The infinite plane.

Who can refute this?

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

Who can refute this:-

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/25/18108807/nasa-esa-timelapse-international-space-station-alexander-gerst

Quote from: turtles on July 08, 2019, 10:47:51 AM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 09:46:29 AM

Who can refute this?

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

Who can refute this?

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html

Isaac Newton:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

You just love going off topic Tom. The topic here is to examine proof for the infinite earth. If you wish to talk about your red herring, start another thread.

So Tom what are your thoughts on the infinite earth?

Even if one assumes that there are only two bodies and that the third mass-less body is in orbit around one of them, it's still chaotic: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem#Hill.27s_Region

It doesn't work. There are no stable solutions, even with such simplification.

Sorry, but it does "work" over a time scale far longer than need concern you and I.
Please note that I never claimed any "stable solutions" but you failed to even comment.
 
First you need to define exactly what YOU mean by stable solutions because Astronomy Stack Exchange has this to say:

There's no clearly defined definition of what a stable orbit is. Orbits can last for hundreds or thousands of years, millions, billions or even trillions of years. There's no neat and tidy definition between stable and unstable.

Then you might read: Scholarpedia: Stability of the solar system by Dr Jacques Laskar, Astronomie et Systèmes Dynamiques, Paris, France.
Most papers on this topic are overly mathematical but Dr Jacques Laskar's is reasonably easy to read.

But the topic is "The infinite plane" not orbital stability.
So if you wish to keep on with orbital stability start your own thread!.

Quote from: turtles on July 08, 2019, 10:47:51 AM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 09:46:29 AM

Who can refute this?

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

Who can refute this?

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html

Isaac Newton:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Hahaha, Tom, that article is so laughably ridiculously wrong I can't believe you had the nerve to post the link, knowing the ridicule it would draw.

Whoever wrote the article seems to think (though I suspect deliberate disinformation) that the three body problem means you can't have a system of three masses gravitationally bound! That's crazy. The three body problem is a mathematical problem where it is difficult to calculate the positions of those three masses.

If that's the quality of articles on wiki.tfes.org you really need to stop linking to it, it's not helping your cause in any way.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2019, 08:56:28 PM

Quote from: turtles on July 08, 2019, 10:47:51 AM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 09:46:29 AM

Who can refute this?

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

Who can refute this?

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html

Isaac Newton:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Hahaha, Tom, that article is so laughably ridiculously wrong I can't believe you had the nerve to post the link, knowing the ridicule it would draw.

Whoever wrote the article seems to think (though I suspect deliberate disinformation) that the three body problem means you can't have a system of three masses gravitationally bound! That's crazy. The three body problem is a mathematical problem where it is difficult to calculate the positions of those three masses.

If that's the quality of articles on wiki.tfes.org you really need to stop linking to it, it's not helping your cause in any way.

Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.

Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.

Except that Newton hasn't been around for almost 3 centuries and astronomy, physics, orbital mechanics and mathematics have advanced greatly since then.
Besides in Newton's day there was no possibility of long period numerical simulations of orbital problems.

But I'm still curious as to what this has to do with the topic "The infinite plane."

You folks are falling for it. The N-Body Problem has nothing, ZERO, to do with this topic and you will find that when Mr. Bishop brings it up elsewhere it has nothing to do with that topic either.

It's his thing. His way of injecting the notion that modern astronomy/astrophysics is a farce. So if the subjects like eclipses, equinoxes, lunar phases, even sunset/sunrises arise, invariably, Mr. Bishop will swoop in and drop the N-Body Problem to derail the entire mix. Don't let it happen.

It is a red herring dangled for you to bite and leads mercilessly nowhere.

Quote from: turtles on July 09, 2019, 02:04:42 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 08, 2019, 08:56:28 PM

Quote from: turtles on July 08, 2019, 10:47:51 AM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 09:46:29 AM

Who can refute this?

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

Who can refute this?

https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1335.html

Isaac Newton:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Hahaha, Tom, that article is so laughably ridiculously wrong I can't believe you had the nerve to post the link, knowing the ridicule it would draw.

Whoever wrote the article seems to think (though I suspect deliberate disinformation) that the three body problem means you can't have a system of three masses gravitationally bound! That's crazy. The three body problem is a mathematical problem where it is difficult to calculate the positions of those three masses.

If that's the quality of articles on wiki.tfes.org you really need to stop linking to it, it's not helping your cause in any way.

Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.

So he didn't solve the three body problem. That's why it's a "problem".

Really, don't try and support that article, you're making yourself look stupid.

According to Issac Newton the picture posted of a planetoid Earth and Moon lit by the Sun is only possible if God was holding the Sun-Earth-Moon system together, as it cannot stay together with the laws of gravity.

Pure garbage.
It can easily stay together with the laws of gravity. There just isn't a simple solution for it.

The absence of a simple solution doesn't make it impossible.

If you would like to assert it is impossible, feel free to provide actual evidence to show that.
And no, it being chaotic doesn't mean it is impossible. It just means the outcome is highly dependent upon the initial conditions.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 08:27:27 PM

After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.

What ever gave you that idea? 

I spread my wings. I think you need to more carefully study the "scientific" works. All have long been proven that the sun does not bend light from the stars. And all who say the opposite - says nonsense. Since this is already a proven fact that Einstein’s followers simply faked the official results. Fit them under the theory of gravity! To be unsubstantiated, find photographs of a solar eclipse published in the newspapers of that time. The one for which this was done and you yourself will be convinced of the forgery of the results. Which were later published in scientific circles (when they simply erased all the "objectionable" stars from duplicate photos). I congratulate you all who have a double standard. We see and say that it is not so ...

Respect - JackBlack and rabinoz. For their integrity and consistency. They explore the topic, and try not just to speak, but give a full explanation. Sometimes they speak from a purely practical side, forcing them to look at the facts differently.
Therefore, such statements Stash

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 09:46:29 AM

Who can refute this?

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I went through the whole presentation of experiments. The greatest variance they found with their laser tests (8 in total) was 562 MM from what the WGS-84 states. That's millimeters. Most were in the 2 MM or less. Based upon FECORE's fine work, I would say they corroborated the WGS-84 and therefore a curved planet. Well done.

as you do not even want to read.
I did not speak for nothing about the curvature of light.
I will try to convey my position on the basis of those studies that many researchers have done. Moreover, the topic is just appropriate - about the surface of the earth.
1. Light moves only relative to the space in which it flies.
2. The force of "gravity" does not act on the light, or as it is more correct to speak of mutual attraction in the uniform field of the ether.
3. The photon, once emitted, flies at an ever-increasing speed, and at the same time it reduces its rotation around its axis (which is perceived by the scientific world as a wave). Therefore, with the distance traveled, he slows down his rotation, changes his spectrum and eventually turns into a radio wave.
And now let's remember what radio science is saying. Short waves do not bend the ground. Hence, the light can not bend from any "gravity" - this is proved by experiments with solar eclipses. So, the sun does not have such a well, since the space around it is NOT bent! All this taken together shows that all experiments with any light and radio waves will be unambiguous, light and wave will pass through a homogeneous space located around us. Since the earth will not change the space around us. At the same time, there is a lot of evidence and experiments showing that we can fully see objects located far beyond the horizon. This also applies to the reception of television broadcasts on short waves from other regions hidden behind the curvature of the earth. Antenna-directional antennas, signal geography is confirmed that they are emitted by television towers in the direction the antennas are directed, but the television towers are already hidden hundreds of meters of earth! This paradox can not be explained by amateurs.
In view of all this, one should not simply say that all this is fiction and forgery, since the earth is a ball and this cannot be. I agree with the fact that flat earthlings bent the stick in many ways, but ... in what, they are right. Whoever remembers, I initially said that our land is not a ball, but at the same time it is not a plane. It is oversimplified. Everything is much more complicated. It is both a ball and a plane, it can drive you crazy if you do not understand the laws by which all this happens.
You will not be able to refute second-tier satellite GPS. Which gives three-dimensional positioning on the ground, and in which the satellites communicate with each other. Hatch, Ronald Ray was one of the first to encounter this phenomenon. In order to decide in practice this behavior of space, he had to write algorithms in which the earth is stationary and, most importantly, flat! Chase now with Hatch, Ronald Ray, and try to prove to him that he corrected the algorithms so that they use a spherical earth. I think you lose without even starting.
It was a practical approach to the position that we observe our land. Standing on it and seeing how the endless flat horizon closes on itself. No matter how much you walk, you will always go on a plane. which is a ball! Because satellites fly above us, and we can even see beyond the horizon. For a greater understanding of how this can be - read the Vedas and the Apocrypha. They describe the earth as a plane around which the sun flies. Not above which, but precisely around which — what cannot be, if the earth were such as it is represented by flat earthlings. That's why I say let's understand together and not beat their foreheads ...

You folks are falling for it. The N-Body Problem has nothing, ZERO, to do with this topic and you will find that when Mr. Bishop brings it up elsewhere it has nothing to do with that topic either.

It's his thing. His way of injecting the notion that modern astronomy/astrophysics is a farce. So if the subjects like eclipses, equinoxes, lunar phases, even sunset/sunrises arise, invariably, Mr. Bishop will swoop in and drop the N-Body Problem to derail the entire mix. Don't let it happen.

It is a red herring dangled for you to bite and leads mercilessly nowhere.

I think that’s what happens when one refers to the bible for an insight into cosmology.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 08, 2019, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 08:27:27 PM

After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.

What ever gave you that idea? 

I spread my wings. I think you need to more carefully study the "scientific" works. All have long been proven that the sun does not bend light from the stars. And all who say the opposite - says nonsense. Since this is already a proven fact that Einstein’s followers simply faked the official results. Fit them under the theory of gravity! To be unsubstantiated, find photographs of a solar eclipse published in the newspapers of that time. The one for which this was done and you yourself will be convinced of the forgery of the results. Which were later published in scientific circles (when they simply erased all the "objectionable" stars from duplicate photos). I congratulate you all who have a double standard. We see and say that it is not so ...

I think it would really help the debate if you stayed on track and stopped distorting the truth. Spreading your wings is fine, misrepresenting the facts is not, but please stay on topic, remember we are debating the infinite plane!

Respect - JackBlack and rabinoz. For their integrity and consistency. They explore the topic, and try not just to speak, but give a full explanation. Sometimes they speak from a purely practical side, forcing them to look at the facts differently.
Therefore, such statements Stash

Quote from: Stash on July 08, 2019, 09:26:38 PM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 09:46:29 AM

Who can refute this?

https://fecore.org/project/laser-experiment/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I went through the whole presentation of experiments. The greatest variance they found with their laser tests (8 in total) was 562 MM from what the WGS-84 states. That's millimeters. Most were in the 2 MM or less. Based upon FECORE's fine work, I would say they corroborated the WGS-84 and therefore a curved planet. Well done.

as you do not even want to read.
I did not speak for nothing about the curvature of light.
I will try to convey my position on the basis of those studies that many researchers have done. Moreover, the topic is just appropriate - about the surface of the earth.
1. Light moves only relative to the space in which it flies.
2. The force of "gravity" does not act on the light, or as it is more correct to speak of mutual attraction in the uniform field of the ether.
3. The photon, once emitted, flies at an ever-increasing speed, and at the same time it reduces its rotation around its axis (which is perceived by the scientific world as a wave). Therefore, with the distance traveled, he slows down his rotation, changes his spectrum and eventually turns into a radio wave.
And now let's remember what radio science is saying. Short waves do not bend the ground. Hence, the light can not bend from any "gravity" - this is proved by experiments with solar eclipses. So, the sun does not have such a well, since the space around it is NOT bent! All this taken together shows that all experiments with any light and radio waves will be unambiguous, light and wave will pass through a homogeneous space located around us. Since the earth will not change the space around us. At the same time, there is a lot of evidence and experiments showing that we can fully see objects located far beyond the horizon. This also applies to the reception of television broadcasts on short waves from other regions hidden behind the curvature of the earth. Antenna-directional antennas, signal geography is confirmed that they are emitted by television towers in the direction the antennas are directed, but the television towers are already hidden hundreds of meters of earth! This paradox can not be explained by amateurs.
In view of all this, one should not simply say that all this is fiction and forgery, since the earth is a ball and this cannot be. I agree with the fact that flat earthlings bent the stick in many ways, but ... in what, they are right. Whoever remembers, I initially said that our land is not a ball, but at the same time it is not a plane. It is oversimplified. Everything is much more complicated. It is both a ball and a plane, it can drive you crazy if you do not understand the laws by which all this happens.
You will not be able to refute second-tier satellite GPS. Which gives three-dimensional positioning on the ground, and in which the satellites communicate with each other. Hatch, Ronald Ray was one of the first to encounter this phenomenon. In order to decide in practice this behavior of space, he had to write algorithms in which the earth is stationary and, most importantly, flat! Chase now with Hatch, Ronald Ray, and try to prove to him that he corrected the algorithms so that they use a spherical earth. I think you lose without even starting.
It was a practical approach to the position that we observe our land. Standing on it and seeing how the endless flat horizon closes on itself. No matter how much you walk, you will always go on a plane. which is a ball! Because satellites fly above us, and we can even see beyond the horizon. For a greater understanding of how this can be - read the Vedas and the Apocrypha. They describe the earth as a plane around which the sun flies. Not above which, but precisely around which — what cannot be, if the earth were such as it is represented by flat earthlings. That's why I say let's understand together and not beat their foreheads ...

You really are at it again. If you wish to discuss gravity and how it bends light, as observed in many many solar eclipses, please start another thread. This one is to do with the infinite plane.
Please dispense with opinions and stick to the facts.

Except for the parts where it says directly and explicitly that the first thing that Newton did when he came up with his theory of gravity was to try and apply it to the planets and solar system, with failing results.

Yes, it failed for the planet Mercury, but in general:



(from: https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Kepler-s-Three-Laws

Those are two body problems. Attempting to simulate a three-body situation, such as the Earth-Sun-Moon system fails utterly.

See the following quote from Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems by Professor Robert Rosen (bio):

  “ Let us give a very simple example. It is well-known that the three-body problem cannot be solved in closed form, and hence we cannot answer any asymtotic questions regarding such a system (e.g., we cannot tell whether such a system, like the earth-sun-moon system, is stable or not). ”

The above implies that the due to the issues of the three body problem we cannot answer questions such as whether the earth-sun-moon system is stable or not. This suggests that it cannot be simulated.

On p.189 of Neoclassical Physics by theoretical physicist Mark A. Cunningham (bio) we read the following:

Classical Mechanics

  “ Issac Newton's notable success in providing a theoretical explanation for the motion of planets around the sun was followed quickly by his realization that the gravitational problem involving three bodies was immensely more difficult than the two-body problem. Where the two-body problem, as we have seen in Chapter 2, can be solved exactly, Newton's attempts to provide a concise mathematical description of the earth-sun-moon system were not successful.¹ This, of course, is not due to Newton's lack of mathematical skills. Indeed, a series of notable mathematicians all applied their skills to the problem but without success, although it depends somewhat on how one defines success. It is true that no general solutions of the three-body problem have been constructed but the assault on the problem led to powerful new mathematical methods for understanding dynamical systems.² ”

See the bolded.

Yet again, we find direct statements telling us that the venture of describing or simulating the earth-sun-moon system has been unsuccessful, from the time of Newton up to present. Numerous and notable mathematicians over the years have attempted to simulate the earth-sun-moon system without success, telling us everything that we need to know about the systems of Newton and Copernicus.

Those are two body problems. Attempting to simulate a three-body situation, such as the Earth-Sun-Moon system fails utterly.

Then why do simulations of the solar system work so well?

The above implies that the due to the issues of the three body problem we cannot answer questions such as whether the earth-sun-moon system is stable or not. This suggests that it cannot be simulated.

Yet you come on here and claim it is impossible to be held together by gravity.
Thanks for showing your dishonesty.

All it suggests is that it doesn't have a simple solution which is periodic, which means you need to simulate it stepwise and thus to see how it is in the future you need to simulate from now until then, and all that tells you is that it will be stable till then or not.
Even if it shows it is stable, it could then at some point after that become unstable.

It doesn't mean it can't be held together with gravity. It doesn't mean it can't be stable.

  “ Issac Newton's notable success in providing a theoretical explanation for the motion of planets around the sun was followed quickly by his realization that the gravitational problem involving three bodies was immensely more difficult than the two-body problem. Where the two-body problem, as we have seen in Chapter 2, can be solved exactly, Newton's attempts to provide a concise mathematical description of the earth-sun-moon system were not successful.¹ This, of course, is not due to Newton's lack of mathematical skills. Indeed, a series of notable mathematicians all applied their skills to the problem but without success, although it depends somewhat on how one defines success. It is true that no general solutions of the three-body problem have been constructed but the assault on the problem led to powerful new mathematical methods for understanding dynamical systems.² ”
See the bolded.

No, you see the bolded.
All he was unable to do was provide a concise mathematical solution.
Stop lying about what it says.

No, you see the bolded.
All he was unable to do was provide a concise mathematical solution

Yes, his 'imprecise solution' was that divine influence kept the celestial systems held together.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190408023907/https://books.google.com/books?id=hy48DQAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

" At the beginning of the 18th century, Newton famously wrote that the solar system needed occasional divine intervention (presumably a nudge here and there from the hand of God) in order to remain stable.¹¹ This was interpreted to mean that Newton believed his mathematical model of the solar system—the ''n'' body problem—did not have stable solutions. Thus was the gauntlet laid down, and a proof of the stability of the ''n'' body problem became one of the great mathematical challenges of the age.

¹¹Newton's remarks about divine intervention appear in Query 23 of the 1706 (Latin) edition of ''Opticks'', which became Query 31 of the 1717 (2nd Edition) edition see Quote Q[New] in Appendix E). Similar 'theological' remarks are found in scholia of the 2nd and 3rd editions of ''Principia'', and in at least one of Newton's letters. In a 1715 letter to Caroline, Princess of Wales, Leibniz observed sarcastically that Newton had not only cast the Creator as a clock-maker, and a faulty one, but now as a clock-repairman (see [Klo73], Part XXXIV, pp. 54-55). "

Then why do simulations of the solar system work so well?

See the accompanying article to the Three Body Problem article: Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns

Those are two body problems. Attempting to simulate a three-body situation, such as the Earth-Sun-Moon system fails utterly.

Ah right, so you've changed your tune! You now agree that the three body problem is a mathematical problem and not, as your link to that silly article claimed, an impossibility for three masses to be gravitationally bound and stable.

See the following quote from Fundamentals of Measurement and Representation of Natural Systems by Professor Robert Rosen (bio):

  “ Let us give a very simple example. It is well-known that the three-body problem cannot be solved in closed form, and hence we cannot answer any asymtotic questions regarding such a system (e.g., we cannot tell whether such a system, like the earth-sun-moon system, is stable or not). ”

The above implies that the due to the issues of the three body problem we cannot answer questions such as whether the earth-sun-moon system is stable or not. This suggests that it cannot be simulated.

No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.

On p.189 of Neoclassical Physics by theoretical physicist Mark A. Cunningham (bio) we read the following:

Classical Mechanics

  “ Issac Newton's notable success in providing a theoretical explanation for the motion of planets around the sun was followed quickly by his realization that the gravitational problem involving three bodies was immensely more difficult than the two-body problem. Where the two-body problem, as we have seen in Chapter 2, can be solved exactly, Newton's attempts to provide a concise mathematical description of the earth-sun-moon system were not successful.¹ This, of course, is not due to Newton's lack of mathematical skills. Indeed, a series of notable mathematicians all applied their skills to the problem but without success, although it depends somewhat on how one defines success. It is true that no general solutions of the three-body problem have been constructed but the assault on the problem led to powerful new mathematical methods for understanding dynamical systems.² ”

See the bolded.

Yet again, we find direct statements telling us that the venture of describing or simulating the earth-sun-moon system has been unsuccessful, from the time of Newton up to present. Numerous and notable mathematicians over the years have attempted to simulate the earth-sun-moon system without success, telling us everything that we need to know about the systems of Newton and Copernicus.

Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.

No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.

Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.

Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.

It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.

Quote

No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.

Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.

Hmmmm, how many more different ways can I say this....it is possible to simulate a two or more body system of masses. Note that word, simulate. Not calculate.

Quote

Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.

It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.

Yes, at "calculating" a solution.

Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.

i.e. no one has found a simple solution.
That doesn't mean it is impossible.
That doesn't mean it needs divine intervention.
All it means is that we don't have simple solutions.

Stop acting like the lack of a simple solution means is is impossible.

The simple fact is we can and do simulate n-body problems, just not with simple, periodic solutions.

Quote

No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.

Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.

Quote

Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.

It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.

How does the N-Body Problem address the OP question: The question is what proof is there that we live on an infinite plane?

The simple fact is we can and do simulate n-body problems, just not with simple, periodic solutions.

Take a look at the three body problem solutions. They look NOTHING like the systems of Copernicus. They are highly symmetrical, require at least two bodies of equal mass, and fall apart at the slightest touch.

From 'Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems in Natural Sciences' we read another account of Poincaré's discoveries:

  “ As Poincaré experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial 2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincaré discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together. ”

See this online Three Body Problem simulator that uses the simplest possible figure eight pattern, which requires three identical bodies of equal mass which move at very specific momentum and distance in relation to each other.

Demo: Figure-Eight Three Body Problem



Adjust the slider values in the upper left of the simulation to something very slight to find what happens. What you will see is a demonstration of Poincaré's Chaos Theory. Any slight modification to a perfect system creates a chain reaction of random chaos.

This is the issue of modeling the Heliocentric System, and why its fundamental system cannot exist. Only very specific, sensitive, and highly symmetrical configurations may exist. The slightest deviation, such as with a system with unequal masses, or the minute influence from a gravitating body external to the system, will cause the entire system to fly apart.

Quote

No no no, it suggests that it can not be calculated. It can be simulated, even I have written gravitational simulators which can model a planetary system.

Quite wrong. No one has solved the n-body problems.

Quote

Newton didn't have the computers I've got to run simulations. Stop fixating on Newton's lack of success in solving a very difficult mathematical problem.

It says that the mathematicians after him were also unsuccessful.

Who claimed to have "solved the n-body problems"? Not I!

A series type solution has been devised but it is too slowly converging to be useful.

But we do have very high performance computers now that can simulate the n-body problem both forward and backwards.
And these simulations can use either Newton's Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation or Einstein's General Relativity.

But why is the lack of and analytic solution any argument against a heliocentric solar system?

But we do have very high performance computers now that can simulate the n-body problem both forward and backwards.

Are you talking about these simulations from supercomputers?

Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions

For more than 300 years, mathematicians have puzzled over the three-body problem – the question of how three objects orbit one another according to Newton’s laws. Now, there are 1223 new solutions to the conundrum, more than doubling the current number of possibilities.

...The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.

...Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.

But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane.

Knot-like paths

In addition, the researchers did not test the orbits’ stability. It’s possible that the tiniest disturbance in space or rounding error in the equations could rip the objects away from one another.

“These orbits have nothing to do with astronomy, but you’re solving these equations and you’re getting something beautiful,” says Vanderbei.

...Aside from giving us a thousand pretty pictures of knot-like orbital paths, the new three-body solutions also mark a starting point for finding even more possible orbits, and eventually figuring out the whole range of winding paths that three objects can follow around one another.

...“This is kind of the zeroth step. Then the question becomes, how is the space of all possible positions and velocities filled up by solutions?” says Richard Montgomery at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These simple orbits are kind of like a skeleton to build the whole system up from.”

As suggested, the field of Celestial Mechanics is still on step zero—the stone age. The found orbits are nothing like heliocentric astronomy and there will be an attempt to use them as a skeleton to "build the whole system up from."

Take a look at the three body problem solutions. They look NOTHING like the systems of Copernicus. They are highly symmetrical, require at least two bodies of equal mass, and fall apart at the slightest touch.

Again, no one is talking about a solution.
We are talking about simulations.

Having specific 3 body systems be unstable doesn't mean all are.

Now can you show that the Earth-moon-sun system is unstable?
If not, bringing up the 3 body problem is irrelevant.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 09, 2019, 04:26:48 PM

Take a look at the three body problem solutions. They look NOTHING like the systems of Copernicus. They are highly symmetrical, require at least two bodies of equal mass, and fall apart at the slightest touch.

Again, no one is talking about a solution.
We are talking about simulations.

See above. The Three Body Problem has been simulated in a super computer and the solutions required two of the three bodies to have the same mass and produced crazy loopy knot-like orbits. The results will be used as a "skeleton to build the whole system up from". It is admitted that it's "kind of the zeroth step".

Quote from: rabinoz on July 09, 2019, 04:31:19 PM

But we do have very high performance computers now that can simulate the n-body problem both forward and backwards.

Are you talking about these simulations from supercomputers?

Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions

Quote from: New Scientist

For more than 300 years, mathematicians have puzzled over the three-body problem – the question of how three objects orbit one another according to Newton’s laws. Now, there are 1223 new solutions to the conundrum, more than doubling the current number of possibilities.

...The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.

...Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.

But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane.

Knot-like paths

In addition, the researchers did not test the orbits’ stability. It’s possible that the tiniest disturbance in space or rounding error in the equations could rip the objects away from one another.

“These orbits have nothing to do with astronomy, but you’re solving these equations and you’re getting something beautiful,” says Vanderbei.

...Aside from giving us a thousand pretty pictures of knot-like orbital paths, the new three-body solutions also mark a starting point for finding even more possible orbits, and eventually figuring out the whole range of winding paths that three objects can follow around one another.

...“This is kind of the zeroth step. Then the question becomes, how is the space of all possible positions and velocities filled up by solutions?” says Richard Montgomery at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These simple orbits are kind of like a skeleton to build the whole system up from.”

As suggested, the field of Celestial Mechanics is still on step zero—the stone age. The found orbits are nothing like heliocentric astronomy and there will be an attempt to use them as a skeleton to "build the whole system up from."

How does FET solve and/or simulate the N-Body Problem? And what does the N-Body Problem have to do with an infinite plane earth?

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 09, 2019, 09:53:16 AM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 08, 2019, 08:54:24 PM

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 08, 2019, 08:27:27 PM

After all, the light rays passing near the sun are not at all bent! Since the sun does not have a gravity well.

What ever gave you that idea? 

I spread my wings. I think you need to more carefully study the "scientific" works. All have long been proven that the sun does not bend light from the stars. And all who say the opposite - says nonsense. Since this is already a proven fact that Einstein’s followers simply faked the official results. Fit them under the theory of gravity! To be unsubstantiated, find photographs of a solar eclipse published in the newspapers of that time. The one for which this was done and you yourself will be convinced of the forgery of the results. Which were later published in scientific circles (when they simply erased all the "objectionable" stars from duplicate photos). I congratulate you all who have a double standard. We see and say that it is not so ...

I think it would really help the debate if you stayed on track and stopped distorting the truth. Spreading your wings is fine, misrepresenting the facts is not, but please stay on topic, remember we are debating the infinite plane!

I am a pony, and therefore I have wings and a tail! And spread the wings, it is in the literal sense! As well as the fact that the solar eclipses are directly related to this topic, I have already explained how it is related.

There is no distortion of facts! I see no reason to argue about the reliable fact of forgery of the results of observations. Scientists fear that the sun does not have a gravity well. I spread my hooves. And it makes no sense to start a branch from scratch. This is how to say that the water is wet.