Why does astronomical software work?

Yes, which is all I've been saying. The point is just that with the argument the OP provided it still gives no way to distinguish between FET and RET given it is still just the prediction of predictable events. Sure, maybe if you compare explanations

No, that is quite different to what you were saying, and you contradicted it here again.
The point is that it isn't simply predicting based upon past occurances and pattern matching. It is based upon the model used to explain the motion.
This is what you are repeatedly ignoring.

Again, that's why something happens, not what happens.

And there you go ignoring the point yet again.
Without having any idea of the forces involved you stand no chance at predicting what a new object will do.

Actually seems to be yours. I just take part in discussions.

Where?
You seem to continually bitch and moan about people making bad arguments pretending that FE can do things just fine.
I am yet to see actually provide anything constructive in discussion, at least recently.

When you would rather object to the tiniest things just because I dare criticise a bad RE argument

No, because you blatantly misrepresent a good RE argument pretending it is bad with no justification and repeatedly ignoring why it is a good argument.

I prefer to take part in discussions I haven't had a hundred times before

Then keep out of the ones you have had before rather than just bitching that you don't like the argument.

Which is all the more reason to not shred your credibility by dedicating this much time to bad arguments that you need to completely twist around and remake to get any semblance of a point from.

Again, the point is there just fine. You are the one manipulating the argument to pretend it is bad to pretend the FEers aren't as bad as we make them seem.

...No, I just point them out. This is how a debate site works. Seriously, why do you get so touchy about this?

No it isn't.
In debates you need to justify your claims and respond to what people say rather than the pathetic strawmen you continually construct.

Stop confusing what happens with why it happens, and stop relying so heavily on bad arguments; if you can improve them, stick to that, not these awful versions.

Good advice. Perhaps you should try following it some time?
The software in question using math based upon WHY things happen, with a round Earth, to predict the motion and thus apparent position of objects.
This makes perfect sense under RET, but no sense at all under the multitude of FE models.

Perhaps you can stop pretending it is just a case of pattern matching.

Again, I am not denying it.

That's right, you are just blatantly ignoring it.
Unless you have some idea of why the planets move the way they do, you have no hope at all of telling that there is some unknown body affecting them.
Instead all you would have (in the best case) is a pattern of where it appears.

i do love an argument

Is it really an argument when it's just someone repeating intentionally antagonistic nonsense in the vain hope of getting someone to pay attention to him?

Quote from: flatty on March 22, 2018, 07:35:37 AM

i do love an argument

Is it really an argument when it's just someone repeating intentionally antagonistic nonsense in the vain hope of getting someone to pay attention to him?

You're a guy?
Or are you saying you are repeating your intentionally antagonistic nonsense for some other reason?

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 05:53:43 AM

I simply cannot fathom why you try to deny that!

Again, I am not denying it. But those movements aren't unpredictable. They are regular, repeating. You don't need to know why there's an effect to be able to take it into account.

Perhaps not, but a good model can help you to take what you do know about the solar system and discover things that you didn't know.  Things like where to look for a potentially new, previously undiscovered planet (like Neptune).

Why does the software I can use right at home, even code myself if I wanted to, work? Why can I use it to predict where Venus will be for example, grab a telescope, and then verify later, every single time?

Because, when you "code yourself if you wanted to", you use Newton's and Kepler's Laws?
Or you use General Relativity?

Which formulas you code in there?

Flat earthers like to say that there's a flat earth "model", but there is no model. If there was a model, they could put it into a computer, and anyone from anywhere in the world could download the program, enter their location, and they could check if it predicts all the astronomical phenomena correctly, like one can do with a real astronomical software. If they can't do that, they don't have a model.

Having different explanations to different observations is not a model. A model is when you have a single explanation for all observations.

Flat earthers like to say that there's a flat earth "model", but there is no model.

There are a multitude of models, all of which contradict reality.

Flat earthers like to say that there's a flat earth "model", but there is no model. If there was a model, they could put it into a computer, and anyone from anywhere in the world could download the program, enter their location, and they could check if it predicts all the astronomical phenomena correctly, like one can do with a real astronomical software. If they can't do that, they don't have a model.

Having different explanations to different observations is not a model. A model is when you have a single explanation for all observations.

Exactly correcto.....people like Jane keep droning on about ‘flat earth models’ that are a total impossibility. Flat earth talk as Jane said is layman speak, in other words not to be taken seriously.

Quote from: Jane on March 22, 2018, 07:13:33 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 05:53:43 AM

I simply cannot fathom why you try to deny that!

Again, I am not denying it. But those movements aren't unpredictable. They are regular, repeating. You don't need to know why there's an effect to be able to take it into account.

Perhaps not, but a good model can help you to take what you do know about the solar system and discover things that you didn't know.  Things like where to look for a potentially new, previously undiscovered planet (like Neptune).

Absolutely, and making predictions like that based on RE knowledge is pretty convincing evidence.
All I'm saying is predicting what you already know is rather less significant. This really didn't merit the fuss it got.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 05:53:43 AM

I simply cannot fathom why you try to deny that!

Again, I am not denying it. But those movements aren't unpredictable. They are regular, repeating. You don't need to know why there's an effect to be able to take it into account.

I am not saying that they cannot be predicted (approximately and a limited time in the future), just that you need to either:

• Understand the rules that govern their motion - either Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation or Einstein's GR or
  
• Observe the motion of the objects concerned for long enough to be able to ascertain this pattern.

But, my claim is that the latter is completely impossible in any reasonable length of time.
Even if the sun we fixed in space, relative to the whole solar system, and we were only considering

• Saturn (orbital period = 10,747 days),
• Uranus (orbital period = 30,589 days) and
• Neptune (orbital period = 59,800 days).

And that is when rounded to whole days. Then there is the eccentricity of each orbit to be determined.
If I am not mistaken it would be 328,739,983 days (or 900060.24 years) for even Saturn and Uranus to return to the same relative positions and that is ignoring the precession of the orbits, which by the way, Newton calculated using his laws and was quite close, except for Mercury!

Now, I am probably exaggerating a bit.
When, however, you consider that Uranus was not discovered till 13 Mar 1781 and Neptune on 23 or 24 Sep 1846, there was less than one orbit of Uranus observed.
How could a "pattern of past history" have been accumulated?
But look at what an astronomer sees. This is from 1939 and the discovery of Pluto, where photography was available.

Clyde Tombaugh: Astronomer Who Discovered Pluto
Not long after its discovery in 1781, the new planet Uranus was found to have strange movements that could only be attributed to another body. Neptune's discovery in 1846 somewhat accounted for the orbit, but there were still discrepancies that led scientists to conclude yet another planet existed.
In 1894, businessman Percival Lowell built Lowell Observatory to study Mars. In 1905, he turned the telescope toward the search for the elusive Planet X, though he died before the new planet could be found.

When Tombaugh was hired in 1929, he joined the search for the missing planet. The telescope at the observatory was equipped with a camera that would take two photographs of the sky on different days.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
On Feb. 18, 1930, Tombaugh noticed movement across the field of a pair of images taken a month beforehand. After studying the object to confirm it, the staff of Lowell Observatory officially announced the discovery of a ninth planet on March 13.

From: Clyde Tombaugh: Astronomer Who Discovered Pluto

And the solar system is not a nice periodic system that runs like clockwork!
In a system controlled by gravitation and the laws of motion with more than two objects can be shown to be chaotic!

So, please desist in this total garbage that you are claiming!

And the solar system is not a nice periodic system that runs like clockwork!
In a system controlled by gravitation and the laws of motion with more than two objects can be shown to be chaotic!

So, please desist in this total garbage that you are claiming!

As I've said before, making predictions is a good argument, I'm not going to argue against that. There was no need to bring up the likes of the discovery of Pluto in this thread when it is nothing to do with the argument the OP made and the claim I am making.
Neptune and Uranus are debatable; Kepler had no idea they existed, and his laws have been a major part of this discussion, fitting said description around observation. Again, there's a good argument from prediction to be made there and I am at a loss as to why you wouldn't just want to make that and be done with this. Unless you're still going to act like that is in any way connected to what I'm actually saying.

If that gets put aside, all you're left with is another couple of objects in the solar system subject to similar forces and with still years of observation to draw from. How did they calculate the eccentricity of the orbits, the speed... did they lock themselves in a cave and guess what figures to plug into the formula, or did they rely on observation? When you have observations based on every other planet in the solar system (noting interactions, behaviour, tendencies...) and something new enters the picture, you can more or less directly observe its speed, and you can deduce the path it's going to take.
You say you need to "Understand the rules that govern their motion," in order to model behaviour, which is true to a point, but in truth you just need to understand the consequences of those rules. They're all that are going to have an effect. It is an insult to act as though scientists are useless when they don't just have a formula to plug values into.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 05:12:25 PM

And the solar system is not a nice periodic system that runs like clockwork!
In a system controlled by gravitation and the laws of motion with more than two objects can be shown to be chaotic!

So, please desist in this total garbage that you are claiming!

As I've said before, making predictions is a good argument, I'm not going to argue against that. There was no need to bring up the likes of the discovery of Pluto in this thread when it is nothing to do with the argument the OP made and the claim I am making.
Neptune and Uranus are debatable; Kepler had no idea they existed, and his laws have been a major part of this discussion, fitting said description around observation.

I only mentioned Kepler a few times and never in connection with Uranus or Neptune.
I'll grant you the Kepler "derived" his laws by "curve fitting" (more likely a case of "if Copernicus's orbit won't work, let's try ellipses.")
And he found a few observations that "didn't quite fit", presumably because we know that Kepler's Laws strictly apply only to 2 two-body problem.

Again, there's a good argument from prediction to be made there and I am at a loss as to why you wouldn't just want to make that and be done with this. Unless you're still going to act like that is in any way connected to what I'm actually saying.

If that gets put aside, all you're left with is another couple of objects in the solar system subject to similar forces and with still years of observation to draw from.

You say "still years of observation to draw from", as though it is a lot of data but fail to realise that the orbital periods of these planets is so long.
For Saturn the orbital period is 29.4 years, Uranus, 83.7 years and Neptune, 163.6 years.
Suddenly your "with still years of observation to draw from" does not mean much. Astronomers need these functional relationships provided by these "Laws of Physics".

That is why Newton's work resulted in such an upsurge in astronomy and other sciences..

How did they calculate the eccentricity of the orbits, the speed... did they lock themselves in a cave and guess what figures to plug into the formula, or did they rely on observation? When you have observations based on every other planet in the solar system (noting interactions, behaviour, tendencies...) and something new enters the picture, you can more or less directly observe its speed, and you can deduce the path it's going to take.

You cannot just "note interactions"! How does the astronomer know that a certain motion is caused by some interaction and not just part of the unperturbed orbit when no unperturbed orbit has ever been observed.

You say you need to "Understand the rules that govern their motion," in order to model behaviour, which is true to a point, but in truth you just need to understand the consequences of those rules. They're all that are going to have an effect. It is an insult to act as though scientists are useless when they don't just have a formula to plug values into.

I am not "insulting scientists" in the slightest! Where do you think that these scientists (astronomers) got their "formula to plug values into" from?

These days one might do a massive multi-variable optimisation and come up with a heuristic "expression".
But even that would require a massive set of observation data.

Back in the years we are talking about, that was not possible! Yes, I guess that you could say that "they . . . . have a formula to plug values into", but that "formula" has to be based on something and that "something" is the Newtonian Laws.

However much you try to deny it, that "formula to plug values into" is not pulled out of thin air, but was based on Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion.
Many observations are needed to find the relevant masses (as multiples of the earth's mass initially) and distances so that the orbital parameters can be determined.

But to claim that all this could be done without reference to those basic "Laws of Physics" is totally unreasonable.

If you refuse to believe me at least believe the words of astronomer:

. . . . .

Quote

Discovery of Neptune
By 1847, the planet Uranus had completed nearly one full orbit since its discovery by William Herschel in 1781, and astronomers had detected a series of irregularities in its path that could not be entirely explained by Newton's law of gravitation. These irregularities could, however, be resolved if the gravity of a farther, unknown planet were disturbing its path around the Sun. In 1845, astronomers Urbain Le Verrier in Paris and John Couch Adams in Cambridge separately began calculations to determine the nature and position of such a planet. Le Verrier's success also led to a tense international dispute over priority, because shortly after the discovery George Airy, at the time British Astronomer Royal, announced that Adams had also predicted the discovery of the planet.Nevertheless, the Royal Society awarded Le Verrier the Copley medal in 1846 for his achievement, without mention of Adams.

These irregularities could only be detected because the orbit could be predicted by Newton's Laws which FEers deny!

Note: "astronomers had detected a series of irregularities in its path that could not be entirely explained by Newton's law of gravitation. These irregularities could, however, be resolved if the gravity of a farther, unknown planet were disturbing its path around the Sun."
And from the same source 

Irregularities in Uranus's orbit
In 1821, Alexis Bouvard had published astronomical tables of the orbit of Uranus, making predictions of future positions based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. Subsequent observations revealed substantial deviations from the tables, leading Bouvard to hypothesize some perturbing body. These irregularities or "residuals", both in the planet's ecliptic longitude and in its distance from the Sun, or radius vector, might be explained by a number of hypotheses: the effect of the Sun's gravity, at such a great distance might differ from Newton's description; or the discrepancies might simply be observational error; or perhaps Uranus was being pulled, or perturbed, by an as-yet undiscovered planet.

I do believe that is exactly how I said these predictions were done.

So, again stop wasting everybody's time by claiming that all these planetary motions could be predicted so easily without knowing the laws that govern their motion.

If that gets put aside, all you're left with is another couple of objects in the solar system

The key distinction is what makes up the solar system. In the RE model you have that fine, you have the sun, the planets and a bit more.
The stars are then vastly different.

But in the FE model, the stars are right near the planets.
So if you find something new, should it act like a star or a planet?

and something new enters the picture, you can more or less directly observe its speed, and you can deduce the path it's going to take.

Not really. Not when all you know is its angular position, not its absolute position.
You need to know where it is in relation to the other planets.

It is an insult to act as though scientists are useless when they don't just have a formula to plug values into.

No one here is suggesting that.
It is an insult to pretend the FE has any capability to predict the motion of objects, especially knew ones, when the FE models can't even predict the apparent position of the sun.

I do believe that is exactly how I said these predictions were done.

Thank you for ignoring everyone word I said, it really makes it all worth it.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 09:46:33 PM

I do believe that is exactly how I said these predictions were done.

Thank you for ignoring everyone word I said, it really makes it all worth it.

Why will you refuse to admit that Newton's Laws are necessary to make these predictions?
You might read, Numerical model of the Solar System.

If you call the following "ignoring everyone word" you "said", then I give up!

Quote from: Jane on March 22, 2018, 07:22:24 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 22, 2018, 05:12:25 PM

And the solar system is not a nice periodic system that runs like clockwork!
In a system controlled by gravitation and the laws of motion with more than two objects can be shown to be chaotic!

So, please desist in this total garbage that you are claiming!

As I've said before, making predictions is a good argument, I'm not going to argue against that. There was no need to bring up the likes of the discovery of Pluto in this thread when it is nothing to do with the argument the OP made and the claim I am making.
Neptune and Uranus are debatable; Kepler had no idea they existed, and his laws have been a major part of this discussion, fitting said description around observation.

I only mentioned Kepler a few times and never in connection with Uranus or Neptune.
I'll grant you the Kepler "derived" his laws by "curve fitting" (more likely a case of "if Copernicus's orbit won't work, let's try ellipses.")
And he found a few observations that "didn't quite fit", presumably because we know that Kepler's Laws strictly apply only to 2 two-body problem.

Quote from: Jane

Again, there's a good argument from prediction to be made there and I am at a loss as to why you wouldn't just want to make that and be done with this. Unless you're still going to act like that is in any way connected to what I'm actually saying.

If that gets put aside, all you're left with is another couple of objects in the solar system subject to similar forces and with still years of observation to draw from.

You say "still years of observation to draw from", as though it is a lot of data but fail to realise that the orbital periods of these planets is so long.
For Saturn the orbital period is 29.4 years, Uranus, 83.7 years and Neptune, 163.6 years.
Suddenly your "with still years of observation to draw from" does not mean much. Astronomers need these functional relationships provided by these "Laws of Physics".

That is why Newton's work resulted in such an upsurge in astronomy and other sciences..

Quote from: Jane

How did they calculate the eccentricity of the orbits, the speed... did they lock themselves in a cave and guess what figures to plug into the formula, or did they rely on observation? When you have observations based on every other planet in the solar system (noting interactions, behaviour, tendencies...) and something new enters the picture, you can more or less directly observe its speed, and you can deduce the path it's going to take.

You cannot just "note interactions"! How does the astronomer know that a certain motion is caused by some interaction and not just part of the unperturbed orbit when no unperturbed orbit has ever been observed.

Quote from: Jane

You say you need to "Understand the rules that govern their motion," in order to model behaviour, which is true to a point, but in truth you just need to understand the consequences of those rules. They're all that are going to have an effect. It is an insult to act as though scientists are useless when they don't just have a formula to plug values into.

I am not "insulting scientists" in the slightest! Where do you think that these scientists (astronomers) got their "formula to plug values into" from?

These days one might do a massive multi-variable optimisation and come up with a heuristic "expression".
But even that would require a massive set of observation data.

Back in the years we are talking about, that was not possible! Yes, I guess that you could say that "they . . . . have a formula to plug values into", but that "formula" has to be based on something and that "something" is the Newtonian Laws.

However much you try to deny it, that "formula to plug values into" is not pulled out of thin air, but was based on Newton's Laws of Gravitation and Motion.
Many observations are needed to find the relevant masses (as multiples of the earth's mass initially) and distances so that the orbital parameters can be determined.

But to claim that all this could be done without reference to those basic "Laws of Physics" is totally unreasonable.

If you refuse to believe me at least believe the words of astronomer:

Quote from: rabinoz on March 21, 2018, 05:51:32 PM

. . . . .

Quote

Discovery of Neptune
By 1847, the planet Uranus had completed nearly one full orbit since its discovery by William Herschel in 1781, and astronomers had detected a series of irregularities in its path that could not be entirely explained by Newton's law of gravitation. These irregularities could, however, be resolved if the gravity of a farther, unknown planet were disturbing its path around the Sun. In 1845, astronomers Urbain Le Verrier in Paris and John Couch Adams in Cambridge separately began calculations to determine the nature and position of such a planet. Le Verrier's success also led to a tense international dispute over priority, because shortly after the discovery George Airy, at the time British Astronomer Royal, announced that Adams had also predicted the discovery of the planet.Nevertheless, the Royal Society awarded Le Verrier the Copley medal in 1846 for his achievement, without mention of Adams.

These irregularities could only be detected because the orbit could be predicted by Newton's Laws which FEers deny!

Note: "astronomers had detected a series of irregularities in its path that could not be entirely explained by Newton's law of gravitation. These irregularities could, however, be resolved if the gravity of a farther, unknown planet were disturbing its path around the Sun."
And from the same source 

Quote

Irregularities in Uranus's orbit
In 1821, Alexis Bouvard had published astronomical tables of the orbit of Uranus, making predictions of future positions based on Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. Subsequent observations revealed substantial deviations from the tables, leading Bouvard to hypothesize some perturbing body. These irregularities or "residuals", both in the planet's ecliptic longitude and in its distance from the Sun, or radius vector, might be explained by a number of hypotheses: the effect of the Sun's gravity, at such a great distance might differ from Newton's description; or the discrepancies might simply be observational error; or perhaps Uranus was being pulled, or perturbed, by an as-yet undiscovered planet.

I do believe that is exactly how I said these predictions were done.

So, again stop wasting everybody's time by claiming that all these planetary motions could be predicted so easily without knowing the laws that govern their motion.

If you call the following "ignoring everyone word" you "said", then I give up!

Well, yes. You are still trying to make it about the discovery of Neptune, ignoring the explanations I gave, and you are constantly completely ignoring the difference between what and why.

If your way of defending an argument (in this case modelling where planets and stars appear) is to bring up an entirely different argument (predictions specifically from RET, such as Neptune) then that is a good indication the argument doesn't work on its own merits.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 23, 2018, 05:40:55 AM

If you call the following "ignoring everyone word" you "said", then I give up!

Well, yes. You are still trying to make it about the discovery of Neptune, ignoring the explanations I gave, and you are constantly completely ignoring the difference between what and why.

If your way of defending an argument (in this case modelling where planets and stars appear) is to bring up an entirely different argument (predictions specifically from RET, such as Neptune) then that is a good indication the argument doesn't work on its own merits.

Is not that people ignore what you say it’s more that they fundamentally disagree with the points you make, thinking you’re  basically wrong, which of course you are.
It all boils down to the false agenda you continually want to pursue, which ignores the facts.
If you examine the history of astronomy you will soon discover calculations played a pivotal role , as in the discovery of Neptune, which has been mentioned. No observations were ever made before the calculations that proved both its  existence and where it could be observed. What was it that prompted the calculations in the first place? The aberrations in the orbits of the other planets due to the gravitational / spacetime effects caused by the mass of Neptune. The orbits of the planets were farther refined by including GR into the mix, especially for Mercury which can not be explained any other way.....that of course makes sense.
The facts are derived from models and theories that FEers abhor, evenalthough they deliver consistent, accurate and repeatable results. FE belief not only blinds people to the truth it  has no alternate models or theories that can deliver the same  accurate results nor predict the movement of any heavenly body, or anything else for that matter.
I think that’s why people disregard what you say.

Is not that people ignore what you say it’s more that they fundamentally disagree with the points you make, thinking you’re  basically wrong, which of course you are.

if that was the case they should be able to say so without insisting I'm making points I am demonstrably not.

If you examine the history of astronomy you will soon discover calculations played a pivotal role , as in the discovery of Neptune, which has been mentioned. No observations were ever made before the calculations that proved both its  existence and where it could be observed. What was it that prompted the calculations in the first place?
...
The facts are derived from models and theories that FEers abhor, evenalthough they deliver consistent, accurate and repeatable results.

Like all this. You do realise that not only do I agree with this, but I have specifically defended this earlier in this thread?
The problem is that is not the argument the OP was making.
You are absolutely ignoring every word I said if you act as though repeating something I have already said I agree with somehow refutes me. One of these days it'd be great if you could make an argument without insisting I was making claims I never made and specifically repudiated.

Good argument - pointing out predictions of unknown factors such as Neptune, comparing quality of explanations...
Bad argument - pointing out a repeating system is predictable.

Does this really need to be laboured so much? Instead of getting so ridiculously touchy at the slightest hint that not everything an REer says is an untouchable argument, let the bad ones die and stick to the good. You are evidently happy referring to how scientists calculated the existence of Neptune before they saw it, why do you need to prop that up with this nonsense? It works just fine by itself.

If your way of defending an argument (in this case modelling where planets and stars appear) is to bring up an entirely different argument (predictions specifically from RET, such as Neptune) then that is a good indication the argument doesn't work on its own merits.

You are aware they are the same argument?
It isn't just modelling. It is modelling and predicting where the planets would be.

We were even able to predict where a planet was before observing it.

The problem is that is not the argument the OP was making.

It is not the specific argument the OP is making, but it is included in it.
The OP made the argument that models which involve a RE are capable of predicting the apparent location of objects in the universe as viewed from any point on Earth.

You have repeatedly ignored this and acted like it is just a case of being able to notice a pattern.

Does this really need to be laboured so much?

No, you could just stop being so arrogant and admit you were wrong and move on.
Pointing out that we can predict the location of objects based upon models indicates that these models are likely correct.
You are yet to show how it is just a simple repeatinging phenomenon nor how FE can predict the apparent location of any of object.

Instead of getting so ridiculously touchy at the slightest hint that not everything an REer says is an untouchable argument, let the bad ones die and stick to the good.

And perhaps instead of you getting so touchy at people pointing out you are misrepresenting arguments to pretend they are bad you admit you were wrong and move on?

The OP is a good argument. You are yet to show any actual problem with it. All you have done is blatantly misrepresent it and pretend you can just predict where the planets would be based upon patterns, even after admitting they don't follow those simple patterns. You have also completely ignored a key part, telling where they will be from anywhere on Earth.

Just because an argument isn't the best possible argument doesn't mean it is a bad argument.
Just because you think an argument is a bad argument doesn't mean it is.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 23, 2018, 05:40:55 AM

If you call the following "ignoring everyone word" you "said", then I give up!

Well, yes. You are still trying to make it about the discovery of Neptune, ignoring the explanations I gave, and you are constantly completely ignoring the difference between what and why.

If your way of defending an argument (in this case modelling where planets and stars appear) is to bring up an entirely different argument (predictions specifically from RET, such as Neptune) then that is a good indication the argument doesn't work on its own merits.

The topic happens to be "Why does astronomical software work?" and the OP is:

In order to accept many versions of Flat Earth Theory, I understand that you're required to dispense with a lot of the Newtonian physical laws that govern the Round Earth conventional model of the cosmos. Most noticeably, the law of gravity. If gravity exists the way science understands it, planets naturally coalesce into some approximation of a sphere. This does not logically reconcile with having a flat earth.

I just downloaded Stellarium today and a thought occurred to me. If the Flat Earth Model is correct, why then am I able to accurately predict the positions of planets and stars using Stellarium, which itself is coded using Kepler's laws, which themselves necessarily rely on the concept of gravity and by extension spherical planets?

Before you go and say that the programmers are in on the conspiracy, there are plenty of open source alternatives. Anyone who understands code can look under the hood and see that these programs run on the Round Earth mathematical models and generate accurate, verifiable predictions of how celestial bodies behave.

Forget about NASA, forget about GPS, satellites, any alleged such fakery. Why does the software I can use right at home, even code myself if I wanted to, work? Why can I use it to predict where Venus will be for example, grab a telescope, and then verify later, every single time?

In which the main theme seems to be: "In order to accept many versions of Flat Earth Theory, I understand that you're required to dispense with a lot of the Newtonian physical laws that govern the Round Earth conventional model of the cosmos."
and "Why does the software I can use right at home, even code myself if I wanted to, work? Why can I use it to predict where Venus will be for example, grab a telescope, and then verify later, every single time?"

He asks "Why?" and the simple answer is "that software uses Newton's Laws.
It does not use a system of fitting things to observe patterns as you seem to trying to assert, presumably trying to prop up the feasibility of a "flat earth astronomy".

The nearest I will go to accepting your ideas was that the Ptolemeaic, Copernician, Tychonian and even Kepler's models were based on fitting to patterns to observations.
This approach did not work very well, though Kepler's solar system was close for the inner planets, when the two body approximation is close.

But predicting the location of planets since Newton's time has not been done that way.
Read again: Numerical model of the Solar System which contains:

Older efforts
The simulations can be done in either Cartesian or in spherical coordinates. The former are easier, but extremely calculation intensive, and only practical on an electronic computer. As such only the latter was used in former times. Strictly speaking not much less calculation intensive, but it was possible to start with some simple approximations and then to add perturbations, as much as needed to reach the wanted accuracy.

In essence this mathematical simulation of the Solar System is a form of the N-body problem. The symbol N represents the number of bodies, which can grow quite large if one includes 1 sun, 8 planets, dozens of moons and countless planetoids, comets and so forth. However the influence of the sun on any other body is so large, and the influence of all the other bodies on each other so small that the problem can be reduced to the analytically solvable 2-body problem. The result for each planet is an orbit, a simple description of its position as function of time. Once this is solved the influences moons and planets have on each other are added as small corrections. These are small compared to a full planetary orbit. Some corrections might be still several degrees large, while measurements can be made to an accuracy of better than 1″.

Although this method is no longer used for simulations, it is still useful to find an approximate ephemeris as one can take the relatively simple main solution, perhaps add a few of the largest perturbations, and arrive without too much effort at the wanted planetary position. The disadvantage is that perturbation theory is very advanced mathematics.

Modern method
The modern method consists of numerical integration in 3-dimensional space. One starts with a high accuracy value for the position (x, y, z) and the velocity (vx, vy, vz) for each of the bodies involved. When also the mass of each body is known, the acceleration (ax, ay, az) can be calculated from Newton's Law of Gravitation. Each body attracts each other body, the total acceleration being the sum of all these attractions. Next one chooses a small time-step Δt and applies Newton's Second Law of Motion. The acceleration multiplied with Δt gives a correction to the velocity. The velocity multiplied with Δt gives a correction to the position. This procedure is repeated for all other bodies.

The result is a new value for position and velocity for all bodies. Then, using these new values one starts over the whole calculation for the next time-step Δt. Repeating this procedure often enough, and one ends up with a description of the positions of all bodies over time.

The advantage of this method is that for a computer it is a very easy job to do, and it yields highly accurate results for all bodies at the same time, doing away with the complex and difficult procedures for determining perturbations. The disadvantage is that one must start with highly accurate figures in the first place, or the results will drift away from the reality in time; that one gets x, y, z positions which are often first to be transformed into more practical ecliptical or equatorial coordinates before they can be used; and that it is an all or nothing approach. If one wants to know the position of one planet on one particular time, then all other planets and all intermediate time-steps are to be calculated too.

But all based on Newtonian Mechanics.

Quote from: Lonegranger on March 23, 2018, 11:05:41 AM

Is not that people ignore what you say it’s more that they fundamentally disagree with the points you make, thinking you’re  basically wrong, which of course you are.

if that was the case they should be able to say so without insisting I'm making points I am demonstrably not.

Quote

If you examine the history of astronomy you will soon discover calculations played a pivotal role , as in the discovery of Neptune, which has been mentioned. No observations were ever made before the calculations that proved both its  existence and where it could be observed. What was it that prompted the calculations in the first place?
...
The facts are derived from models and theories that FEers abhor, evenalthough they deliver consistent, accurate and repeatable results.

Like all this. You do realise that not only do I agree with this, but I have specifically defended this earlier in this thread?
The problem is that is not the argument the OP was making.
You are absolutely ignoring every word I said if you act as though repeating something I have already said I agree with somehow refutes me. One of these days it'd be great if you could make an argument without insisting I was making claims I never made and specifically repudiated.

Good argument - pointing out predictions of unknown factors such as Neptune, comparing quality of explanations...
Bad argument - pointing out a repeating system is predictable.

Does this really need to be laboured so much? Instead of getting so ridiculously touchy at the slightest hint that not everything an REer says is an untouchable argument, let the bad ones die and stick to the good. You are evidently happy referring to how scientists calculated the existence of Neptune before they saw it, why do you need to prop that up with this nonsense? It works just fine by itself.

Do you remember saying this:

“The hard part's why it happens, not what happens. RET says gravity, but there is nothing that would stop you, if you had the skills, of programming in a disc and programming in movements as observed. Once you've got that all you need to do is come up with rules, and you'd have a fully functioning FE equivalent.”.......you think!

And this:

“Just watch it, take note of how long it takes for it to complete a revolution of the Sun, do the same for the Earth (or whatever the equivalent to a revolution is), then starting from one transit you've got a simple enough way to find all successive transits.”.........tell that to an astronomer!

And this:

“Yes, I'm saying that, and I'm pretty sure you're the only person confused by that. It takes 89.7 days for Mercury to rotate around the Sun once. The mathematics as to why that happens is complicated, but the reason they knew there was more to the maths is because they were perfectly capable of observing what was going on. ” ?

And this:

“Sure, it's a little tricky, but you don't need any Kepler's laws based model, just a few observations of relative position. You'd know how the Sun looks from Earth relative to the stars, you'd know the same for Mercury, using those as landmarks...
The FE analogue would technically be the Sun's path over the Earth rather than the Earth's around the Sun, but the basic principle is still the same.” FE analogue!.....for what!

And you wonder why people disagree with you! There is no, and could never be any FE analogue for anything as it’s pure fantasy. The fact that you keep beating on that irrational drum bending over backwards to give FE thought some kind of legitimacy is where the problems start. There is no FE thought that has any legitimacy, never has it made any discoveries, made predictions or farthered human knowledge. How could it as it’s just a pile of  nonsensical bullshit. There is also no such thing as a RE model. There is just A model that has been developed and modified over the past few hundred years in the light of new knowledge which has been proven time and time again to deliver consistent and accurate results. I think that’s why people constantly disagree with your apologists stance.

Also just read the footer..your explanation of a possible method of powering the universe!..your words! The dismissive sentiment behind them, treating people as though they are fools is another reason why people disagree with you.

.......you think!

........tell that to an astronomer!

And this:

?

And this:

FE analogue!.....for what!

Do you have an actual point to make?

I think that’s why people constantly disagree with your apologists stance.

And as I have pointed out far, far, far too many times to you, that is not what I'm doing. You really need to start learning the difference between defending FET and not defending bad arguments for RET.

Quote from: Lonegranger on March 23, 2018, 03:20:13 PM

.......you think!

........tell that to an astronomer!

And this:

?

And this:

FE analogue!.....for what!

Do you have an actual point to make?

Quote

I think that’s why people constantly disagree with your apologists stance.

And as I have pointed out far, far, far too many times to you, that is not what I'm doing. You really need to start learning the difference between defending FET and not defending bad arguments for RET.

I think your response speaks volumes.
Read your words......it was you who put them forward for the world to read....how could @ny rational person ever agree with you?

In order to accept many versions of Flat Earth Theory, I understand that you're required to dispense with a lot of the Newtonian physical laws that govern the Round Earth conventional model of the cosmos. Most noticeably, the law of gravity. If gravity exists the way science understands it, planets naturally coalesce into some approximation of a sphere. This does not logically reconcile with having a flat earth.

I just downloaded Stellarium today and a thought occurred to me. If the Flat Earth Model is correct, why then am I able to accurately predict the positions of planets and stars using Stellarium, which itself is coded using Kepler's laws, which themselves necessarily rely on the concept of gravity and by extension spherical planets?

Before you go and say that the programmers are in on the conspiracy, there are plenty of open source alternatives. Anyone who understands code can look under the hood and see that these programs run on the Round Earth mathematical models and generate accurate, verifiable predictions of how celestial bodies behave.

Forget about NASA, forget about GPS, satellites, any alleged such fakery. Why does the software I can use right at home, even code myself if I wanted to, work? Why can I use it to predict where Venus will be for example, grab a telescope, and then verify later, every single time?

As you will have witnessed on this thread, rather than deal with the topic head on FE thinkers and their apologists have to distort both facts and even history to suit their agenda.
Why? Because they have no other course of a 5ion open to them.
They have no alternative model that can be tested and stood up to scrutiny or used to make predictions all they have is a pile of conspiracy driven ideas that have zero merit.