Three Body Problem

I was browsing your wiki to understand your theory on how stars exist, and I found this quote: "Think of a binary (two) star system which moves around an invisible common barycenter. Now add a third body which shares that common center of attraction. Now a fourth. When we add enough bodies the system looks like a swirling multiple system."

In my understanding of RET, this invisible common barycenter is an insignificant point that they happen to revolve around as a result of the mathematical equations provided by the laws of gravity. In RET, it is very very very difficult to predict how 3 bodies  will revolve around each other, and they certainly do not or would not all revolve one central point. From what I understnad you say that all of the stars in the sky revolve around one central point as a result of no explainable force. Please explain to me how this would be possible in FET. And please clearly state all of the evidence you have (not pictures, diagrams are okay) in as few posts as possible instead of bit by bit in replies to others.

We are working on this, please be patient.

We are working on this, please be patient.

Who's working on it?  There's no point being patient for something that's never going to happen.

In RET, it is very very very difficult to predict how 3 bodies  will revolve around each other, and they certainly do not or would not all revolve one central point.

How does the failing of some astronomers to describe something reflect on other astronomers, or on ours?

From what I understnad you say that all of the stars in the sky revolve around one central point as a result of no explainable force. Please explain to me how this would be possible in FET. And please clearly state all of the evidence you have (not pictures, diagrams are okay) in as few posts as possible instead of bit by bit in replies to others.

Your question is answered in the very same wiki page you're referencing. David S. Evan's Hierarchical Systems describes the formation and behavior of multiple systems.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Stars

Instability can be avoided if the system is what astronomer David S. Evans has called "hierarchical." In a hierarchical system, the stars in the system can be divided into two smaller groups, each of which traverses a larger orbit around the system's center of mass. Each of these smaller groups must also be hierarchical, which means that they must be divided into smaller subgroups which themselves are hierarchical, and so on. In this case, the stars' motion will continue to approximate stable non-elliptical Keplerian orbits around the system's center of mass.

Here is a scientific paper which describes the movements and behavior of Multiple Systems: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968QJRAS...9..388E (external link)

Your question is answered in the very same wiki page you're referencing. David S. Evan's Hierarchical Systems describes the formation and behavior of multiple systems.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Stars

Quote from: Flat Earth Wiki

Instability can be avoided if the system is what astronomer David S. Evans has called "hierarchical." In a hierarchical system, the stars in the system can be divided into two smaller groups, each of which traverses a larger orbit around the system's center of mass. Each of these smaller groups must also be hierarchical, which means that they must be divided into smaller subgroups which themselves are hierarchical, and so on. In this case, the stars' motion will continue to approximate stable non-elliptical Keplerian orbits around the system's center of mass.

Here is a scientific paper which describes the movements and behavior of Multiple Systems: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1968QJRAS...9..388E (external link)

The link provided is from NASA, you know this right? 

It also specifically says that the most complex system which could continue to exist would be an octuple, with a hierarchy of 3 (so, 8 total stars arranged in 3 seperate groups with various speeds).  Also, as each hierarchy would be moving at different speeds, the proximity of stars to eachother, as well as constellations would be constantly changing under that model.

Why is this paper, the link for which is the NASA Astrophysics Data System, acceptable to you?  Is it not odd that your model in your Wiki uses the model from a NASA scientist to explain the star movement?

Also, this model/theory envolves stars gravitationally orbiting each other.  How would this model apply to the stars orbiting a yet unexplained force in the center of our sky?  Or do you have an explanation for what that force is (which actually may be closer to what the original question was)?

Yes Mr T is right, Tom. The rotating wheels of stars (on a flat earth) are obviously not "hierarchical".  Even your Wiki link says they are rotating around a "common barycenter".  Please remove this outlandishly tenuous explanation from the Wiki.

EDIT:   Forgot to say:   Please cease.

unfortunately it is near impossible to remove soothing from the FAQ.
Apparently it is like a "bible" for the faqqers, and doing so would tear down the whole fiber of the universe.
Just look at the whole "spotlight sun" theory. 99% of disc earth theorists and faqqers agree it is not a spotlight,
but to remove it would be like removing a chapter of the Bible, its not going to happen.

The reason that the FAQ is rarely updated is because many of the topics in it are hot and disputed issues. Not because it's like a bible to us.

This still doesn't answer my question. How can you have the billions of stars in the universe ratating around one point? Mind you, the point itself holds no actual significance in RET, as a barycenter beteen two stars is merely their common center of gravity. You can't just say that there is a mystical force holding them together, it HAS to be gravity.

And let's just assume that you use the old, 'Well, stars and planets and the moon and the antimoon(still don't get this) aren't the earth, so they don't have to follow the same laws of physics' argument that I have seen a couple times. This would imply that the matter on Earth that makes up dirt and trees and people and everything is not the same matter that makes up the sun, moon, and planets.

So what's it gonna be:
A. Gravity does not exist at all and a 'magical' force holds stars and planets together
B. Gravity only exists not on Earth and matter on Earth is somehow 'magically' different from matter on planets and stars.
C. Please, <i>please</i> try not to use another argument, it makes these threads derail so easily. If you have to, please be as thorough as possible in your reply. I would really appreciate it.

This still doesn't answer my question. How can you have the billions of stars in the universe ratating around one point? Mind you, the point itself holds no actual significance in RET, as a barycenter beteen two stars is merely their common center of gravity. You can't just say that there is a mystical force holding them together, it HAS to be gravity.

And let's just assume that you use the old, 'Well, stars and planets and the moon and the antimoon(still don't get this) aren't the earth, so they don't have to follow the same laws of physics' argument that I have seen a couple times. This would imply that the matter on Earth that makes up dirt and trees and people and everything is not the same matter that makes up the sun, moon, and planets.

So what's it gonna be:
A. Gravity does not exist at all and a 'magical' force holds stars and planets together
B. Gravity only exists not on Earth and matter on Earth is somehow 'magically' different from matter on planets and stars.
C. Please, <i>please</i> try not to use another argument, it makes these threads derail so easily. If you have to, please be as thorough as possible in your reply. I would really appreciate it.

I believe their explanation is UA, or universal acceleration.I may be wrong, though.
It is the idea that the entire universe is falling down up.

That explanation only accounts for how gravity would work on earth, not on heavenly bodies, as UA alone would cause them to come crashing downwards.

That explanation only accounts for how gravity would work on earth, not on heavenly bodies, as UA alone would cause them to come crashing downwards.

Well, the idea is they are falling at the same speed. I think. I don;t really understand it myself.

I want a response from one of the big time supporters like Thork or Tom. If you don't know please refrain from posting on this thread.

Nobody here can answer your concern, because all they have at their disposal is the main faq, which does not address many other important issues.


To start with, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. That is, a system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg987360#msg987360

(KAM theory, homoclinic orbits, Smale horseshoes)


An attractive gravity field, made up of gravitons, cannot explain at all the three body problem, here is another demonstration:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35542



It is very important to understand the existence of two types of gravitational energies: terrestrial gravity and planetary/stellar gravity.

Here is I. Newton describing these facts:

Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'



And now, Newton's explanation for the cause of the orbits of the planets/stars:

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.


Pressure Gravity = Terrestrial Gravity

Rotational/Circulating Gravity = Planetary Gravity


Therefore, between these two types of gravitational energies (aether = medium in which ether flows; ether = telluric currents; density of aether varies greatly) there must exist a barrier which separates them, the terrestrial gravity from the rotational gravity. We can call this barrier the Schumann cavity; this is the very reason that no Nasa mission could go beyond this energy field.


The experiment performed by G.B. Airy in 1871 confirmed these hypotheses; convince yourself that this is indeed the case:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580


The aether moves the planets/stars; the ether provides the pressure type of terrestrial gravity.


The true shape of the planetary orbit: THE EPICYCLE

http://wwwdata.unibg.it/dati/bacheca/63/21692.pdf




http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/resource-ref-read/chief-systems/08-0retro-2.htm


And there are further similarities between the flight mechanism of an UFO and the movement of both planets and stars...a subject we cannot go into here.

UFO flight mechanism:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/secretsoc_20century/secretsoc_20century00.htm#INTRODUCTION

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/secretsoc_20century/secretsoc_20century06.htm#CHAPTER 33

(move to chapter 33)


BIEFELD-BROWN EFFECT:

http://montalk.net/science/84/the-biefeld-brown-effect
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Thomas_Townsend_Brown
http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Antigravity/Townsend_Brown/page90.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project166.htm

I give up. I have to give you guys credit though, you really know how to draw out these conspiracies. I am impressed. truly impressed. I was expecting some sort of circular reasoning as is the case usually, but no, I received a well explained answer that was just an answer, and not a snide remark. You have to be the most sane one here of all these people.

The three body problem is a problem for RET, not FET:

Trying to calculate the interactions of two extended objects in GR is exceptionally hard and virtually impossible to do exactly - it can only be done by brute force computation.  Extend this to another extended body (say, the oceans or something) and the problem becomes unsolvable.  This is an inherent problem with GR and always has been - all the fancy astrophysical calculations that are used as 'proof' of GR only get away with it since the measurements have relatively large error bars.  Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory that is a massive improvement over those that went before it, but when it can't handle something as familiar as the Earth-Moon system (and that's assuming they're both rigid bodies) without resorting to huge supercomputers... well, let's say general relativists worship it a bit too much in my opinion.

I'm sorry, but any theory where you have to pretend that the Earth and Moon are one body in order to get accurate predictions has some serious flaws. Go outside and look at the sky tonight, and tell me if the Moon appears to be part of the Earth.

The three body problem is a problem for RET, not FET:

Quote from: Dr Matrix on March 02, 2009, 01:02:05 PM

Trying to calculate the interactions of two extended objects in GR is exceptionally hard and virtually impossible to do exactly - it can only be done by brute force computation.  Extend this to another extended body (say, the oceans or something) and the problem becomes unsolvable.  This is an inherent problem with GR and always has been - all the fancy astrophysical calculations that are used as 'proof' of GR only get away with it since the measurements have relatively large error bars.  Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful theory that is a massive improvement over those that went before it, but when it can't handle something as familiar as the Earth-Moon system (and that's assuming they're both rigid bodies) without resorting to huge supercomputers... well, let's say general relativists worship it a bit too much in my opinion.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on September 17, 2009, 07:40:45 AM

I'm sorry, but any theory where you have to pretend that the Earth and Moon are one body in order to get accurate predictions has some serious flaws. Go outside and look at the sky tonight, and tell me if the Moon appears to be part of the Earth.

Would you please provide evidence to back up your claim highlighted above? Thanks.

Would you please provide evidence to back up your claim highlighted above? Thanks.

Come on, do some basic research. I'm not going to post links unless you clearly decide to embarrass yourself. Commit for once.

Quote from: ClockTower on April 15, 2012, 08:55:43 PM

Would you please provide evidence to back up your claim highlighted above? Thanks.

Come on, do some basic research. I'm not going to post links unless you clearly decide to embarrass yourself. Commit for once.

I didn't think you could. So your claim dies without support. Thanks.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on September 17, 2009, 07:40:45 AM

I'm sorry, but any theory where you have to pretend that the Earth and Moon are one body in order to get accurate predictions has some serious flaws. Go outside and look at the sky tonight, and tell me if the Moon appears to be part of the Earth.

The only times that the earth and moon would be considered a single body are when it doesn't matter to the results if the earth and moon are a single body or not.  For example, when considering the earth's orbit around the sun, why would the moon's orbit around the earth be significant?

I give up. I have to give you guys credit though, you really know how to draw out these conspiracies. I am impressed. truly impressed. I was expecting some sort of circular reasoning as is the case usually, but no, I received a well explained answer that was just an answer, and not a snide remark. You have to be the most sane one here of all these people.

You can start on your conspiracies research with this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_00.htm

Quote from: InterestingAscended on April 12, 2012, 07:49:03 PM

I give up. I have to give you guys credit though, you really know how to draw out these conspiracies. I am impressed. truly impressed. I was expecting some sort of circular reasoning as is the case usually, but no, I received a well explained answer that was just an answer, and not a snide remark. You have to be the most sane one here of all these people.

You can start on your conspiracies research with this:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_00.htm

And where does that lead to FET?

FET is just a part of the conspiracy which started with the falsification of history. The same people who invented heliocentricity and the big bang "theories", are the same who modified history...I suppose you already read my messages on this subject.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1130692#msg1130692

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1130693#msg1130693

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1131078#msg1131078

Please also read:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+fomenko&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgGVT8D1IsXptQbSq9i7BA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20fomenko&f=false

FET is just a part of the conspiracy which started with the falsification of history. The same people who invented heliocentricity and the big bang "theories", are the same who modified history...I suppose you already read my messages on this subject.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1130692#msg1130692

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1130693#msg1130693

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=45731.msg1131078#msg1131078

Please also read:

http://www.egodeath.com/edwinjohnsonpaulineepistles.htm

http://books.google.ro/books?id=YcjFAV4WZ9MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=history+fomenko&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zgGVT8D1IsXptQbSq9i7BA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=history%20fomenko&f=false

Sorry, b*****it. No time to waist.

Well, you can take a few days off from the forum to find your manners and review the T&C's, and not waist (sic) any more time here.

No bs...read for yourself...the most precise formulas (K.F. Gauss' Easter formula); the Council of Nicaea dated in the year 876-877 AD:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52083.0

No bs...read for yourself...the most precise formulas (K.F. Gauss' Easter formula); the Council of Nicaea dated in the year 876-877 AD:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=52083.0

Let's review the value of your posts.
1) We know that at least once you fraudulently provided quotes to support your position.
2) We see that you plagiarized this wall of text from Dr. Prof Anatoly Fomenko.
3) A simple copy-and-paste from http://www.scribd.com/doc/74886881/Easter-Issue.

Please don't present your work as someone else's. It is not fair.
Please don't copy-and-paste a wall of text. Take the time to understand your sources, then produce original, concise, and on-topic posts.

You haven't a clue of what is going on...

The scribd.com document posted by sadang was done at my request, see here:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t420-dating-the-ecumenical-council-of-nicaea-the-easter-issue

Moreover, he translated, again at my request, the Easter Issue document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74886953/Gleb-Nosovsky-Dilema-Pastelui


The original link was online and available for only a short period of time in the summer of 2011; my research uncovered this extraordinary article by Dr. G. Nosovsky, that shows once more how the official chronology has been falsified.

You haven't a clue of what is going on...

The scribd.com document posted by sadang was done at my request, see here:

http://cercetare.forumgratuit.ro/t420-dating-the-ecumenical-council-of-nicaea-the-easter-issue

Moreover, he translated, again at my request, the Easter Issue document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/74886953/Gleb-Nosovsky-Dilema-Pastelui


The original link was online and available for only a short period of time in the summer of 2011; my research uncovered this extraordinary article by Dr. G. Nosovsky, that shows once more how the official chronology has been falsified.

So you failed to report another translation. Why do you commit academic fraud yet again?
Why no attribution to your request in scribd?
Why didn't you just link to scribd instead of copying it here?
How did you determine that sadang translated without bias? We've already seen the bias with the translation of the German text.

Oh, and The New Chronology has been thoroughly debunked. See

The assertion is completely wrong, which is clear even in the example of Academician A. Fomenko who promoted and widely advertised a certain "new chronology" of historical events. But these are blatant antiscientific fabrications, which was shown in articles [7,8] published in Vestnik RAN.

.