Question

  • 16 Replies
  • 2076 Views
Question
« on: August 08, 2019, 05:50:29 AM »
I have frequently, in the past, addressed the issue of adequate CGI modeling of a heliocentric solar system. Since the heliocentric model would rely on the laws and math proposed by Kepler, Newton, Einstein, et.al., a computer, being the tool of choice for rendering math into discernible visual outputs, would be able to do so.

Yet nothing...

RE Adherents alike have offered what they consider to be adequate models available for public use, such as Stellarium, Staryy Night, etc. When asked to provide evidence these programs utilize the aforementioned men and their math in the program to generate the visual renderings, none is offered.

The question(s) are twofold:

Do the programs actually use the math required?

If yes, then why is the 3-body problem still described as UNSOLVED, in either case?

*

Bom Tishop

  • 11118
  • Official friend boy of the FES!!
Re: Question
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2019, 12:36:01 PM »
This is a good question actually
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2019, 07:49:38 PM »
I have frequently, in the past, addressed the issue of adequate CGI modeling of a heliocentric solar system. Since the heliocentric model would rely on the laws and math proposed by Kepler, Newton, Einstein, et.al., a computer, being the tool of choice for rendering math into discernible visual outputs, would be able to do so.

Yet nothing...
No not nothing. There are plenty of "simple" solar system simulators available to the general public and far more precise ones for professionals.
Here's one that you'll love ;D ;D:
Quote from: Danya Rose, Mathematician
Quora.com: What is the best solar system simulator?
NASA has released a program called General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) v.R2016a which is free to download and use. With it you can plan your own space missions (or you could set it up to propagate the motions of the significant known bodies and watch the resulting dance). This tool comes equipped with a lot of solar system data built in, including an atmospheric model for at least the Earth (if not any other bodies with atmospheres), and high precision numerical integrators to propagate the orbits of bodies over at least (relatively) short time scales.
Quote from: totallackey
RE Adherents alike have offered what they consider to be adequate models available for public use, such as Stellarium, Staryy Night, etc. When asked to provide evidence these programs utilize the aforementioned men and their math in the program to generate the visual renderings, none is offered.

The question(s) are twofold:

Do the programs actually use the math required?

If yes, then why is the 3-body problem still described as UNSOLVED, in either case?
I can answer the last past quickly.
"CGI modelling of a heliocentric solar system" is a computer simulation based on, as you say, "the laws of [1]Newton, Einstein, et.al."

When is it stated that "the 3-body problem still described as UNSOLVED" it means that there is no known analytic solution leading to equations that will precisely show what will happen with given initial conditions as there is for a 3-bodied system.

But there are numerical simulations of these equations of motion and gravitation and these are available to astronomers and those planning space missions.
Some of the results of these are shown in the Naval Almanacs which can show quite accurately where the planets and stars will be on our night sky for even years ahead.

Note that I omitted Kepler because until after the first part of the last century all astronomical calculations, including the predictions of where undiscovered planets might be were based on Newtonian Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
Those were good enough to show roughly where Neptune must have been and that to indicate another planet - now the Dwarf Planet Pluto.
And were accurate enough to show an "error" that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was about 43.1 of arc (43 arc seconds) in 100 years.
This was part of what prompted Einstein to develop relativity, which does explain it.

Re: Question
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2019, 03:45:43 AM »
I have frequently, in the past, addressed the issue of adequate CGI modeling of a heliocentric solar system. Since the heliocentric model would rely on the laws and math proposed by Kepler, Newton, Einstein, et.al., a computer, being the tool of choice for rendering math into discernible visual outputs, would be able to do so.

Yet nothing...
No not nothing. There are plenty of "simple" solar system simulators available to the general public and far more precise ones for professionals.
Here's one that you'll love ;D ;D:
Quote from: Danya Rose, Mathematician
Quora.com: What is the best solar system simulator?
NASA has released a program called General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) v.R2016a which is free to download and use. With it you can plan your own space missions (or you could set it up to propagate the motions of the significant known bodies and watch the resulting dance). This tool comes equipped with a lot of solar system data built in, including an atmospheric model for at least the Earth (if not any other bodies with atmospheres), and high precision numerical integrators to propagate the orbits of bodies over at least (relatively) short time scales.
Rabinoz, I thought I was specific in what I wrote, but perhaps not.

Again, the issue, as I understand it, is Kepler math alone is not enough, Kepler + Newton math is not enough, but Kepler, Newton, + Einstein, et.al., math is enough in justifying a heliocentric solar system.

I know there are computer modeling programs available, as I mentioned them in the OP.

But they don't appear to be utilizing the math that science proclaims necessary.

Why?
Quote from: totallackey
RE Adherents alike have offered what they consider to be adequate models available for public use, such as Stellarium, Staryy Night, etc. When asked to provide evidence these programs utilize the aforementioned men and their math in the program to generate the visual renderings, none is offered.

The question(s) are twofold:

Do the programs actually use the math required?

If yes, then why is the 3-body problem still described as UNSOLVED, in either case?
I can answer the last past quickly.
"CGI modelling of a heliocentric solar system" is a computer simulation based on, as you say, "the laws of [1]Newton, Einstein, et.al."

When is it stated that "the 3-body problem still described as UNSOLVED" it means that there is no known analytic solution leading to equations that will precisely show what will happen with given initial conditions as there is for a 3-bodied system.

But there are numerical simulations of these equations of motion and gravitation and these are available to astronomers and those planning space missions.
Some of the results of these are shown in the Naval Almanacs which can show quite accurately where the planets and stars will be on our night sky for even years ahead.

Note that I omitted Kepler because until after the first part of the last century all astronomical calculations, including the predictions of where undiscovered planets might be were based on Newtonian Laws of Motion and Gravitation.
Those were good enough to show roughly where Neptune must have been and that to indicate another planet - now the Dwarf Planet Pluto.
And were accurate enough to show an "error" that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was about 43.1 of arc (43 arc seconds) in 100 years.
This was part of what prompted Einstein to develop relativity, which does explain it.
So, the 3-body problem has no bearing on the solar system?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2019, 06:09:09 AM »
So, the 3-body problem has no bearing on the solar system?
The "3-body problem" involves the finding of an analytic solution to the orbits a 3-body system operating under the Laws of Motion and Gravitation.

The sun and the each of the inner planets, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn can be very closely approximated as six separate 2-body systems.
This is because the mass of the sun, being 99.8% of the whole solar system's mass, dominates the solar system's operation.
This explains why Keplers Laws, being only for separate 2-bodied systems, worked as well as they did.

The Sun-earth-moon would be better analysed as a 3-bodied problem but luckily again the earth-moon system can be quite closely approximated as a "double-planet" orbiting the far more massive sun.

So, the 3-body problem has little bearing on the solar system.
The Solar has the sun, 8 planets, earth's huge moon, quite a number of dwarf planets and numerous asteroids so a solution to the 3-body problem would not be a great help.

But people still work on it because that's what they do ::)!

Real simulations are done numerically using either Newtonian Laws or General Relativity and can predict behaviour years into the future.
The accuracy of that prediction falls of the further into the future they go. That is why the best that can be claimed is that, for example, an asteroid has a 1 in XXXX cnance of hitting the earth in yy years time.

<< No time to check for errors - must go to bed 8) 8) >>

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Question
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2019, 11:30:57 AM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16169
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: Question
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2019, 11:37:40 AM »
Well, I mean, there is the source code...

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question
« Reply #7 on: August 09, 2019, 04:10:33 PM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.
And I note that you give no evidence and "provide zero sources" to how your Sun, Moon, planets and stars manage to "hang up there" and "orbit nothing".

That "hanging up there" and "orbiting nothing" seems quite contrary to known laws of physics.
So could you please enlighten us as to studies that you or other Flat Earthers have done to determine the "Laws of Physics" that apply to the flat earth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17767
Re: Question
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2019, 10:02:03 AM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.
And I note that you give no evidence and "provide zero sources" to how your Sun, Moon, planets and stars manage to "hang up there" and "orbit nothing".

That "hanging up there" and "orbiting nothing" seems quite contrary to known laws of physics.
So could you please enlighten us as to studies that you or other Flat Earthers have done to determine the "Laws of Physics" that apply to the flat earth.

I see by your response that you are conceding that you are just imagining how you think the programs work.

*

Stash

  • 7961
  • I am car!
Re: Question
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2019, 03:33:34 PM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.

You could try poking around in github for Stellarium (from a similar conversation on the other site):

https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/blob/master/plugins/Satellites/src/gsatellite/sgp4ext.cpp

Take a look at line 159 onwards:

    function newtonnu ... this function solves keplers equation...
We've never really been a single entity.  We're more like a collection of rabid honey badgers stuffed into a 3 piece suit.  It occasionally bears the semblance of a man

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16169
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: Question
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2019, 06:28:43 PM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.

You could try poking around in github for Stellarium (from a similar conversation on the other site):

https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/blob/master/plugins/Satellites/src/gsatellite/sgp4ext.cpp

Take a look at line 159 onwards:

    function newtonnu ... this function solves keplers equation...

Yeah, I am baffled at the assertion that there are no sources provided, when like I mentioned earlier, the actual effing source code for Stellarium and other programs is open and available for viewing. And, as I saw on the other site, totallackey is completely unwilling to actually read through or even casually view the source. He'd rather just yell about how no one will spend hours carefully crafting an answer he can then ignore.

Re: Question
« Reply #11 on: August 11, 2019, 03:54:09 AM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.
Stellarium is literally open source.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2019, 04:40:45 AM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.
Stellarium is literally open source.
This is not open source but is intended for somewhat more serious applications.
Though it would hardly be up to the standard needed by those working on predicting planetary positions for space missions, etc:
Quote
AstroGrav Astronomy Software
AstroGrav for Windows and Mac is a full-featured, high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies, so that the motions of asteroids and comets are simulated much more accurately than with planetarium applications. The effects of general relativity and radiation pressure can be taken into account, and superb interactive 3D viewing allows you to easily rotate and zoom your view while the solar system evolves.

Multi-Purpose
Because it calculates the motions of bodies from their gravitational interactions, AstroGrav is not restricted to just the solar system. Any situation in which gravity is the only significant force can be simulated, and the illustrative sample files that are included with AstroGrav include many examples. Systems that can be simulated include:
  • Exoplanet systems
  • Protoplanets that evolve into planetary systems
  • Rubble piles and their interactions with massive bodies
  • Complex star systems, including colliding globular clusters
  • Projectiles and bouncing balls

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2019, 05:00:54 AM »
This paper is not really an answer to the OP but it is interesting to read and does at least indicate that very high precision numerical simulations are used.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Chaos and stability of the solar system, Renu Malhotra, Matthew Holman, and Takashi Ito

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41922
Re: Question
« Reply #14 on: August 11, 2019, 07:17:11 AM »
So, the 3-body problem has no bearing on the solar system?
The n-body problem is not the be all, end all of modelling the solar system.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Question
« Reply #15 on: August 15, 2019, 02:02:03 AM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.
And I note that you give no evidence and "provide zero sources" to how your Sun, Moon, planets and stars manage to "hang up there" and "orbit nothing".

That "hanging up there" and "orbiting nothing" seems quite contrary to known laws of physics.
So could you please enlighten us as to studies that you or other Flat Earthers have done to determine the "Laws of Physics" that apply to the flat earth.

I see by your response that you are conceding that you are just imagining how you think the programs work.

Quote from: boydster
when like I mentioned earlier, the actual effing source code for Stellarium and other programs is open and available for viewing

Ha, this is hilarious.

Tom, where are you? Where did you go?

Tom?

Tom?
The Universal Accelerator is a constant farce.

Flattery will get you nowhere.

From the FAQ - "In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence."

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Question
« Reply #16 on: August 15, 2019, 04:13:58 AM »
Notice how the RE provide zero sources for how they imagine the programs to work.
And I note that you give no evidence and "provide zero sources" to how your Sun, Moon, planets and stars manage to "hang up there" and "orbit nothing".

That "hanging up there" and "orbiting nothing" seems quite contrary to known laws of physics.
So could you please enlighten us as to studies that you or other Flat Earthers have done to determine the "Laws of Physics" that apply to the flat earth.

I see by your response that you are conceding that you are just imagining how you think the programs work.

Quote from: boydster
when like I mentioned earlier, the actual effing source code for Stellarium and other programs is open and available for viewing

Ha, this is hilarious.

Tom, where are you? Where did you go?

Tom?

Tom?
You called?