Rejection of science

It seems to me that most FEers reject Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related sciences.  I am wondering if this rejection of science only applies to these sciences or all sciences.   We have so many advancements in medicine, electronics, biology, geology, physics, etc, that at least some aspects of science have to be real.  Otherwise nothing would work; planes would not fly, cell phones would not work, the internet would not exist, we would not have medicine to treat diseases, etc.

Take chemistry for example.  Its real, the periodic table of elements is not made up, its not a hoax, its not 'fake news'.  There is a relationship between the elements that can be explained and predicted.   Most people don't understand chemistry, but you don't need to understand chemistry to know that elements in the same column share similar properties.  The model of the atom has changed considerably over time, from this orbiting cloud of electrons to a 'probability function' of where the electron is most likely found. 

Chemistry incorporates many of the elements of quantum quantum mechanics.  Is this made up?   Quantum mechanics is generally regarded as one the most successful theories in all of science.   Quantum mechanics is not really 'provable' and it goes against much of our senses.  How can we not know where something is until we measure it.
The simple act of measuring something changes its location.  Ideas like this go against our common sense, yet in the realm of quantum mechanics, they are accepted as true.
Quantum mechanics can not only explain many of our observations, but also it can make so many predictions that were not testable at the time.  The importance of a theory's ability to not only explain observations but also to make predictions is often overlooked in the FE community.  Sure maybe there are some models that can explain night and day and the seasons and the phases of the moon and why mercury transits the sun (which it did in November 2019).  However i have not seen any FE theory that would predict lunar and solar eclipses or be able to tell me that a transit of the sun by Mercury will happen again in 2032.  We can predict eclipses out 100s, perhaps thousands of years, almost to the day and within a few miles on earth where they will be observable.  Th

I got off my originally point so back to my example of chemistry.  It is related to many other fields, including biology and astrophysics.  Most of life on earth is based on carbon, and how it bonds with other elements.  There are some exceptions which has lead to the idea that maybe alien life might be based on Silicon (which lies directly under carbon on the periodic table so it has many of the same properties as carbon).  As for chemistry and astrophysics, astrophysics explains that elements are made inside stars, either as a process of fusion or during supernova based on combining smaller elements into larger elements.  Again similar to above, chemistry and biology together can predict to some degree what silicon based life might look like.

My question do FEers reject all science or just 'some' science.   Where do they draw the line?   Why is some science acceptable and believable and yet other science is not?

It seems to me that most FEers reject Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related sciences.

Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science by themelves. Those are not so different other than tarot practically. nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved.

we are true science believers, and we reject the so-called explanations that popular science claims actually non-scientific. it's not science, it's not much difference between what you define and believing in God or believing in Zeus. So you don't believe in God, then you reject science, because religion is a science. can we accept this logic?

science cannot declare itself scientific!

someone cannot prove anything by saying that a branch of science claims something! scientific evidence should be objective, reproducible and understandable by all. It is not the science of NASA, but the religion of NASA that is not evidence anywhere else than NASA's telescopes. we have not to obey that nonsence.

As a result, we are the people accept the real science, and we deny the so called science that depends on estimates and imagination.

Quote from: Ozymandias74 on December 23, 2019, 11:03:38 AM

It seems to me that most FEers reject Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related sciences.

Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science. Those are not so different other than tarot. nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved.

we are true science believers, and we reject the so-called explanations that popular science claims actually non-scientific. it's not science, it's not much difference between what you define and believing in God or believing in Zeus. So you don't believe in God, then you reject science, because religion is a science. can we accept this logic?

science cannot declare itself scientific!

someone cannot prove anything by saying that a branch of science claims something! scientific evidence should be objective, reproducible and understandable by all. It is not the science of NASA, but the religion of NASA that is not evidence anywhere else than NASA's telescopes. we have not to obey that nonsence.

LOL

Lots and lots of things are measured.  That flat earthers can’t properly explain even the most basic of those measurements, like where the sun is in the sky for a given time and location is no one’s problem but yours.

And you don’t need NASA telescopes.  Buy your own telescope, or even just record careful naked eye observations.  Either way, have you considered actually putting some effort into working this stuff out instead of just wailing that the rest of the world is wrong?

I think the original poster received his answer from the rather incoherent post from the person called Wise.  Does Mr. Wise never stop and think about the very computer he types his nonsense on and how the various technologies used to produce it are all derived from scientific discoveries and not by a series of random accidents. The problem is Flat Earth thinking is so closed-minded, evidence for which you will find in every debate, with respect to anything that may cast doubt about the flat earth which is instantly rejected out of hand. Their rule is simple if it throws their belief into doubt it must either be fake, faked, or part of the global conspiracy.

In the short time, I have spent here I think the issue is not so much about the shape of the earth but more about the individuals themselves. The person called Wise could be shown the ISS orbiting the earth on a clear night or taken to one of the many almost daily satellite launches, that are now so routine, and he would still cry fake. Its nothing to do with evidence rather it's all about individual mindset. If flat earthers were the; open-minded free-thinking individuals they claim to be, they would reject their stand on the flat earth if they just stopped and thought rationally about all the evidence all about them.

Quote from: wise on December 23, 2019, 12:19:46 PM

Quote from: Ozymandias74 on December 23, 2019, 11:03:38 AM

It seems to me that most FEers reject Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related sciences.

Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science. Those are not so different other than tarot. nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved.

we are true science believers, and we reject the so-called explanations that popular science claims actually non-scientific. it's not science, it's not much difference between what you define and believing in God or believing in Zeus. So you don't believe in God, then you reject science, because religion is a science. can we accept this logic?

science cannot declare itself scientific!

someone cannot prove anything by saying that a branch of science claims something! scientific evidence should be objective, reproducible and understandable by all. It is not the science of NASA, but the religion of NASA that is not evidence anywhere else than NASA's telescopes. we have not to obey that nonsence.

LOL

Lots and lots of things are measured.  That flat earthers can’t properly explain even the most basic of those measurements, like where the sun is in the sky for a given time and location is no one’s problem but yours.

And you don’t need NASA telescopes.  Buy your own telescope, or even just record careful naked eye observations.  Either way, have you considered actually putting some effort into working this stuff out instead of just wailing that the rest of the world is wrong?

Imao!

Sure we did. You are slave of your prejudices do not aware of how we work, neither you observed what you defend.





we still continue to test globetard (globe-tarot) theories and still could not verified them. How many times you did this?

original poster ie yourself. 

Quote from: Ozymandias74 on December 23, 2019, 11:03:38 AM

It seems to me that most FEers reject Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related sciences.

Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science by themelves. Those are not so different other than tarot practically. nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved.

So you make a distinction between Astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology vs other sciences like biology or chemistry in my example.  Biology and chemisty both have many things that you cannot 'prove' as true, but nevertheless if the science they are based on wasn't real then many of our modern conveniences would not exist.

Some versions of the standard model includes the graviton as the 'force carrier' of gravity.  We dont have the technology to detect the graviton.  Indeed it may or may not exist.  But just because we cant prove the graviton exists or not does not mean the standard model is wrong.  just incomplete.  However it is accurate on so many other details that it is still relied on as truth. 

the FE model may be able to explain 1 or 2 things, (if barely and with some room for error), but it has zero predictive power at all.  It cannot make any predictions about what we observe in the future, whether that's the return of Halley's Comet, a new planet being found (Neptune was found based on Newtonian gravity), or an asteroid skimming by earth.  the FE model cannot explain or predict any of these observed events.

Quote from: Ozymandias74 on December 23, 2019, 11:03:38 AM

It seems to me that most FEers reject Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related sciences.

Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science. Those are not so different other than tarot. nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved.

we are true science believers, and we reject the so-called explanations that popular science claims actually non-scientific. it's not science, it's not much difference between what you define and believing in God or believing in Zeus. So you don't believe in God, then you reject science, because religion is a science. can we accept this logic?

science cannot declare itself scientific!

someone cannot prove anything by saying that a branch of science claims something! scientific evidence should be objective, reproducible and understandable by all. It is not the science of NASA, but the religion of NASA that is not evidence anywhere else than NASA's telescopes. we have not to obey that nonsence.

You claim that, "Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science. Those are not so different other than tarot. nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved."

But that is total garbage! Saying, without evidence, that "nothing that was said to be measured was not measured" is just ignorant words!

And saying, "It is not the science of NASA, but the religion of NASA that is not evidence anywhere else than NASA's telescopes" is quite irrelevant!

Astronomical measurements go back millennia before NASA was even thought of so why are you so fixated on NASA?

Wise it is so easy for you to make statements like this with no supporting evidence but it can take quite a time showing simple examples of why you are quite wrong, sorry about that!

If you claim that "nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved" you are proving nothing but your own ignorance of astronomy!

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!
And within the Solar System is all that matters when it comes to deciding the issue of a flat stationary Earth or a slowly revolving Globe.

Here are just a couple of examples:
First the precession of the equinoxes:

6.2  Anomalous Precessions - the precession of the equinoxes
Around 150 BC the Greek astronomer Hipparchus carefully compared his own observations of certain stars with observations of the same stars recorded by Timocharis 169 years earlier (and with some even earlier measurements from the Babylonians), and noted a slight but systematic difference in the longitudes.

Naturally these were all referenced to the supposedly fixed direction of the line of intersection between the Earth's rotational and orbital planes, but Hipparchus was led to the conclusion that this direction is not perfectly stationary, i.e., that the direction of the Sun at the equinoxes is not constant with respect to the fixed stars, but precesses by about 0.0127 degrees each year. This is a remarkably good estimate, considering the limited quality of the observations that were available to Hipparchus.

The accepted modern value for the precession of the equinoxes is 0.01396 degrees per year.

Can you imagine anyone being able to determine something like that in 169 BC?

And from the same source:

6.2  Anomalous Precessions - the perihelion of Mercury's orbit
The reason for mentioning this, aside from expressing admiration for human perspicacity, is that when we observe the axis of the elliptical orbit of a planet such as Mercury (for example) over a long period of time, referenced to our equinox line, we must expect to find an apparent precession of about 0.01396 degrees per year, which equals 5025 arc seconds per century, assuming Mercury's orbital axis is actually stationary.

However, astronomers have actually observed a precession rate of 5600 arc seconds per century for the axis of Mercury's orbit, so evidently the axis is not truly stationary. This might seem like a problem for Newtonian gravity, until we remember that Newton predicted stable elliptical orbits only for the idealized two-body case. When analyzing the actual orbit of Mercury we must also take into account the gravitational pull of the other planets, especially Venus and Earth (because of their proximity) and Jupiter (because of its size). It isn't simple to work out these effects, and unfortunately there is no simple analytical solution to the n-body problem in Newtonian mechanics, but using the calculational techniques developed by Lagrange, Laplace, and others, it is possible to determine that the effects of all the other planets should contribute an additional 532 arc seconds per century to the precession of Mercury's orbit.

Combined with the precession of our equinox reference line, this accounts for 5557 arc seconds per century, which is close to the observed value of 5600, but still short by 43 arc seconds per century. The astronomers assure us that their observations can't be off by more than a fraction of an arc second, so there seems to be a definite problem here.

And the realisation that there was this "unexplainable" was made in 1859 - 150 years ago and before computers and modern large telescopes.

It wasn't until Einstein's Theory of General Relativity that anomalous precession was explained.

There are an almost unlimited number of examples of the precision of astronomical measurements and predictions. Just consider the Nautical Almanac, published since 1767 which predicts "the position on the Earth's surface (in declination and Greenwich hour angle) at which the sun, moon, planets and first point of Aries is directly overhead. The positions of 57 selected stars are specified relative to the first point of Aries."

Nautical almanac
A nautical almanac is a publication describing the positions of a selection of celestial bodies for the purpose of enabling navigators to use celestial navigation to determine the position of their ship while at sea. The Almanac specifies for each whole hour of the year the position on the Earth's surface (in declination and Greenwich hour angle) at which the sun, moon, planets and first point of Aries is directly overhead. The positions of 57 selected stars are specified relative to the first point of Aries.

In Great Britain, The Nautical Almanac has been published annually by HM Nautical Almanac Office, ever since the first edition was published in 1767.

To be useful for celestial navigation these star locations must be accurate to within a few seconds of arc.

Wise, claiming that astronomy is not science is just bunkum!

Quote from: Unconvinced on December 23, 2019, 01:06:29 PM

And you don’t need NASA telescopes.  Buy your own telescope, or even just record careful naked eye observations.  Either way, have you considered actually putting some effort into working this stuff out instead of just wailing that the rest of the world is wrong?

Imao!

Sure we did. You are slave of your prejudices do not aware of how we work, neither you observed what you defend.

       

What total trash! Those videos are produced by Dıdıdı Bıbıbı who can't even focus a camera! It's no wonder your Dıdıdı Bıbıbı has only 14 subscribers.

Get real, Wise, and post something that does not demonstrate your own total ignorance of the topic!

Look at this, also taken with a Nikon P-1000!

Two Planets, a Star, and a Moon - Nikon P1000 Camera by DiversityJ - Ohio Skywatching
At the start, there is the Moon then Jupiter from 5:55, Saturn from 7:20 and a star that does "shimmer" at 11:55.

Then take a look at this, again with a Nikon P-1000:

Nikon P1000 ISS solar transit, 673,451 views, Apr 26, 2019 by Movie Vertigo.

So, Mr Wise, I'm afraid it's you who "are a slave of your prejudices" and who refuse to accept real evidence!

Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?

Quote

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Yes, what's your alternative.

How many times do you need the 3 body problem explained?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 02:20:03 PM

Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?

Quote

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Yes, what's your alternative.

How many times do you need the 3 body problem explained?

Find and post a quote from a mainstream source describing that the three body problem can contain orbits with bodies of unequal masses, or that it can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system. Argue by assuming that your own opinion on the matter is trash, demonstrating that your ideas about the three body problem reflects what is considered true by science.

There are several astrophysicists and professors referenced in the Wiki on the subject who tell us about the problem and leave it as unstable and unsolved. Why should we believe you over them?

 http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/N-body_simulations_(gravitational)

Glad to see you back, ready to answer the lists of questions you leave unanswered all over the upper forums:

Why do you partially quote mainstream science, to try and demonstrate FE?

Why cant you produce a credible source to prove astronomy is as you refer to it pseudo science?

Can you provide any evidence that Engineering drawings dont take into account curvature?

Any thread in general or debate?

Why cant any FE models predict celestial movements?

Why cant you do simple maths, and misquote equations on moon and sun distances in your wiki?

Why do you quote a parabolic equation incorrectly for curvature?

Just a few recent ones to go on with look forward to you ignoring/running away from them again

I asked you for a quote from a mainstream source describing that the three body problem can contain orbits with bodies of unequal masses, or that it can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system. It appears that you are failing to defend your stance so far.

No one has ever typed the words that the three body problem can simulate these things?

Maybe the working simulations are some unpublished thing that the physicists don't talk about, and who only choose to talk about how it doesn't work? 

Just generally speaking here.

Remember, absence of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

I asked you for a quote from a mainstream source describing that the three body problem can contain orbits with bodies of unequal masses, or that it can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system. It appears that you are failing to defend your stance so far.

Sure, we know that the "three-body problem" is so far not solvable analytically but so what?

There is no need to solve the n-body problem analytically because it has been simulated numerically for centuries, long before automatic programmable computers.

By 1859 it was known that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit differed from that derived from Newtonian Mechanics by 43 arcseconds per century.
Astronomers were confident of their measurements and calculations to know that "something was missing".

Show us any flat-Earth calculation or prediction made to anything like that precision!

Then the Nautical Almanac, first published in 1766, predicts the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and 57 stars for at least the next 12 months to sufficient accuracy for celestial navigation.

Try that with your flat Earth Cosmology!

So who really cares about your three-bodied problem apart from it being an interesting mathematical enigma?

Just generally speaking here.

Remember, absence of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

The many physicists who state that it doesn't work is evidence against it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 02:54:48 PM

I asked you for a quote from a mainstream source describing that the three body problem can contain orbits with bodies of unequal masses, or that it can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system. It appears that you are failing to defend your stance so far.

Sure, we know that the "three-body problem" is so far not solvable analytically but so what?

There is no need to solve the n-body problem analytically because it has been simulated numerically for centuries, long before automatic programmable computers.

By 1859 it was known that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit differed from that derived from Newtonian Mechanics by 43 arcseconds per century.
Astronomers were confident of their measurements and calculations to know that "something was missing".

Show us any flat-Earth calculation or prediction made to anything like that precision!

Then the Nautical Almanac, first published in 1766, predicts the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and 57 stars for at least the next 12 months to sufficient accuracy for celestial navigation.

Try that with your flat Earth Cosmology!

So who really cares about your three-bodied problem apart from it being an interesting mathematical enigma?

Actually, Einstein just corrected an epicycle. Epicycles are still the way prediction is performed in astronomy.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005715.pdf

“ The characteristics of movement of the planets determine the entire set of dynamic properties in the solar system. The rotation of the planets around the Sun is subject to Kepler's laws which make it possible to approximately determine the position of the planet on a non-perturbed orbit at any moment of time. In order to transfer from the position closest to a more precise definition (ephemeris of the planet), it is necessary to take into consideration perturbations in motion. These perturbations leading to deviation from the calculated elliptical trajectory (Kepler ellipse) occur as a result of mutual attraction of planets, depending on their position relative to each other and periodically changing with the passage of time. Additional perturbation is detected in the movement of Mercury for which, due to the closeness of the Sun, one must introduce a correction for the shift of the perihelion by 42" in a century; this comes from the general theory of relativity. It is impossible, truly, to exclude the fact that the agreement of these observations with the value of this effect was theoretically predicted by A. Einstein within the limits of error of measurement (=1%) caused, to an equal degree, by the effect of the quadrapole moment of the Sun, taking into consideration in a first approximation, the difference in the external gravitational potential of the Sun from the Newtonian potential for an ideal sphere. ”

Purturbation = Epicycle. See this quote from Charles Lane Poor:

Gravitation Vs. Relativity
Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.

https://archive.org/stream/gravitationvers00chamgoog

  “ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”

Perturbations are epicycles with a gravitational disguise. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Charles Lane Poor also disagrees that Einstein even made a correct explanation.

Relativity and the Motion of Mercury
Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3394

From the Introduction:   “ Does the relativity theory, as asserted by Einstein, explain and account for even the single motion of tile perihelion of Mercury? In what way do the formulas of relativity differ from those of the classical mathematics of Newton, and how do these new formulas explain this motion? It is the purpose of this paper to discuss this single phase of the matter; to show that the very equations, or formulas, cited by the relativists as furnishing an explanation of this motion, utterly fail to furnish such an explanation. The formulas of relativity dynamics can not and do not explain the observed perihelial motion of Mercury. ”

Quote from: sokarul on December 23, 2019, 03:17:17 PM

Just generally speaking here.

Remember, absence of evidence for something is not evidence against it.

The many physicists who state that it doesn't work is evidence against it.

Quote from: rabinoz on December 23, 2019, 03:52:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 02:54:48 PM

I asked you for a quote from a mainstream source describing that the three body problem can contain orbits with bodies of unequal masses, or that it can describe the Sun-Earth-Moon system. It appears that you are failing to defend your stance so far.

Sure, we know that the "three-body problem" is so far not solvable analytically but so what?

There is no need to solve the n-body problem analytically because it has been simulated numerically for centuries, long before automatic programmable computers.

By 1859 it was known that the precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit differed from that derived from Newtonian Mechanics by 43 arcseconds per century.
Astronomers were confident of their measurements and calculations to know that "something was missing".

Show us any flat-Earth calculation or prediction made to anything like that precision!

Then the Nautical Almanac, first published in 1766, predicts the positions of the Sun, Moon, planets and 57 stars for at least the next 12 months to sufficient accuracy for celestial navigation.

Try that with your flat Earth Cosmology!

So who really cares about your three-bodied problem apart from it being an interesting mathematical enigma?

Actually, Einstein just corrected an epicycle. Epicycles are still the way prediction is performed in astronomy.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19870005715.pdf

“ The characteristics of movement of the planets determine the entire set of dynamic properties in the solar system. The rotation of the planets around the Sun is subject to Kepler's laws which make it possible to approximately determine the position of the planet on a non-perturbed orbit at any moment of time. In order to transfer from the position closest to a more precise definition (ephemeris of the planet), it is necessary to take into consideration perturbations in motion. These perturbations leading to deviation from the calculated elliptical trajectory (Kepler ellipse) occur as a result of mutual attraction of planets, depending on their position relative to each other and periodically changing with the passage of time. Additional perturbation is detected in the movement of Mercury for which, due to the closeness of the Sun, one must introduce a correction for the shift of the perihelion by 42" in a century; this comes from the general theory of relativity. It is impossible, truly, to exclude the fact that the agreement of these observations with the value of this effect was theoretically predicted by A. Einstein within the limits of error of measurement (=1%) caused, to an equal degree, by the effect of the quadrapole moment of the Sun, taking into consideration in a first approximation, the difference in the external gravitational potential of the Sun from the Newtonian potential for an ideal sphere. ”

Purturbation = Epicycle. See this quote from Charles Lane Poor:

Gravitation Vs. Relativity
Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.

https://archive.org/stream/gravitationvers00chamgoog

  “ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”

Perturbations are epicycles with a gravitational disguise. See https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Charles Lane Poor also disagrees that Einstein even made a correct explanation.

Relativity and the Motion of Mercury
Charles Lane Poor, Ph.D.

http://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/3394

From the Introduction:   “ Does the relativity theory, as asserted by Einstein, explain and account for even the single motion of tile perihelion of Mercury? In what way do the formulas of relativity differ from those of the classical mathematics of Newton, and how do these new formulas explain this motion? It is the purpose of this paper to discuss this single phase of the matter; to show that the very equations, or formulas, cited by the relativists as furnishing an explanation of this motion, utterly fail to furnish such an explanation. The formulas of relativity dynamics can not and do not explain the observed perihelial motion of Mercury. ”

You should really read your sources

Poors opposition was mainly the defence of Newtonian theory, although there are some who thought he may have been a member of 'The Alliance '

He was definitely part of a group who argued against Einstein writing a number of papers in the 20's, the last in 1930. The scientific community didnt wake up in 1917 and say yup GR is correct, it was debated for decades, and still to this day has missing elements, unification theory.

However, GR is internally consistent and it is understood that it's not a universal law, like Newton's.

As ever, RE source to attempt an FE premise, Poor argues on the shape of orbits not that the earth was flat.

Goes back to one of the other questions you regularly evade;

Can you provide any FE evidence to any FE hypothesis that does not rely on RE evidence as its basis?

So far no...

Astronomy, Astrophysics, cosmology and the related THINGS are NOT science by themelves.

Why not, they fall under the scientific method quite well?
People make observations, develop hypotheses and models, make predictions based upon those and then test those predictions.

nothing that was said to be measured was not measured, and nothing that was said to be proved was actually proved.

I assume you meant to say was measured? If so, plenty has been measured. You not liking the measurement doesn't mean it hasn't been.
Science doesn't deal with proof. Instead theories have been firmly established and backed up by plenty of evidence.

it's not science, it's not much difference between what you define and believing in God or believing in Zeus. So you don't believe in God, then you reject science, because religion is a science. can we accept this logic?

That isn't logic at all.

scientific evidence should be objective, reproducible and understandable by all. It is not the science of NASA, but the religion of NASA that is not evidence anywhere else than NASA's telescopes.

No, it does not need to be understandable by any random of the street. Some of science is quite complex and lay-people wouldn't understand it, nor the evidence to support it.
Do you understand quantum mechanics and the evidence to support it?
Do you understand chemistry and biology?

It needs to be objective and predictable and capable of being obtained by multiple people.
These sciences fit that quite well. It isn't just NASA, it is plenty of other space organisations and even to some extent by amateurs.

A simple one you can do is measure the apparent position of a celestial object from a given location on Earth at a given time.
There are plenty of tools you can use to calculate the position ahead of time based upon a RE and distant celestial objects and then see if that prediction turns out to be correct.

As a result you people reject real science, but only the science that shows you to be wrong.

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

Why do you need to repeat the same lie again and again and again, even though it has been exposed as a lie again and again and again.

Do you actually understand the 3 body problem?
All it is, is the fact that we cannot produce a simple elegant, general solution to a system with 3 bodies like we can when there are 2 bodies.
It doesn't mean we can't explain it. It means for the general case you need to use numerical methods to make predictions, where you start from an initial set of conditions and proceed forward in time step by step.

Every time you have brought it up you claims about it refuted.

Try to find a single reputable source that says a 3 body system (or an N-body system) cannot remain in tact for a long period of time. Not that such systems don't have nice simple solutions, but that such a system cannot exist for a long period of time.

Until you do, all you have is the lack of a simple solution which you then pretend means something completely different.
You have nothing to back up your claims.

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

A caveman throws a rock at you. Just because he can't do the math of how that rock is going to arc through the sky and strike you in the head doesn't keep the rock from hitting you.

Being unable to do the math YET doesn't debunk actual physical observations.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

A caveman throws a rock at you. Just because he can't do the math of how that rock is going to arc through the sky and strike you in the head doesn't keep the rock from hitting you.

Being unable to do the math YET doesn't debunk actual physical observations.

NASA uses the same Newtonian laws in the three body problem to claim to navigate the solar system. Why wouldn't they tell us if what we knew about gravity and orbits was wrong?

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 23, 2019, 06:25:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

A caveman throws a rock at you. Just because he can't do the math of how that rock is going to arc through the sky and strike you in the head doesn't keep the rock from hitting you.

Being unable to do the math YET doesn't debunk actual physical observations.

NASA uses the same Newtonian laws in the three body problem to claim to navigate the solar system. Why wouldn't they tell us if what we knew about gravity and orbits was wrong?

Because they aren't wrong. Think about this: There are some solutions to the three body problem. But there are far more that don't work; leading to one or more objects being ejected or colliding. Perhaps that is accurate in space as well. Perhaps most of the time, three bodies in space DON'T interact in a perpetual way. Perhaps the reason why all the multi-body systems we see in our solar system that work are just the ones that are left after hundreds of millions of years of interaction? Who knows how many failed before we came along?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:31:47 PM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 23, 2019, 06:25:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

A caveman throws a rock at you. Just because he can't do the math of how that rock is going to arc through the sky and strike you in the head doesn't keep the rock from hitting you.

Being unable to do the math YET doesn't debunk actual physical observations.

NASA uses the same Newtonian laws in the three body problem to claim to navigate the solar system. Why wouldn't they tell us if what we knew about gravity and orbits was wrong?

Because they aren't wrong. Think about this: There are some solutions to the three body problem. But there are far more that don't work; leading to one or more objects being ejected or colliding. Perhaps that is accurate in space as well. Perhaps most of the time, three bodies in space DON'T interact in a perpetual way. Perhaps the reason why all the multi-body systems we see in our solar system that work are just the ones that are left after hundreds of millions of years of interaction? Who knows how many failed before we came along?

If bodies in space don't interact in the understood way then they would know that, since they need to calculate correct interactions with multiple gravitating bodies.

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 23, 2019, 06:42:10 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:31:47 PM

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on December 23, 2019, 06:25:50 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 23, 2019, 06:13:40 PM

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses. Lacking such a source, we must go with the sources which we do have.

A caveman throws a rock at you. Just because he can't do the math of how that rock is going to arc through the sky and strike you in the head doesn't keep the rock from hitting you.

Being unable to do the math YET doesn't debunk actual physical observations.

NASA uses the same Newtonian laws in the three body problem to claim to navigate the solar system. Why wouldn't they tell us if what we knew about gravity and orbits was wrong?

Because they aren't wrong. Think about this: There are some solutions to the three body problem. But there are far more that don't work; leading to one or more objects being ejected or colliding. Perhaps that is accurate in space as well. Perhaps most of the time, three bodies in space DON'T interact in a perpetual way. Perhaps the reason why all the multi-body systems we see in our solar system that work are just the ones that are left after hundreds of millions of years of interaction? Who knows how many failed before we came along?

If bodies in space don't interact in the understood way then they would know that, since they need to calculate correct interactions with multiple gravitating bodies.

That's because all major three-body systems left in our solar systems DO interact in the understood way. The rest have already fallen apart. Consider the lagrange points.

The verified existence of Larange Points at certain locations in space would suggest that we do understand the laws in how gravity operates.

It's either NASA knows how gravity works, or they don't.

You seem to be suggesting that gravity is wrong, but otherwise operates as a perfect Newtonian simulation of gravity, in which NASA solves n-body body problems to navigate around the solar system perfectly.

One of the examples, in the tfes.org three body problem wiki page, the Hill Problem/restricted three body problem, shows an example with a mass-less moon moving in chaotic motions around the earth, making u-turns mid-orbit and also colliding into it.

NASA also needs to solve those problems for space probes rotating around the Moons of Jupiter, since the craft is affected by at least Jupiter and a selected Jovian moon. Or around our moon. One would think that NASA would have the knowledge to tell us how things really are, and how to solve such a three body problem.

Is the situation really chaotic like that? Is the space ship perhaps only more affected by the Moon somehow and the planet has significantly less of an effect than theorized? Boom. Now we know how gravity works. The Three Body Problem is solved.

They have to know about at least the type of three body problems where one of the bodies is massless to navigate the solar system, and would know how gravity really works. Too bad NASA isn't sharing this knowledge with us.

I am still waiting for a single quote from mainstream science which contradicts the physicists in the Wiki, explaining that the three body problem works to explain the motions of the Sun-Earth-Moon system or in situations with bodies of unequal masses.

Nobody in "mainstream science" would claim that there is any closed analytic solution to the 3-body problem. So what?

What would be the use of it anyway because there is no 3-body "Sun-Earth-Moon system" to explain?
It needs at least 5 bodies to explain even to the accuracy of Isaac Newton's time.
Even Isaac Newton found that the gravitation of Saturn and Jupiter had be included in his calculations of the precession of the precession of the Lunar orbit.

So why should anyone care about your precious 3-body problem when even in the 1670s Newton realised that the solution of the Lunar orbit became at least a 5-body problem, Moon, Earth, Sun, Jupiter and Saturn.

You might read Isaac Newton and his work in astronomy and optics by Curtiss, R. H.

But is this "Mainstream" enough?
The Astronomical Journal: LAGRANGE SOLUTIONS TO THE DISCRETE-TIME GENERAL THREE-BODY PROBLEM by Yukitaka Minesaki.

No. Quote me what I asked for. You are just linking from the results of random Google searches.

"We show that the d-G3BP yields the correct solutions to the G3BP for two special cases: the equilateral triangle and collinear configurations. For the triangular solution, we use the fact that the solution to the three-body case is a superposition of the solutions to the three two-body cases, and we show that the three bodies maintain the same relative distances at all times. To obtain the collinear solution, we assume a specific permutation of the three bodies arranged along a straight rotating line, and we show that the d-G3BP maintains the same distance ratio between two bodies as in the G3BP. "

This is a SPECIAL solution for an exotic situation. Bodies arranged along a straight rotating line with and which maintain the same distance from each other all times. Bodies likely with all the same mass.

Give me a quote for what was asked, not links.

Do you guys really think that observing an object of unknown composition appear in the sky on a schedule, based on an undemonstrated algorithm, really proves anything about what is occurring?

Quote from: rabinoz

Astronomy, at least within the Solar System, makes measurements far more accurately than you could even dream of!

What are you talking about? Astronomy can't even explain the motion of a system of three bodies.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Which is all quite irrelevant!
I was writing about the accuracy of astronomical measurements in very early times and up till the 19th century.

They could recognise these extremely small discrepancies and so search for a cause. When have any flat Earth "scientists" done anything comparable?
Rowbotham claimed that the Sun could no be higher than 700 statute miles.
Most recent flat Earthers seem to claim "about 3100 miles".
Flat Earth Scientist, Sandokhan clams something like 10 miles and
I believe I've seen you claim about 6100 miles.

I really don't believe that you are in any position to question "mainstream science".

No. Quote me what I asked for. You are just linking from the results of random Google searches.

"We show that the d-G3BP yields the correct solutions to the G3BP for two special cases: the equilateral triangle and collinear configurations. For the triangular solution, we use the fact that the solution to the three-body case is a superposition of the solutions to the three two-body cases, and we show that the three bodies maintain the same relative distances at all times. To obtain the collinear solution, we assume a specific permutation of the three bodies arranged along a straight rotating line, and we show that the d-G3BP maintains the same distance ratio between two bodies as in the G3BP. "

This is a SPECIAL solution for an exotic situation. Bodies arranged along a straight rotating line with and which maintain the same distance from each other all times. Bodies likely with all the same mass.

Give me a quote for what was asked, not links.

You say "You are just linking from the results of random Google searches" but the Yukitaka Minesaki paper I posted was the source of your own quotation!

The Astronomical Journal: LAGRANGE SOLUTIONS TO THE DISCRETE-TIME GENERAL THREE-BODY PROBLEM by Yukitaka Minesaki.

But none of the solutions in that paper bear the slightest relation to the Moon, Earth, Sun system! So why is it relevant?

The masses of the Moon, Earth, Sun system are in the ratio's 0.0123 : 1 :  333,000 and the Sun-Earth distance is averages 389 times the Moon-Earth distance.

So I fail see any relevance in the solutions shown in that paper.