The infinite plane.

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.

That is nothing like the Heliocentric Solar System where the Sun has a mass of over 99.8% of the whole system!

Throw away toys like that and get a numerical solution with mass ratios somewhere approaching reality and where the initial conditions can be set.

But it might be applied to your Flat Earth Model where the Sun and Moon are of about equal size and the planets are "small".

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on July 09, 2019, 11:22:58 AM

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.

See Lonegranger - even though I’m the most common weather pegasus, I read everything you write here. And even though you are a man, you cannot even read everything to the end ... Read carefully what I am writing, I'm not going to talk about gravity! This is what you say. I explained how “gravity” is related to our space. People - learn to think not according to a pattern, and there will be peace on earth ...

See Lonegranger - even though I’m the most common weather pegasus, I read everything you write here. And even though you are a man, you cannot even read everything to the end ... Read carefully what I am writing, I'm not going to talk about gravity! This is what you say. I explained how “gravity” is related to our space. People - learn to think not according to a pattern, and there will be peace on earth ...

For me, personally, you're totally creeping me out. If you can't directly address the topic, then don't. Keep your wings and weather to yourself unless you can actually add to the OP. Jesus, what's it take around here to get a simple non-fantasmagoric response?

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.

Yes, those SPECIFIC solutions have those requirements.
Finding these solutions doesn't mean no other solutions exist. If it did, they wouldn't have been able to find any more solutions.
Even if they were the only solutions, that doesn't mean every other option is unstable. It just means other options aren't periodic.

So again, do you have any evidence or justification for your claim that all other options are impossible?

Quote from: Lonegranger on July 09, 2019, 02:26:16 PM

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.

Just as you are not a pony nor have wings, the earth is neither flat nor infinite. I have explained why in this and other threads. You could care to ponder the neutrino problem or why the moon is the way it is when viewed from the northern or Southern Hemispheres which is completely what one would expect from a spherical earth. This is something that can’t be faked. You could ponder both these points next time you go out for a quick canter.
Hi ho silver away!

Just as you are not a pony nor have wings, the earth is neither flat nor infinite. I have explained why in this and other threads. You could care to ponder the neutrino problem or why the moon is the way it is when viewed from the northern or Southern Hemispheres which is completely what one would expect from a spherical earth. This is something that can’t be faked. You could ponder both these points next time you go out for a quick canter.
Hi ho silver away!

Here one more there …. Show me kind Lonegranger where I say that the earth flat? And what moon false? You what you have a plot not to read my letters? Or at you, as at bulls on a red rag if there is a word "flat". You at once it will betray inquisitions! Now I very much will upset you with Lonegranger, I also consider the earth the spinning sphere around which satellites fly! About the earth a sphere it is written both to the Bibles and in apocryphal stories, and in the Veda. Here only an ill luck... the earth has no curve in side-altars of the visible horizon, it in practice is flat. What is proved by all observations and experiments, and also about it is again written to the Bibles (do not confuse with that flat earth which is propagandized here. Another means absolutely. It is the boundless plane surrounding our sphere). I ask you Lonegranger from it not to move down from a roof, you are not able to fly.
You say that you explained everything, but alas you even not a jot did not give though any reasonable explanation why in programs of satellites of an echelon two, the flat earth but not a sphere is used! Waved the tail. Learn Lonegranger to read messages, and then be secured. Follow an example with - JackBlack and rabinoz which do attempts everything to inform with a scientific accuracy...
Though you are Lonegranger and began this subject from interest, but is not interesting to you at all as you to everything take a jaundiced view. I will consider that you just troll if you do not read the message completely (I do not know English, I can send in Russian).



And yes - I am a pony! Also I have both wings and a tail. And if you do not understand it, then will not understand why the earth being a sphere has no horizon curves. I think that I do not have sense to you any more what to tell as for you this subject the farce.

Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

It sounds like Rab is now trying to work within a restricted 3 body system, ignoring the mass of one or more bodies. While this might have some experimental success in prediction, the patently wrong system of the Aztecs could predict heavenly motions as well. This highlights that man with his greatness for invention can create spurious systems that at first seem to solve the problem at hand, but in the end fail due to their lack of rigor.

Either that or he doesn't realize that it doesn't matter if you have the mass of each body to any degree of accuracy. The problem is not solvable, or at least has not been solved in the general sense.

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident. More than this, it has held the attention of greats like myself, Rowbotham, Shenton, and Johnson.

The infinite flat earth is one of the strongest gravitational models I know of in regards to a flat earth.

Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.

Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

Either that or he doesn't realize that it doesn't matter if you have the mass of each body to any degree of accuracy. The problem is not solvable, or at least has not been solved in the general sense.

Nobody has to "solve it"!
All Tom Bishop's simulations show is that for similar mass objects there are unstable orbits and no one doubts that.
But none of the simulations he showed has the mass ratios anything like the Sun, Earth, Moon mass ratio of 333,000:1:0.0123.

In addition, for multi-bodied systems, it is well known that the orbits are extremely sensitive to the initial conditions so Tom Bishop's simulations prove nothing.

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident. More than this, it has held the attention of greats like myself, Rowbotham, Shenton, and Johnson.

The structure of the infinite flat earth might be stable.

But, in the infinite flat earth model, what hold the celestial objects above the earth and keeps them stable on their orbits?

The infinite flat earth is one of the strongest gravitational models I know of in regards to a flat earth.

Yes, it certainly is because it simply uses Newtonian Gravitation.

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.

Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.

It's very weird to say "we can't solve the maths for how this works, so therefore it can't actually work in real life.... even though we can see it working"

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.

Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

What? Space can't expand at increasing rates like it does in RE?

And tell me. What would the curvature of an infinite sphere be?

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2019, 02:43:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.

Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.

What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"? 

It's very weird to say "we can't solve the maths for how this works, so therefore it can't actually work in real life.... even though we can see it working"

Has this been said? On the other hand its odder to say "We believe this theory is accurate, in spite of being unable to define it." As far as it being what we "see", I have to disagree. Its but one interpretation of what we see.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 11, 2019, 09:51:40 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2019, 02:43:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.

Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.

What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"?

Have you ever divided by zero?

Gravity would be absolutely constant regardless of distance.

Quote from: John Davis on July 12, 2019, 08:17:20 AM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on July 11, 2019, 09:51:40 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2019, 02:43:39 PM

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

Tom Bishop is correct correct; there is no way to model a 3-body system and show its stability.

But that wasn't what he was claiming.
Instead he was claiming that because we can't, that means they must be unstable and need God to intervene and thus the HC system is fake or supported by a god.

Quote from: John Davis on July 11, 2019, 08:30:51 AM

The infinite flat earth, on the other hand, can easily shown to be stable and the proof for it is somewhat self evident.

Yes, Earth itself, at least assuming there aren't any large enough irregularities that would tear it apart or cause it to collapse into an infinite sphere.
But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

Not to mention the gravitational pull of an infinite mass on every other object in the Universe and its effects on the fabric of space-time.

What exactly do you think would happen to every other object in the Universe and the "Fabric of Space-Time"?

Have you ever divided by zero?

Of course I have. Last time I did it I tried 1/0 and got ∞ using a riemann sphere. Another time I using IEEE floats I tried 10/0 and got ∞ and for 0/0 I got that it wasn't a number. In fact, to find the slope of a tangent to a point on an arbitrary curve, I can divide by zero.

Luckily for us, every other object in the universe didn't explode. Why do you think division by zero is relevant?


I suspect some high school teacher or uni professor is to blame here. Of course, they also think the earth is round, so its hard to fault them and their cute little religion.

What? Space can't expand at increasing rates like it does in RE?

And be incredibly unstable.

If an object is at just the right height to remain in place, what happens if it gets any closer or any further?
Well if it gets closer then the expansion is no longer sufficient and thus it gets closer and closer and closer until it eventually collides with Earth.
If it is any further then the expansion is more than sufficient and thus it gets further and further and further until it disappears.

And tell me. What would the curvature of an infinite sphere be?

1/infinity?
Where would the surface of such a sphere be?
Would would be the acceleration due to gravity on such a sphere?

Quote from: turtles on July 12, 2019, 01:20:57 AM

It's very weird to say "we can't solve the maths for how this works, so therefore it can't actually work in real life.... even though we can see it working"

Has this been said?

Yes, repeatedly.

That has been Tom's main argument.
He is claiming that because we can't have a nice simple solution to the three body problem, that means that the Earth-Moon-Sun system is unstable and needs a god to hold it together.

See these quotes from Tom:

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.

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.

There are also plenty more instances where he implies it while avoiding saying it directly.

Quote from: JackBlack on July 11, 2019, 02:43:39 PM

But when you start putting objects above it, like the sun and moon, that stability goes out the window as you then need something holding it all up.

What? Space can't expand at increasing rates like it does in RE?

Why not? Of course you can assume that space can "expand at increasing rates like it does in RE".
The Heliocentric Solar System (presumably what you call RE) does not have space expanding at all.

Even if you insist on dragging modern Cosmology into the mix you should first check just how fast space is hypothesised to expand.

How fast is the universe expanding?
When astronomers talk about the expansion of the Universe, they usually express it in terms of the Hubble parameter. . . . .  . The best measurements for this parameter gives a value of about 68 km/s per megaparsec.

Though later values  might be 71 km/s per megaparsec (a megaparsec is about 3.3 million light years).
So if my sums are right space might be expanding at the rate of 0.0378 mm/sec between your flat earth and the sun, 5000 km above.

Do you seriously suggest that this might be "something holding it all up" ?

But there's a fly in the ointment!
Modern Cosmology asserts that gravitationally bound object are not "dragged apart" by the "expansion of the Universe". Andromeda, for example, is moving towards our galaxy.

Is Everything in the Universe Expanding?
The Universe is expanding. Distant galaxies are moving away from us in all directions. It’s natural to wonder, is everything expanding? Is the Milky Way expanding? What about the Solar System, or even objects here on Earth.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Andromeda Galaxy is actually moving towards the Milky Way, and will collide with us in about 4 billion years.In this case, the pull of gravity between the Milky Way and Andromeda is so strong that it overcomes the expansion of the Universe on a local level.

Within the Milky Way, gravity holds the stars together, and same with the Solar System. The nuclear force holding atoms together is stronger than this expansion at a local scale.

More in: Flat Earth General / Re: Tom Bishop thinks "the RE should try to figure out the nonsense in their model".
So if "gravity between the Milky Way and Andromeda is so strong that it overcomes the expansion of the Universe" your sun doesn't stand a chance!

Even if you insist on dragging modern Cosmology into the mix you should first check just how fast space is hypothesised to expand.

It still has expanding space, the difference is the magnitude.

The Heliocentric Solar System (presumably what you call RE) does not have space expanding at all.
Modern Cosmology asserts that gravitationally bound object are not "dragged apart" by the "expansion of the Universe".

Space is still expanding, however the gravitational attraction (or other forces) between the objects overcomes that expansion, holding it together or causing it to collapse. Kind of like how tidal forces should destroy objects within the roche limit, but electrostatics can hold it together. That doesn't mean it doesn't experience tidal forces.

However one of the speculated end of the universe options is the big rip, where the ever increasing expansion of space eventually starts apart smaller and smaller objects until it eventually overcomes gravity even at the small scale of a planetary system/planet, the electrostatic force holding most materials together and even atoms together, the nuclear force holding atoms together and potentially even the strong force holding quarks together in nucleons.