? Last year, Australia became the latest country to announce the formation of its own space agency. The process took a significant step forward in March with a new report recommending goals and focus for its space agency.

The report also provides insight about why Australia sees space as a valuable enterprise. The report highlights several areas where the country could leapfrog others by strategically investing in specific capabilities (for example, artificial intelligence or quantum computing) and sets out a goal of tripling the size of the Australian space industry by 2030. One of the keys to succeeding in this new effort, the report declares, will be international partnerships.

International partnerships provide the means for countries to participate in the exploration of space without having to create expensive, enabling infrastructure from the ground up. They can leverage the space capabilities of other nations while providing unique contributions to the benefit of their own industry and scientific base. This is the opposite of a zero-sum, competitive mentality of international relations; a rising rocket lifts all spacecraft, if you will. The European Space Agency’s very existence relies on this model. Its BepiColombo mission—as you will read in this issue—includes contributions from 13 European member states, the United States, and Japan. This coalition of nations is deeply invested in the success of the mission, spreading out the cost and also the political support. ”

https://science.nasa.gov/researchers/science-data

Science Data Archives

  “ The purpose of the Science Data Archives list is to provide NASA Science data stakeholders with a comprehensive list of NASA Science data archives to increase data accessibility. Earth, heliophysics, planetary, and astrophysics observations and data are freely accessible to all, including NASA’s many partners in the United States, international organizations and governments, the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. These partners rely on NASA’s expertise in developing and launching missions, analyzing the data, and calibrating and validating results to ensure that the information is accurate. ”

https://spacepolicyonline.com/topics/international-space-activities/

NASA AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION IN SPACE

  “ International cooperation has been a hallmark of NASA’s programs throughout its history. The law that created NASA, the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act, included Section 205 that encouraged NASA to cooperate with other countries. A 2014 report by NASA’s Office of International and Interagency Relations states that NASA has signed over 3,000 international agreements since its inception. The report, Global Reach: A View of NASA’s International Cooperation, lists international cooperative projects ongoing at NASA at the time of publication.

The majority of NASA space science programs involve international cooperation and the most far-reaching international space program today is the International Space Station. The U.S.-led ISS was built by the United States, Russia, Japan, Canada, and 11 members of ESA (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and United Kingdom). Crews that rotate on roughly 6-month schedules have been living aboard the ISS continuously since November 2000. The ISS is operated jointly by NASA and its Russian counterpart, Roscosmos, and all the partners utilize its scientific facilities. ”

About the old space shuttle program:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/space-shuttles

  “ Plans call for the shuttles to ferry component parts to the station at least through its completion, and later deliver food, water, and other supplies to station crews. With involvement in the International Space Station, NASA's shuttle program is likely to extend its role as the foundation of the U.S. space program and become a cornerstone of the combined world space program.

NASA's "large presence" in Moscow:

https://ru.usembassy.gov/embassy-consulates/moscow/sections-offices/nasa/

  “ The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has a large presence in the Moscow area, with offices at the U.S. Embassy, Star City, the Mission Control Center-Moscow, and the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos). ”
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 12:17:15 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2021, 12:40:46 PM »
There are doubts on the independence of these space programs.

None of which disproves the photos, nor the data from the flights, nor the anecdotal evidence from the participants.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2021, 04:02:54 PM »
We care about what is true, and not what is currently more complete.
Fairly reasonable, but you don't have a monopoly on that.
And don't you think there is likely to be a correlation between those two things?
I mean, if a model is good enough to, say, built an ISS, accurately predict a solar eclipse path or land something in Mars then I'd suggest that gives pretty good confidence that the model reflects the underlying reality.

I'm not saying physics has it all sorted out - in some ways it would be disappointing if it did, there would be nothing left to discover. But the models we have demonstrably work for most practical purposes.

The leap you guys seem to be making is that you make observations which don't match your understanding of the RE model and concluding that the entire model must be wrong rather than your understanding is. Given the consequences of the RE model being wrong - every scientist in history (or over 2000 years, certainly) being wrong, the myriad conspiracies that have to be in play, all the technologies which don't work as we've been led to believe...it seems like quite a leap. Especially when some of your ideas are basically trying to explain why observations do better match what you'd expect on a globe.

Quote
Using known incorrect answers to fill the gaps in what would otherwise be unknowns is not a healthy approach, and has pretty much got us into the mess we're in as a society.

Can you elaborate on this?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2021, 04:17:43 PM »
None of that is true.

Can you provide a source which backs up any of that?

Why does that matter when you already "know" it isn't true in your heart?

The source is the historical records of that pope and the astronomers pitching heliocentrism to him.

Contrary to what is commonly (mis)taught, heliocentrism was not chosen to replace geocentrism because it "modeled observation" better.  It was argued at the time that physics and science need not be considered, and the "beauty"/simplicity of the equations was all that was needed.

Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2021, 04:33:35 PM »
None of that is true.

Can you provide a source which backs up any of that?

Why does that matter when you already "know" it isn't true in your heart?

I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but you're just stating things without evidence.

Quote
The source is the historical records of that pope and the astronomers pitching heliocentrism to him.

Contrary to what is commonly (mis)taught, heliocentrism was not chosen to replace geocentrism because it "modeled observation" better.  It was argued at the time that physics and science need not be considered, and the "beauty"/simplicity of the equations was all that was needed.

Can you provide a source which backs this up?
"On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa...Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore
- An excerpt from the account of the Bishop Experiment. My emphasis

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2021, 04:34:40 PM »
The source is the historical records of that pope and the astronomers pitching heliocentrism to him.

Contrary to what is commonly (mis)taught, heliocentrism was not chosen to replace geocentrism because it "modeled observation" better.  It was argued at the time that physics and science need not be considered, and the "beauty"/simplicity of the equations was all that was needed.

... but we've moved on since then. With, amongst other things, over 60 years of manned and un-manned space flight around the Earth. Sixty years. With all the anecdotal, observational, photographic, and data records of such flights. It doesn't matter on what basis such "replacement" was made, we now have better data.

Please don't trot out the "It's all NASA lies" line again, unless you can actually prove as such.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Offline WTF_Seriously

  • *
  • Posts: 238
  • Sorry folks. The Earth is round
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2021, 05:37:41 PM »
Apologies.  Had to edit this.  Realized I had misread time off of suncalc with relation to UTC.  18:02 UTC is 10:02 UTC-8 which is how sunlcalc displays time. The original picture was incorrect and has been replaced and necessary edits made.

The Wiki includes this graphic, showing a number of curved and almost semi-circular paths for the eclipses, and paths which are wider at the poles.



They take these paths, and have differing path widths because the eclipse shadow is passing over a curved surface, i.e. the surface of a globe. The path is more semi-circular at the poles, less so in equatorial regions.

What possible reason is there for the path to be anything other than a straight line on a flat earth?

Actually, with the sun and moon traveling a circular orbit around the north pole, arcs would not be ruled out.  That really makes no difference as to FE geometry and realized eclipse paths not working.  My understanding of eclipses on FE is that they occur as the sun passes over the new moon.  That being said, if the alignment of sun and moon are such that a shadow is cast on FE, then the maximum eclipse would occur somewhere along the N-S longitude line of the position of sun and moon at the exact time of the new moon.  This would occur at a location on the disc where the sun and moon culmination times are equal and would occur at the time of culmination.

So let's look at the 2033 MAR. 30 path shown on your illustration.  Here's a picture from Suncalc with the addition of the eclipse details.



As you can see, the greatest eclipse occurs some 4 1/2 hours before culmination at the point of greatest eclipse.  The exact new moon occurs roughly the longitude of Chicago around 17:53.  At 18:02 the sun and moon are crossing somewhere the over the central US around 89.5 deg W yet casting a shadow some 60 deg. east.  Simply can't happen in the FE model.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 07:34:10 PM by WTF_Seriously »
Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

*

Offline RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2021, 06:08:49 PM »
Quote from: RazaTD
The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.

There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune

Quote from: stack
So what?

Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.

From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -



I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model? I think I will have to research this topic more because I was led to believe (or incorrectly assumed) that the description of Neptune the scientists derived was quite accurate. In fact, I don't know what margin of error would even be fair because I do understand that new developments made by Einstein were able to clarify a lot about how classical physics behaves at a more macro scale.

I guess FE would use epicycles to make predictions about the motion of the planets? Since it does not have a mechanism by which they can move similar to the motion of the Sun and the Moon?
A rational man

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2021, 09:57:02 PM »
I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model?

Tom has completely misunderstood, or is misrepresenting, perturbation theory. You are nearly correct - it's not quite a way of simplifying calculations, because that implies that there is a calculation that could be done. The point with things like the n-body problem is there simply is no way of solving the equations. There's a $1M prize for the person who can, and 20 years later nobody has claimed it. Despite numerous people, including me, pointing out that this fact does not in anyway invalidate the underlying theory, Tom persists in claiming that it does. This clearly ignores the oft-repeated point that numerous scientific problems end up in the form of partial differential equations that cannot be solved without recourse to some kind of approximating technique.

So things like perturbation theory are a way of obtaining an approximate answer - how approximate depends on how horrific the equations are allowed to become. But we should be careful using 'approximation', as it suggests that that there is some superior method that is eluding us. Almost all calculations in science are approximate to some degree - it's the amount of error that matters.

*

Offline RazaTD

  • *
  • Posts: 58
  • A rational man
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth Predictive Capabilities
« Reply #35 on: April 07, 2021, 02:24:34 AM »
I read some of that wiki page and it is very interesting, thanks for linking that. I don't understand what's wrong with perturbation theory. If I understand correctly, it is just a way to simplify calculations. Why is it the opposite of using the mathematical model?

Tom has completely misunderstood, or is misrepresenting, perturbation theory. You are nearly correct - it's not quite a way of simplifying calculations, because that implies that there is a calculation that could be done. The point with things like the n-body problem is there simply is no way of solving the equations. There's a $1M prize for the person who can, and 20 years later nobody has claimed it. Despite numerous people, including me, pointing out that this fact does not in anyway invalidate the underlying theory, Tom persists in claiming that it does. This clearly ignores the oft-repeated point that numerous scientific problems end up in the form of partial differential equations that cannot be solved without recourse to some kind of approximating technique.

So things like perturbation theory are a way of obtaining an approximate answer - how approximate depends on how horrific the equations are allowed to become. But we should be careful using 'approximation', as it suggests that that there is some superior method that is eluding us. Almost all calculations in science are approximate to some degree - it's the amount of error that matters.

I understand Tom’s misinformation now after reading some of his rants in other threads about how numerical approximations somehow don’t work on the underlying principles 🤣

If I understand correctly, numerical approximation don’t have a meaning without the underlying principles (what is it that you are trying to approximate if not the result of those principles). I hope Tom realizes that most of the people now see through this.

Unless Tom is genuinely confused about this, I apologize. It does seem rather hard though to get confused about it.
A rational man