Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Or is this your way of telling everyone that you are actually a REer?
That's my conclusion, if you go through Tom's posts he only ever puts forward RE evidence, the wiki is full of it. Despite being asked on numerous occasions he cant produce anything even half way FE.
Anything that contradicts RE often supports FE.
Galaxies which are supposedly millions of light years away from each other move in synchronized patterns that cannot be explained, contradicting the concept of a large universe.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/something-strange-synchronizing-distant-galaxies
Something Very Strange Seems to Be Synchronizing Distant Galaxies
“ Galaxies millions of light years away seem to be connected by an unseen network of massive intergalactic structures, which force them to synchronize in ways that can’t be explained by existing astrophysics, Vice reports. The discoveries could force us to rethink our fundamental understanding of the universe.
“The observed coherence must have some relationship with large-scale structures, because it is impossible that the galaxies separated by six megaparsecs [roughly 20 million light years] directly interact with each other,” Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute astronomer Hyeop Lee told the site.
In Sync
There have been many instances of astronomers observing galaxies that seem to be connected and moving in sync with each other. A study by Lee, published in The Astrophysical Journal in October, found that hundreds of galaxies are rotating in exactly the same way, despite being millions of light years apart.
And a separate study, published in the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics in 2014, found supermassive black holes aligning with each other, despite being billions of light years apart.
Spooky Action
While current cosmological principles support the alignment and movement of ancient stars at a smaller scale, astronomers are puzzled by the much, much larger patterns across vast distances.
But before they can draw any conclusions, they’ll need more data — the body of work is still limited, as Vice points out. ”
This clearly contradicts the RE concept of a large universe, while also supporting the FE small universe. It is stated that it cannot be explained by existing physics.
Yet, when confronted with things like this we have people posting one liners on an online forum with zero supporting sources, thinking that they personally "explained" or "solved" great problems in Astrophysics.
Or is this your way of telling everyone that you are actually a REer?
Hey Flattards! This is what you look like!
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star? Physicists say that 400 years of research has shown that only very special symmetrical configurations can exist.
It has already been proven dynamically that the system imagined by Copernicus is unfeasible. Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?
You are about 80 years out of date chap.
You provided links your self that contained integration solutions, you need to understand the problem to recognise the work that has been done in this area, and continues, to drive down the tiny error factor.
Leave FE to people who actually believe the world is flat.
It was asked that you demonstrate that your own opinion is true on the matter through an authorative quote about the three body problem from mainstream, which you have failed to do.
You should debate by assuming that your own opinion is trash. If all you can give us is trash, then it will be discarded as trash.
Why should we believe in RET when its proponents are unable to do a Google search and find a single quote showing that it is possible for a planet with a moon to revolve around a star? Physicists say that 400 years of research has shown that only very special symmetrical configurations can exist.
It has already been proven dynamically that the system imagined by Copernicus is unfeasible. Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?
I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.
I am still waiting for this from anyone who thinks that RE has a working model.
According the communist propaganda at the time the spacecraft landed softly using a parachute, etc. The spacecraft can be seen in Russia. But neither it nor Gagarin were ever in space. It was just communist propaganda to cheer up the comrades.Yes, I have read all stories about re-entries since 1961. The first one was by a communist hero of the Soviet Union. He didn't last long.
Well, he lasted 7 years after first going into to space. He died on 27 March 1968.
And Russia revealed that Yugi Gagarin bailed out and parachuted to Earth breaking the then FAI "astronaut rules".
They were forced to after "Gherman Titov owned up to ejecting himself."Quote from: Cathleen Lewis, Space History DepartmentWhy Yuri Gagarin Remains the First Man in Space, Even Though He Did Not Land Inside His SpacecraftSo Yugi Gagarin and Gherman Titov did go into space and successfully survived the atmospheric re-entry but parachuted to Earth from around 20,000 feet because Russia had not perfected a soft landing on land.
One of the stipulations that the FAI carried over from aviation was that spacecraft pilots, like aircraft pilots should land inside their craft in order for the record to be valid. In the case of aviation, this made perfect sense. No one wanted to encourage pilots to sacrifice themselves for an aviation record. Piloting an aircraft that could not land did nothing to further aeronautical engineering.
When Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth on 12 April 1961, the plan had never been for him to land inside his Vostok spacecraft. His spherical reentry capsule came through the Earth’s atmosphere on a ballistic trajectory. Soviet engineers had not yet perfected a braking system that would slow the craft sufficiently for a human to survive impact. They decided to eject the cosmonaut from his craft. Yuri Gagarin ejected at 20,000 feet and landed safely on Earth.
Soviet engineers had not discussed this shortcoming with Soviet delegates to the FAI prior to his flight. They prepared their documents for the FAI omitting this fact. This led everyone to believe that Gagarin had landed inside his spacecraft. It was not until four months later, when German Titov became the second human to orbit the Earth and the first person to spend a full day in space, when the controversy began to brew. Titov owned up to ejecting himself.
This led to a special meeting of the delegates to the FAI to reexamine Titov’s spaceflight records. The conclusion of the delegates was to rework the parameters of human spaceflight to recognize that the great technological accomplishment of spaceflight was the launch, orbiting and safe return of the human, not the manner in which he or she landed. Gagarin and Titov’s records remained on the FAI books.
No. Quote me what I asked for. You are just linking from the results of random Google searches.
"We show that the d-G3BP yields the correct solutions to the G3BP for two special cases: the equilateral triangle and collinear configurations. For the triangular solution, we use the fact that the solution to the three-body case is a superposition of the solutions to the three two-body cases, and we show that the three bodies maintain the same relative distances at all times. To obtain the collinear solution, we assume a specific permutation of the three bodies arranged along a straight rotating line, and we show that the d-G3BP maintains the same distance ratio between two bodies as in the G3BP. "
This is a SPECIAL solution for an exotic situation. Bodies arranged along a straight rotating line with and which maintain the same distance from each other all times. Bodies likely with all the same mass.
Give me a quote for what was asked, not links.
Just generally speaking here.
Remember, absence of evidence for something is not evidence against it.
The many physicists who state that it doesn't work is evidence against it.I asked you for a quote from a mainstream source describing that the three body problem can contain orbits with bodies of unequal masses, or that it can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system. It appears that you are failing to defend your stance so far.Sure, we know that the "three-body problem" is so far not solvable analytically but so what?
There is no need to solve the n-body problem analytically because it has been simulated numerically for centuries, long before automatic programmable computers.
By 1859 it was known that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit differed from that derived from Newtonian Mechanics by 43 arcseconds per century.
Astronomers were confident of their measurements and calculations to know that "something was missing".
Show us any flat-Earth calculation or prediction made to anything like that precision!
Then the Nautical Almanac, first published in 1766, predicts the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and 57 stars for at least the next 12 months to sufficient accuracy for celestial navigation.
Try that with your flat Earth Cosmology!
So who really cares about your three-bodied problem apart from it being an interesting mathematical enigma?
Actually, Einstein just corrected an epicycle. Epicycles are still the way prediction is performed in astronomy.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005715.pdf
“ The characteristics of movement of the planets determine the entire set of dynamic properties in the solar system. The rotation of the planets around the Sun is subject to Kepler's laws which make it possible to approximately determine the position of the planet on a non-perturbed orbit at any moment of time. In order to transfer from the position closest to a more precise definition (ephemeris of the planet), it is necessary to take into consideration perturbations in motion. These perturbations leading to deviation from the calculated elliptical trajectory (Kepler ellipse) occur as a result of mutual attraction of planets, depending on their position relative to each other and periodically changing with the passage of time. Additional perturbation is detected in the movement of Mercury for which, due to the closeness of the Sun, one must introduce a correction for the shift of the perihelion by 42" in a century; this comes from the general theory of relativity. It is impossible, truly, to exclude the fact that the agreement of these observations with the value of this effect was theoretically predicted by A. Einstein within the limits of error of measurement (=1%) caused, to an equal degree, by the effect of the quadrapole moment of the Sun, taking into consideration in a first approximation, the difference in the external gravitational potential of the Sun from the Newtonian potential for an ideal sphere. ”
Purturbation = Epicycle. See this quote from Charles Lane Poor:
Gravitation Vs. Relativity
Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.
https://archive.org/stream/gravitationvers00chamgoog
“ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”
Perturbations are epicycles with a gravitational disguise. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns
Charles Lane Poor also disagrees that Einstein even made a correct explanation.
Relativity and the Motion of Mercury
Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.
http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3394
From the Introduction: “ Does the relativity theory, as asserted by Einstein, explain and account for even the single motion of tile perihelion of Mercury? In what way do the formulas of relativity differ from those of the classical mathematics of Newton, and how do these new formulas explain this motion? It is the purpose of this paper to discuss this single phase of the matter; to show that the very equations, or formulas, cited by the relativists as furnishing an explanation of this motion, utterly fail to furnish such an explanation. The formulas of relativity dynamics can not and do not explain the observed perihelial motion of Mercury. ”
Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?QuoteAstronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!
What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
So, in Mormon land, people carry rifles to go to the co-op? Have you been back since to enquire if there was an incident or if it was just a show and tell, or they were buying a lot of something that other Mormons might want to take away from them (young wives?), I think I need to know at least a bit more before I decide it’s a place I won’t be visiting.He misspoke. A 7/11 is a convenience store, not a co op.
Utah is quite a target shooting scene as there is lots of land to shoot. I’m not sure if that played a part in the incident though.
Yes, I have read all stories about re-entries since 1961. The first one was by a communist hero of the Soviet Union. He didn't last long. Then this John Glenn clown. He became a US senator. Sad story. But American idiots believe them. I just feel sorry for them. Why not believe in real things. Like me.
Thanks. Yes, I always refers to it. I was there.WTF? Heiwa was wrong?Never!
Didn't someone say that MS-DOS and PC-DOS were released in 1981?
There was an IBM DOS/360, first delivered in June 1966 that Heiwa might have been refering to.
