[SteelyBob]

If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

Don’t waste your time. We’ve been here before, on lots of occasions - see the links I’ve posted. I’ve used a different example - airflow over a wing - but the principle is the same - ditto WTF’s example. He never responds.

Likewise, I’ve shown in lots of detail, with extensive links, exactly what goes in to modern ephemeris models - again, nothing in response, and then a few months later the same garbage gets spouted and the cycle continues.

The only thing I can’t quite fathom is whether it’s trolling, or genuine lack of understanding. I suspect the former.

[ohplease]

The only thing I can’t quite fathom is whether it’s trolling, or genuine lack of understanding. I suspect the former.

I'd modify that only to say its trolling or a willful lack of understanding.  The notion of believing whatever you want to believe irrespective not only a total lack of supporting evidence but of very well established facts to the contrary is an increasing and worrisome trend on several fronts.

[stack]

When looking at earth from space, the southern hemisphere will look almost twice as big and the upper northern hemisphere small compared to the visual you'd have of earth if you removed the atmosphere.  But, because RE measurements add miles to the south and subtract them from the north, total area I don't think is too different so earth is still a reasonable reference point from space.

How come looking at earth from space resembles nothing of what you described?

[Tron]

Stack I'll try to make a visual sometime later to clarify..

[Tom Bishop]

If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

I was simply going to lurk here, but this is such utter bullshit I can't help it.

Can we simulate and model the whirlpools of the deception pass bridge?



Of course we can't because we don't have the math to do it.  Do they exist in reality?  I've seen them myself.  Perhaps you should too, they're pretty amazing at times.

Well yes, if you can't model it with the supposed physics that govern it then you can't claim to know the underlying physics. People in this thread and on this forum are claiming that they do know the underlying physics and that their RE model works. They are wrong.

Also, unlike seeing a whirlpool as a whole, we have never seen the entire solar system outside of space agencies.

The fact that the greatest mathematicians of human history haven't been able to get gravity to work is a pretty good reason to believe that it doesn't work. If it can't be modeled then that is a reason to believe that the fundamental assumptions are false.

The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

Incorrect. Many of the greatest mathematicians did try their hand at the three body problem, with unsatisfactory results. Regardless of your personal ignorance on the matter, the Three Body Problem is a known problem. See the quotes here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Quotes

Well, firstly, what can be simulated in FE? What predictive power do any of your models or theories have?
By that criteria your model doesn't work at all.

Secondly, that's nonsense. A model doesn't have to be perfect to be useful. It's very common in science or engineering to simplify a problem from one which can't be solved to one that can. If the latter is good enough to have predictive power then it's useful. Our models of the solar system have got us to the moon, they've got craft to Mars, they can predict eclipse paths to the block level.

Loads of things can't be simulated accurately, put milk in your coffee and mix it - that's a chaotic system right there which can't be perfectly simulated. Does that mean your coffee doesn't now have milk in?

I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system. You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.

You guys are now agreeing with this and are stamping your feet like children claiming that the models are useful in other ways, and make additional claims about how space agencies use the models. None of this proves that the bodies are using selective gravity and is contradictory to the concept of universal gravitation. Simply, you don't have a coherent model. Gravity does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.

[ohplease]

The fact that not merely the greatest physicists over the last 100 years but the entire physics community over the last 100 years disagrees with your conclusion is reason to believe you have no idea what you are talking about.  How fragile your world view must be to have to constantly fall back on this tired mantra.

Incorrect. Many of the greatest mathematicians did try their hand at the three body problem, with unsatisfactory results. See the quotes here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Quotes

How disingenuous this is.  No one is disputes that there is no closed solution to the three body problem.  Of course many have tried.  I did NOT dispute that mathematicians have not been able to produce a closed solution.  What I posted was that the physics community over the past 100 years does not see that issue as a refutation of general relativity.  That is what you are claiming and that is what is wrong.

The theory of gravity is general relativity and that has been directly verified by Gravity Probe B.  Why not respond to that Tom?

[markjo]

Simply, you don't have a coherent model.

Neither does the OP.  Perhaps you should point out the inconsistencies in his "theory" instead of derailing this thread with your n-body problem nonsense.

[stack]

Gravity does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.

Could you say the same thing about UA? As in, UA does not explain the astronomical systems you claim to exist.
I'm guessing if your argument is that RE can't analytically simulate the n-body problem, therefore Gravity doesn't exist, then the same argument would be that since FE can't analytically simulate the n-body problem, therefore UA doesn't exist either. Or am I missing something?

[BillO]

I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system. You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.

This is not how planetary systems are modeled Tom.  Where are you getting this bullshit?  (rhetorical - no need to answer)

For everyone else:

Assuming a simple system (no relativistic effects) for a particular slice (or point) in time all forces on all bodies are calculated using UG, then using a=F/m the change in velocities of all objects are calculated from which their positions at the next time slice are all computed.  By definition of it being a single point in time, all calculations for each time slice are .. simultaneous.  There are no "gravitationally selective two body problems" or whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean.  The time is then incremented and the process is repeated.  Just a few simple Newtonian formulas are required - no differential equations and no analytic integrations to solve and no "cheats".  The whole process of the simulation is a piecewise numerical integration.

Where relativistic effects come into play, you need to use the appropriate corrections, but even without them you can model our solar system to arbitrary accuracy by making the time slices smaller.  Of course the perihelion of Mercury will be out by .0012 degrees after a decade of time slices, but everything else will be just fine.  If you want that 0.0012 degrees in Mercury's orbit corrected you'll have to account for the relativistic effects but other than that the simulation is done the same way..

[ohplease]

In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon!

[Pete Svarrior]

In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon!

If you can't figure out how to post in the upper, don't post in the upper.

[ohplease]

In one corner we have every physicist since Newton with massive confirming data and in the other we have Tom with no credentials, papers, education in or understanding of physics or any data at all.    Why Tom would you expect anyone to take your argument as remotely credible?  Of course FE in general falls to the same critique.

You might as well be claiming that there are Amazon women on the moon!

If you can't figure out how to post in the upper, don't post in the upper.

It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.   I thought my post was well within rule 3 about being on topic including "...the natural progression thereof" given the conversation about what Tom is claiming.

[Pete Svarrior]

It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.

If you cannot figure out why providing no content other than an IMDB link to Amazon Women on the Moon is not in line with a well-spirited debate, then you are beyond help and should be ejected immediately. If you do understand why it's not OK, then you've got your final chance to behave.

[AATW]

I pointed out that planets and asteroids would not use gravitationally selective two body problems or mathematical cheats when traversing the solar system.

This is correct, but irrelevant.

You don't have a working model that can exist without these cheats.

It isn't a "cheat" to simplify intractable or complex problems into simpler solvable ones. This is a perfectly valid technique in science and engineering so long as the simplification is a good enough approximation of the reality. It demonstrably works - the Curiosity rover is sitting on Mars, your GPS works, the eclipse paths are predicted down to block level.

This sentence is hard to take seriously from someone who claims to believe in a model with no agreed map. While in the real world goods and people are transported around the globe on a daily basis, you are reduced to claiming that the distance from New York to Paris is "unknown" and that planes don't know how fast they're going. My gut feeling is that you don't believe any of this - you have alluded in the past to treating this place as a debating society. So you are probably debating from a viewpoint you don't hold as an intellectual exercise. Which is fine up to a point, but it becomes tiresome when you resort to such intellectual dishonesty. With a straight face you claim that the n-body problem is a "gotcha" for mainstream science, refusing to understand that it can be and has been modelled as multiple 2 body problems very successfully. Meanwhile you have a Wiki page about EA which has an equation on with no derivation, contains an unknown constant and has no predictive power or any practical use at all. Science is always open to new models replacing old ones, but the new one has to be better. Yours demonstrably isn't. If you can't find a working map - and we both know why that isn't possible - and you can't decide how many poles there are then it's hard to take any of your criticisms of mainstream science or claims to have discovered a better model seriously.

[ohplease]

It would be helpful if you can be a bit more specific.

If you cannot figure out why providing no content other than an IMDB link to Amazon Women on the Moon is not in line with a well-spirited debate, then you are beyond help and should be ejected immediately. If you do understand why it's not OK, then you've got your final chance to behave.

The content I provided was my question to Tom.  The imdb link was just a little humor, which obviously you did not appreciate.  ok point taken.

[BillO]

... refusing to understand that it can be and has been modelled as multiple 2 body problems very successfully.

You are making the very same error that Tom is.  When N-body problems are simulated they DO NOT use multiple 2-body problems.  That method is only used to approximate an analytical solution.  For simulation you do not need a an analytic solution to the differential equations.  The equations for each object are simultaneously integrated numerically in a piecewise or discrete fashion and allowed to evolve.  This is NOT multiple 2-body problems.

[AATW]

Noted, and thanks for the correction.
My point was more around Tom’s intellectual dishonesty. However it’s modelled, the fact is it is modelled very successfully with practical and demonstrable results. Turn your GPS on. Look in the sky at the right time and observe the ISS - with decent optics you can observe its shape. Look at the predictions of eclipse paths  and compare them to on the ground observations.
These are all testable results of our accurate model of the solar system.

Tom learns there is no analytic solution, misunderstands that (possibly deliberately) and argues it’s a glaring omission in the RE model. All while defending a model which doesn’t have a working map - to the point where they can’t agree whether there is one pole or two. And has EA as part of its model, the flaws of which I’ve highlighted above.

Newer models have replaced older models many times in history. Globe earth replaced flat earth, the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one, Relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics as a more complete model of gravity. In each case the new model yielded better and more accurate results. FE doesn’t do that, there is no coherent working FE model which has any predictive power. Tom repeatedly defends this model, pointing out splinters in RE’s eye (which are often imagined) while ignoring the planks in his own.

[BillO]

Indeed.

If they don't like Newtonian mechanics what would they think of GR and QM?  In GR only abut 20 solutions are know to exist, yet the many approximations we have are so good they explain many of the things we see in the cosmos.  It reveals a lot about how the universe is made up and we can deduce myriad things from that.  QM does not give exact answers either.  All it provides is the probability that something is going to be in any given state at any given time.  Yet that has allowed us to build nearly all the technology we have today.  If Tom (and the Fake Earth community in general) can't get their head around F=Gm₁m₂/r² and F=ma and are not satisfied with us being able to calculate orbits to 30 decimal places of accuracy to the point of claiming our universe can't exit. how then can he believe in his computer and the internet which come to us courtesy of probabilities, "guesswork" and insights with no analytic answers at all.  Yet here he is, using those things he can't possibly understand or believe in every day to disseminate his misinformation from his closet.

[ohplease]

Such wild inconsistencies are not limited to Tom but seem fundamental to the FE view.  Tron claims space craft exist (JWST, Voyager, etc) but does not acknowledge that all launches depend on RE physics.  The real question is whether anyone actually thinks the earth is flat or if its all a sort of trolling or self deception?  There might be some trolling going on here (claiming a position that you do not actually hold), but the shape of the earth is not something that matters to most people's lives so self deception might be in play even more.

If one genuinely thought that the earth was flat clearly they are not going to be employed where that does not work (long haul airline pilot, geographer, GPS engineer, NASA-pretty-much-anything, etc).  But traveling to the corner store is going to work no matter what global map you claim.  People can hold that GPS is somehow based on ground stations, that we know can not be the case, and still use it.  They can point their Sat TV dish at the location of the geosynchronous satellite and tell themselves the signal is bouncing off the dome.  They can claim a vast global conspiracy of 100s of thousands if not millions yet all keeping totally silent for decades, again as it does not impact their day to day life.  I'm guessing that such folks are drawn to the view of themselves of not accepting the standard model everyone else acknowledges.  That they like the self image of being one that thinks way way outside the box and doing so for the shape of the earth does not involve any changes to your daily life for most folks.

The impact is to our civilization where folks holding clearly false notions about reality is a worrisome trend.  Not so much for FE/RE but for elections, pandemics, climate change etc it does matter.  If that can not be resolved even for the shape of the earth how can we do so for other domains that are even more impactful yet require more trust of experts than FE/RE and are more vulnerable to vested interests than FE/RE?

[existoid]

If universal gravitation cannot be simulated then it doesn't work.

We cannot simulate the human brain (i.e., a brain that has all the qualities of a human brain but that is not biological). I'm pretty sure my brain works, though I do agree that not everyone's brains work