Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?

  • 181 Replies
  • 2541 Views
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #90 on: October 10, 2019, 02:40:46 AM »
Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.

Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.

Genuinely can't work out if you are trolling, but OK, I'll bite.
The observations of the sun are that it travels across the sky at a consistent angular speed and remains a consistent angular size throughout the day.
That means it must be the same distance from us throughout the day, otherwise the angular size would keep changing.
That is consistent with being on a globe which is rotating and a distant sun.
It is also consistent with a globe which is not rotating and an orbiting, distant sun.
How do we tell the difference? From the observations above alone it is impossible.
Other observations can help us though, the Coreolis effect is consistent with rotation and as your mate Bob from Globebusters found out, you can measure a 15 degree per hour drift with a ring laser gyroscope. So it's us that's rotating.

The observations above are not consistent with a close sun or a flat earth and the sun circling above it. With that model the angular size and speed would change througout the day and the sun would never set. So you have to invent other explanations - ones you have no evidence for - to explain away why the observations are not consistent with your model.

Your proof of a flat earth are your observations "looks flat to me!", but when observations show your model to be incorrect you invent things to explain why so you can keep believing in your model. Bit intellectually dishonest really.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #91 on: October 10, 2019, 02:47:38 AM »
The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.

Ah, I see you're still unable to understand this too.
There is no analytical solution to the 3 body problem, there are numerical solutions which do a perfectly fine job of modelling the system.

Your statement that the system can't exist because we don't have a perfect model of it is like noting that we don't have the computing power to trace every ray of sunlight through every drop of rain when a rainbow is formed and concluding that must mean rainbows don't exist.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #92 on: October 10, 2019, 03:54:44 AM »
Another is the BS solar system gallavanting about the cosmos...

In order to portray that accurately, a computer (which uses math, you ass) requires the math from Newton/Einstein/Keplar...
It's already been pointed out that the gif is not a completely accurate representation of the solar system "gallavanting" through the galaxy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/#1df57dc17ec2

Even the person who created the animation admitted that he isn't a scientist.
https://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction/
Not only is it not a completely accurate representation, it is a totally BS representation.

So, where is the real one?

You know, the one with the required math?

You know, the math you claim is accurate...
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #93 on: October 10, 2019, 03:56:53 AM »
Pg 2 is dedicated solely to the moon gif.
Piss off.
Nobody here has attempted to restrict the written words to page 2 but you...

Piss on...

yourself...

as usual...

Freak...
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #94 on: October 10, 2019, 04:00:41 AM »
What makes you think that the sun-earth-moon system gives a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys about the 3 body problem?
First thing that comes to my keen witted mind would be...

"I'll take the Sun-Earth-Moon system is 3 bodies for 1000, Alex!"
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #95 on: October 10, 2019, 04:06:15 AM »
I originally posted the swirling solar system gif with this comment:

“At the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this, except a flat earth with the Sun and all of the other celestial bodies revolving above it instead of swirling around the sun?”

I never said it was an accurate model of anything. You’re pretty much a jackass for taking it out of context and trying to complain about it. Well done.
So, you admit to posting inaccurate crap here while claiming to post real answers?

And somehow I am the jackass and I am the one who took your out of context contribution and I am posting that out of context...

I don't think so...I think the title of jackass is firmly in your grasp for perpetuity.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 04:23:30 AM by totallackey »
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #96 on: October 10, 2019, 04:11:52 AM »
The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.

Ah, I see you're still unable to understand this too.
There is no analytical solution to the 3 body problem, there are numerical solutions which do a perfectly fine job of modelling the system.

Your statement that the system can't exist because we don't have a perfect model of it is like noting that we don't have the computing power to trace every ray of sunlight through every drop of rain when a rainbow is formed and concluding that must mean rainbows don't exist.
And you continuing to post this type of rubbish is so glaringly full of crap it defies credulity.

Hello?

"...numerical solutions..."?

Should there not be just one? You know...the one Newton and Keplar had all worked out, in league with Einstein?

Post one (including the numbers)...then post the CGI representation of three in motion (using the numbers)...then add the rest of the system scientists claim to have a firm grip on...

What a joke!

The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #97 on: October 10, 2019, 04:46:56 AM »
Pg 2 is dedicated solely to the moon gif.
Piss off.
Nobody here has attempted to restrict the written words to page 2 but you...

Piss on...

yourself...

as usual...

Freak...

I was staying with the conversation.
The spinning gif was already addrsssed and you two were arguing over the moon size.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #98 on: October 10, 2019, 04:51:34 AM »
Wow
Didnt follow alpng with any of the discussion did you there, lackless.
Keep hand waving for a 3body nonissue.
The point of gif one was answered - it is an artists interpretation.
Whats next, you going to get mad theres no photo proof the skin colour of dinosaurs?

https://images.app.goo.gl/aWjYbyQUrcM2YH5z8

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #99 on: October 10, 2019, 05:12:47 AM »

The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.

One could say that, but one would be utterly and hilariously wrong.

It’s only a “problem” in that it can’t be solved by a simple set of equations.

Unlike two-body problems, no closed-form solution exists for all sets of initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem

It does not mean such a system doesn’t exist.  It doesn’t even mean it can’t be solved.  It just means that it takes an iterative process to do so.

There’s nothing unusual about that.  Similar techniques are used for things like calculating fluid flow, stresses in machines and structures, and heaps of other things.  They would be a nightmare to attempt by hand, but it’s the kind of thing that computers are very good at.

So, following your logic, as there’s no straightforward equation to describe fluid flow around a solid object, would you conclude that fluid can’t flow around an object?




Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #100 on: October 10, 2019, 05:29:47 AM »

And you continuing to post this type of rubbish is so glaringly full of crap it defies credulity.

Hello?

"...numerical solutions..."?

Should there not be just one? You know...the one Newton and Keplar had all worked out, in league with Einstein?

Post one (including the numbers)...then post the CGI representation of three in motion (using the numbers)...then add the rest of the system scientists claim to have a firm grip on...

What a joke!

Argument from incredulity is never the best stance.

Before demanding others post enormous amounts of technical data, why don’t you “do your own research” (TM) and find out what these terms mean in relation to this problem?

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #101 on: October 10, 2019, 05:43:07 AM »
I was staying with the conversation.
The spinning gif was already addrsssed and you two were arguing over the moon size.
Wow
Didnt follow alpng with any of the discussion did you there, lackless.
Keep hand waving for a 3body nonissue.
The point of gif one was answered - it is an artists interpretation.
Whats next, you going to get mad theres no photo proof the skin colour of dinosaurs?

https://images.app.goo.gl/aWjYbyQUrcM2YH5z8
You haven't followed along since thread inception...

Hint: Title includes the words - "...inputs for these fallacious posts..."

As evidenced throughout this thread, your participation has offered nothing of value, is totally off topic, and clearly restricted (as would be expected from someone with such mental impairments and disabilities) to mindless babble and idiocy.

Again, go sit in the corner.
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #102 on: October 10, 2019, 05:47:28 AM »

And you continuing to post this type of rubbish is so glaringly full of crap it defies credulity.

Hello?

"...numerical solutions..."?

Should there not be just one? You know...the one Newton and Keplar had all worked out, in league with Einstein?

Post one (including the numbers)...then post the CGI representation of three in motion (using the numbers)...then add the rest of the system scientists claim to have a firm grip on...

What a joke!

Argument from incredulity is never the best stance.

Before demanding others post enormous amounts of technical data, why don’t you “do your own research” (TM) and find out what these terms mean in relation to this problem?
Again, demanding I post research in support of another member submission, prior to their posting of the actual data in support of their submission[/b], is sheer lunacy...

Someone posts something, the exact same someone should be able explain quite clearly what the terms mean relative to the problem.

Which those someones' have yet to do...

So, nice try with your, "... argument from incredulity..." schtick, but it ain't flying here puffy pants...
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 05:51:52 AM by totallackey »
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #103 on: October 10, 2019, 06:38:16 AM »
Another is the BS solar system gallavanting about the cosmos...

In order to portray that accurately, a computer (which uses math, you ass) requires the math from Newton/Einstein/Keplar...
It's already been pointed out that the gif is not a completely accurate representation of the solar system "gallavanting" through the galaxy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/#1df57dc17ec2

Even the person who created the animation admitted that he isn't a scientist.
https://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction/
Not only is it not a completely accurate representation, it is a totally BS representation.

So, where is the real one?

You know, the one with the required math?

You know, the math you claim is accurate...
This thread is about how the FE system explains sunsets.  RE models aren't relevant.
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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #104 on: October 10, 2019, 06:42:19 AM »
What makes you think that the sun-earth-moon system gives a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys about the 3 body problem?
First thing that comes to my keen witted mind would be...

"I'll take the Sun-Earth-Moon system is 3 bodies for 1000, Alex!"
How does FET handle the sun-earth-moon 3 body 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: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #105 on: October 10, 2019, 06:53:44 AM »
Sit in the corner eh?

Your questions have been answered.
Youre getting a good work out waving your hands there lackless?

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #106 on: October 10, 2019, 08:17:04 AM »
Another is the BS solar system gallavanting about the cosmos...

In order to portray that accurately, a computer (which uses math, you ass) requires the math from Newton/Einstein/Keplar...
It's already been pointed out that the gif is not a completely accurate representation of the solar system "gallavanting" through the galaxy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/#1df57dc17ec2

Even the person who created the animation admitted that he isn't a scientist.
https://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction/
Not only is it not a completely accurate representation, it is a totally BS representation.

So, where is the real one?

You know, the one with the required math?

You know, the math you claim is accurate...
This thread is about how the FE system explains sunsets.  RE models aren't relevant.
Penguin, the thread is about what the author declares is about...

Inputs (i.e., math) relative to gifs and  varied CGI images...
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #107 on: October 10, 2019, 08:19:55 AM »
What makes you think that the sun-earth-moon system gives a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys about the 3 body problem?
First thing that comes to my keen witted mind would be...

"I'll take the Sun-Earth-Moon system is 3 bodies for 1000, Alex!"
How does FET handle the sun-earth-moon 3 body system?
You should ask Stash.

You don't seem to mind his explanations so far and pinky swear he is capable and absolutely willing to describe what the real FE would look like...

Come to think of it, you backhandedly claim expertise in the area of describing realms you claim cannot possibly exist...
The NIST report(s) never went through what we would call peer review (Much like an FAA crash report doesn't either). But reports based upon NIST findings have.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38268
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #108 on: October 10, 2019, 08:24:31 AM »
Another is the BS solar system gallavanting about the cosmos...

In order to portray that accurately, a computer (which uses math, you ass) requires the math from Newton/Einstein/Keplar...
It's already been pointed out that the gif is not a completely accurate representation of the solar system "gallavanting" through the galaxy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/08/30/our-motion-through-space-isnt-a-vortex-but-something-far-more-interesting/#1df57dc17ec2

Even the person who created the animation admitted that he isn't a scientist.
https://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction/
Not only is it not a completely accurate representation, it is a totally BS representation.

So, where is the real one?

You know, the one with the required math?

You know, the math you claim is accurate...
This thread is about how the FE system explains sunsets.  RE models aren't relevant.
Penguin, the thread is about what the author declares is about...

Inputs (i.e., math) relative to gifs and  varied CGI images...
Yes, inputs relative to a CGI model of a flat earth system.  The round earth system is irrelevant to this topic.  The inputs (size and altitude of the sun) can be found in the wiki.  The math...  well, that's something that we've been asking FE'ers to provide for years, but never get any response.  Given the lack of FE math, we're limited to using what little information FE'ers publish and generally accepted physics to create an FE model for you.  If you disagree with the model, then by all means please provide the proper math so that we can accurately visualize an FE sunset.
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.

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #109 on: October 10, 2019, 09:37:28 AM »
I originally posted the swirling solar system gif with this comment:

“At the end of the day, wouldn't a scriptural interpretation of UA simply be this, except a flat earth with the Sun and all of the other celestial bodies revolving above it instead of swirling around the sun?”

I never said it was an accurate model of anything. You’re pretty much a jackass for taking it out of context and trying to complain about it. Well done.
So, you admit to posting inaccurate crap here while claiming to post real answers?

And somehow I am the jackass and I am the one who took your out of context contribution and I am posting that out of context...

I don't think so...I think the title of jackass is firmly in your grasp for perpetuity.

Question, can you read? Like I said above, I originally posted the swirling solar system gif asking the question if it would represent something like UA pushing the plane if you swapped it for the sun. You plucked that out of context and created a whole post pretending that I said something like, "Here's a dead accurate, mathematically proven representation of the RE solar system..." Which I never did. And you're still trying to make the claim that I did. I was asking a question about UA dumbass.

So you are making a highly inaccurate claim about something that I never said or did which yes, makes you a jackass.

As for the other 2 graphics they are based on the wiki 3000 mile high FE sun. I gave you the code for one. And for the static graphic, the 'data' is in it; pixel count represents miles and scale.

So your lame post has been answered several times now. If you would actually like to contribute something useful, now that you have the 'inputs' and your question has been answered, why don't you show us how an FE sun actually sets.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #110 on: October 10, 2019, 10:12:06 AM »

And you continuing to post this type of rubbish is so glaringly full of crap it defies credulity.

Hello?

"...numerical solutions..."?

Should there not be just one? You know...the one Newton and Keplar had all worked out, in league with Einstein?

Post one (including the numbers)...then post the CGI representation of three in motion (using the numbers)...then add the rest of the system scientists claim to have a firm grip on...

What a joke!

Argument from incredulity is never the best stance.

Before demanding others post enormous amounts of technical data, why don’t you “do your own research” (TM) and find out what these terms mean in relation to this problem?
Again, demanding I post research in support of another member submission, prior to their posting of the actual data in support of their submission[/b], is sheer lunacy...

I didn’t demand you post anything.  I suggested you look into how these models work and what the terms actually mean before declaring it all as “rubbish” and “a joke”.

Even if you choose not to believe that it can work, you’d at least have some idea about what we are talking about.

Most regular “round earthers” here have attempted to understand what flat earthers propose.  Can you really not be bothered to try to understand anything about the hundreds of years of physics behind the heliocentric model?

How can you possibly claim something is rubbish without knowing how it’s supposed to work?

Quote
Someone posts something, the exact same someone should be able explain quite clearly what the terms mean relative to the problem.

Which those someones' have yet to do...

Alright, here’s what “numerical solutions” means:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_analysis

Incidentally, no there doesn’t just need to be one solution.  The underlying physics are the same, and the final result should be near enough the same (to whatever margin of error) but the iterative process that various models use to get that result can be different.

What’s more, that could well be proprietary information of whoever built the model.

In the same way there are numerous CFD packages that despite all modeling the same basic physics, are all different. 

Quote
So, nice try with your, "... argument from incredulity..." schtick, but it ain't flying here puffy pants...

Well you said “so glaringly full of crap it defies credulity”.

You straight up declared an argument from incredulity yourself.  I didn’t even need to read anything into it, fuzzy balls.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #111 on: October 10, 2019, 12:18:17 PM »
Um.. Those numerical solutions require at lease two of the three bodies to have the same mass.

The 1223 new periodic orbits of planar three-body problem with unequal mass and zero angular momentum

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.04775.pdf

At the bottom of p.1 see "Therefore, without loss of generality, we consider m1 = m2 = 1 and m3 is varied."

Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148074-infamous-three-body-problem-has-over-a-thousand-new-solutions/

"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."

Over a thousand new periodic orbits of a planar three-body system with unequal masses

https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article/70/4/64/4999993

"Here, we report 1349 new families of planar periodic orbits of the triple system where two bodies have the same mass and the other has a different mass."

What a farce. These are your three body problem solutions?

Show us where the solutions are with different masses, or that the sun-earth-moon system can be simulated with the three body  problem.

QUOTE sources rather than giving unwashed opinion.

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #112 on: October 10, 2019, 12:32:57 PM »
Um.. Those numerical solutions require at lease two of the three bodies to have the same mass.

The 1223 new periodic orbits of planar three-body problem with unequal mass and zero angular momentum

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.04775.pdf

At the bottom of p.1 see "Therefore, without loss of generality, we consider m1 = m2 = 1 and m3 is varied."

Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148074-infamous-three-body-problem-has-over-a-thousand-new-solutions/

"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."

Over a thousand new periodic orbits of a planar three-body system with unequal masses

https://academic.oup.com/pasj/article/70/4/64/4999993

"Here, we report 1349 new families of planar periodic orbits of the triple system where two bodies have the same mass and the other has a different mass."

What a farce. These are your three body problem solutions?

Show us where the solutions are with different masses, or that the sun-earth-moon system can be simulated with the three body  problem.

QUOTE sources rather than giving unwashed opinion.

What does the 3 body problem have to do with the question at hand: Showing how FET can get the 3000 mile high sun to reach the horizon and go below it, aka, sunset? We've shown how it can't, show us how it can.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #113 on: October 10, 2019, 12:39:55 PM »
TomB is incapable of answering or asking a valid question.
He should join in on canadas next leaders election debate.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17258
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #114 on: October 10, 2019, 12:44:06 PM »
What does the 3 body problem have to do with the question at hand: Showing how FET can get the 3000 mile high sun to reach the horizon and go below it, aka, sunset? We've shown how it can't, show us how it can.

It shows that RE does not have an actual model to counter with. The system of rotating bodies floating in space under the laws of gravity can't actually exist. Pretty damning that RE doesn't work.

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #115 on: October 10, 2019, 12:51:18 PM »
That is consistent with being on a globe which is rotating and a distant sun.
It is also consistent with a globe which is not rotating and an orbiting, distant sun.
Not quite. While the yearly motion can hypothetically be the result of the sun orbiting us, the daily motion cannot be.
The three options are:
A round, rotating Earth orbiting the sun.
A round, rotating Earth with the sun orbiting it.
A round, stationary Earth with the sun tracing out a crazy helical path which is effectively the combination of an orbit and a rotation about an axis passing through Earth.

A rotating Earth is by far the simplest and most rational explanation for why the sun and stars appear to make an ~ daily circle about Earth's axis.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 818
  • Physical Comedian
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #116 on: October 10, 2019, 12:53:47 PM »
What does the 3 body problem have to do with the question at hand: Showing how FET can get the 3000 mile high sun to reach the horizon and go below it, aka, sunset? We've shown how it can't, show us how it can.

It shows that RE does not have an actual model to counter with. The system of rotating bodies floating in space under the laws of gravity can't actually exist. Pretty damning that RE doesn't work.
So mathematicians trying and failing to model reality means that reality must be wrong???  :o
Nullius in Verba

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #117 on: October 10, 2019, 12:58:07 PM »
What does the 3 body problem have to do with the question at hand: Showing how FET can get the 3000 mile high sun to reach the horizon and go below it, aka, sunset? We've shown how it can't, show us how it can.

It shows that RE does not have an actual model to counter with. The system of rotating bodies floating in space under the laws of gravity can't actually exist. Pretty damning that RE doesn't work.
So mathematicians trying and failing to model reality means that reality must be wrong???  :o

Another great ignorant summary by TomB.
It does exist.
It cant easily br calculated in a single formula.
What are you not getting here?

Can you now admit double pendulums dont exist?

*

Stash

  • 2768
Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #118 on: October 10, 2019, 01:00:35 PM »
What does the 3 body problem have to do with the question at hand: Showing how FET can get the 3000 mile high sun to reach the horizon and go below it, aka, sunset? We've shown how it can't, show us how it can.

It shows that RE does not have an actual model to counter with. The system of rotating bodies floating in space under the laws of gravity can't actually exist. Pretty damning that RE doesn't work.

Hmmm, actually no, we're talking about a 2 body issue, not 3. A simple sunset which is utterly and accurately predictable and can be demonstrated for a globe earth. Yet for FET, you can't get a 3000 mile high Sun down to the horizon let alone below it. Unless you can show that FET can, which you haven't.
Can you tell us where the FE sun is at noon for someone observing a sunset in Nebraska? Then take that direction and distance and show us through perspective and magnification it can be seen near and then below the horizon?

Re: Where are the inputs for these fallacious posts?
« Reply #119 on: October 10, 2019, 01:06:55 PM »
Not only is it not a completely accurate representation, it is a totally BS representation.
So, where is the real one?
You know, the one with the required math?
You know, the math you claim is accurate...
We have been over this before.
There are plenty of models out there using the correct math.
But a CGI representation of it all done to scale would be completely useless as you would be unable to see anything on it without zooming in so far that everything else isn't seen.

"...numerical solutions..."?
Should there not be just one?
No. Just like most problems there can be multiple solutions.
One simple example is the choice between reference frames.
You can model the solar system as just the solar system and ignore the rest of the universe. Or you can model it as part of a galaxy, or you can include the motion of the galaxy as well.
You can also choose to use Newton for gravity as an approximation, or Einstein.

It comes down to what level of accuracy you need.

Um.. Those numerical solutions require at lease two of the three bodies to have the same mass.
No they don't.
The discovered analytical solutions do.
A numerical solution is where you model it step-wise and do a bunch of number crunching rather than finding a nice equation.

But the simple existence of those three body solutions shows that three-body system can exist without falling apart, and thus your claim that "because the Earth-Sun-Moon is a 3 body system it would fall apart" is entirely fallacious.

You are the one claiming the three body problem shows the Earth-Moon-Sun system cannot exist, as such the burden is on you to substantiate your claim. It is not on us to refute your baseless assertion.
So how about instead demanding people refute your claims you provide evidence to back them up?
Provide evidence which shows that the Earth-Moon-Sun system will fall apart.

It shows that RE does not have an actual model to counter with. The system of rotating bodies floating in space under the laws of gravity can't actually exist. Pretty damning that RE doesn't work.
Pure garbage.
It shows we don't have a nice simple analytical solution, not that we don't have a model.

We do have a model, which explains reality quite well, which is vastly superior in every way to the nonsense put forth by FEers.

So far all you have provided are baseless claims that such a system can't exist. You have absolutely nothing to substantiate that claim.

Now again, how about trying to explain sunsets?
Just what causes the magical magnification of the sun/moon?