Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong

  • 54 Replies
  • 2873 Views
*

Shifter

  • 18890
Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« on: January 22, 2020, 01:09:04 AM »
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be. So you can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc)

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem



Also if we launch a rocket into space, the Earths orbit is also affected. You may think it's infinitesimal but over thousands of launches and millions of years, the information you look at is wrong.

Also, in the case of our solar system, it's a hell of a lot more than 3 bodies. And in the case of the observable universe, the planet count alone is 1024 Not including stars, asteroids etc

Keep in mind Newtons equation:


So why is so much faith put into these predictions when a simple '3 body' system is called a 'problem'? Counting all the stars, planets and asteroids, we could have at least 1026 bodies if not more. And that's just the 'observable' portion of the universe. That's only counting the few % of it that we can see (not counting the so called 'dark matter')

So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2020, 01:30:05 AM »
Perhaps it's like the weather. The further out you predict the less accurate it becomes.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2020, 02:45:23 AM »
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be. So you can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc)

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies.
Kepler's laws might be only for a 2-body system and there might be no analytic solution for a 3 or more body system.

But there are numerous very precise simulators in use today. Some if these including General Relativity.

Many modern "professional" Solar System simulators consider all the planets and many other objects.

This is probably not a "professional" Solar System simulator but is quite extensive.
Quote
AstroGrav Astronomy Software
AstroGrav for Windows and Mac is a full-featured, high precision solar system simulator that calculates the gravitational interactions between all astronomical bodies, so that the motions of asteroids and comets are simulated much more accurately than with planetarium applications. The effects of general relativity and radiation pressure can be taken into account, and superb interactive 3D viewing allows you to easily rotate and zoom your view while the solar system evolves.

Multi-Purpose
Because it calculates the motions of bodies from their gravitational interactions, AstroGrav is not restricted to just the solar system. Any situation in which gravity is the only significant force can be simulated, and the illustrative sample files that are included with AstroGrav include many examples. Systems that can be simulated include:

  • Exoplanet systems
  • Protoplanets that evolve into planetary systems
  • Rubble piles and their interactions with massive bodies
  • Complex star systems, including colliding globular clusters

This paper describes the use of a planetary system simulator to examine the sensitivity to slight changes in, for example, the orbit of Jupiter.
Quote from: Jonathan Horner et al
QUANTIFYING THE INFLUENCE OF JUPITER ON THE EARTH’S ORBITAL CYCLES [color]
ABSTRACT
Here, we present the results of a suite of n-body simulations that demonstrate the degree to which the orbital architecture of the Solar system impacts the variability of Earth’s orbital elements.
By varying the orbit of Jupiter and keeping the initial orbits of the other planets constant, we demonstrate how subtle changes in Solar system architecture could alter the Earth’s orbital evolution – a key factor in the Milankovitch cycles that alter the amount and distribution of solar insolation, thereby driving periodic climate change on our planet.

Then this paper is indicates that very high precision numerical simulations are used now.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: Chaos and stability of the solar system by Renu Malhotra et al

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2020, 05:32:55 AM »
How apropos! PBS Space Time just released this video yesterday!

Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2020, 08:18:55 AM »
How apropos! PBS Space Time just released this video yesterday!

Aha! Even he backs me up!

Kepler's laws might be only for a 2-body system and there might be no analytic solution for a 3 or more body system.

But there are numerous very precise simulators in use today. Some if these including General Relativity.

Many modern "professional" Solar System simulators consider all the planets and many other objects.

This is probably not a "professional" Solar System simulator but is quite extensive.

Very precise is not precise. It either is or it isn't. You cant be happy with 'close enough', because that is different to the reality

Everything in the universe effects everything. Oumuamua for instance.... Did anyone bother to account for its influence before it was discovered? Or how it was influenced by the bodies in our solar system? It's passing by our planets did not go unnoticed by the planets either. Every orbit, even if a little felt its gravitational influence.

There is too much uncertainty to take the predictions seriously. Nothing in science is ever presented with a nice little bow to tie it all together


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41653
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2020, 08:44:37 AM »
Shifter, what makes you think that the the solar system cares a fetid pair of dingo's kidneys if we a 2-body or n-body scenario do predict its movements?  You do understand that there's a reason that the expression "close enough" is a thing, don't you?

There will always be some level of uncertainty in science.  The trick is to minimize that uncertainty until you can make predictions with a certain level of confidence.  For professional scientists, that level is usually much higher than most people will ever care about.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 08:48:13 AM by markjo »
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.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2020, 08:46:25 AM »
Just to clarify, is the point of your post that you're angry that chaotic systems without precisely known parameters can't be accurate predicted on long time ranges?  Or did I miss some nuance?
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41653
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2020, 08:48:57 AM »
Just to clarify, is the point of your post that you're angry that chaotic systems without precisely known parameters can't be accurate predicted on long time ranges?  Or did I miss some nuance?
I think that his point is that he's a pedantic twat.
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: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2020, 09:10:43 AM »
Very precise is not precise.
It is actually very precise.  You can have degrees of precision.

Quote
It either is or it isn't.
Wrong.  It is not a binary measure.

If you are going to play silly pedantic games you at least have to be correct, otherwise it doesn't work.  ::)
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2020, 10:36:20 AM »
Very precise is not precise.
It is actually very precise.  You can have degrees of precision.

Quote
It either is or it isn't.
Wrong.  It is not a binary measure.

If you are going to play silly pedantic games you at least have to be correct, otherwise it doesn't work.  ::)

Something I learned doing karate some time ago

When you do a kata, if you left out a move or did an incorrect move, did you do the prescribed kata? No. You did something different. You cant call whatever you did the kata you intended because it is different. You either did the kata or you didn't.


Just to clarify, is the point of your post that you're angry that chaotic systems without precisely known parameters can't be accurate predicted on long time ranges?  Or did I miss some nuance?
I think that his point is that he's a pedantic twat.

No need for this low class base language and put down in the upper forum. Take it elsewhere. You dont like the discussion? Or me? Start your pettiness to the lower forum. That suits you.


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

Yes

  • 604
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2020, 11:31:39 AM »
I did not miss some nuance.
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2020, 01:59:00 PM »
Kepler's laws might be only for a 2-body system and there might be no analytic solution for a 3 or more body system.

But there are numerous very precise simulators in use today. Some if these including General Relativity.

Many modern "professional" Solar System simulators consider all the planets and many other objects.

This is probably not a "professional" Solar System simulator but is quite extensive.

Very precise is not precise. It either is or it isn't. You cant be happy with 'close enough', because that is different to the reality
Remember your OP?
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be. So you can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc)

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
Just face the simple fact that your OP was hog-wash and totally incorrect!

Then, no measurements are ever exact - get used to it. But did you even bother to read the references?

The very purpose of those simulators is often to determine the sensitivity of the future of the Solar System to small perturbations in the initial conditions.

Have a look at this:
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Why believe something that can't even be simulated by the collective efforts of the greatest mathematicians in history?
  • Because it has been observed in real life for millenmia and reality beats simulations hands down any day!

  • And because your claim is totally false anyway. It may have been true 50 years ago but not any more.
    Read this again! The Solar System can now be analysed numerically as in this paper:

    Quote from: Scott Tremaine
    Is the solar system stable? by Scott Tremaine, University of Toronto and Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Results and implications
    The Table summarizes some numerical investigations of the long-term evolution of the solar system. Many follow only the outer five planets (Jupiter to Pluto) since:
    (i) the masses of inner planets are so small that the outer planets form an independent dynamical system;
    (ii) the large masses of the outer planets suggest that interesting effects are more likely in this region;
    (iii) the orbital periods of the outer planets are longer so it is easier to follow the system for a given time.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    The maximum timespan over which such calculations may be relevant is 4.5 Gyr backward (the age of the solar system) and 7.7 Gyr forward ( the time until the Sun swallows Mercury and loses a significant portion of its mass; Sackmann et ale 1993). Although
    calculations based on secular theory now extend for up to 25 Gyr, the longest N-body integration is only 100 Myr, or 2% of the age of the solar system. Thus the conclusions described below must be treated cautiously. The first important result is that all the planets are still there: none has been ejected, fallen into the Sun, or collided with another planet, and the overall configuration of the planetary system remains quite similar.

    Nevertheless, the behaviour of the planets is not boring. Sussman and Wisdom (1988) discovered that the trajectory of Pluto is chaotic: small changes grow exponentially, with an e-folding time (Liapunov time) of 20 Myr. Despite this chaotic behaviour, Pluto's semimajor axis, eccentricity and inclination appeared to vary fairly regularly over the 845 Myr integration. This apparent regularity is impressive, since small disturbances were amplified 1018 by a factor of exp(845/20) ~ over the integration, and suggests that the trajectory is restricted - at least for the timespan of the integration - to a narrow chaotic zone in phase space.

    That dates back to 1994 and there are far faster computers available now.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41653
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2020, 05:19:36 PM »
No need for this low class base language and put down in the upper forum. Take it elsewhere. You dont like the discussion? Or me? Start your pettiness to the lower forum. That suits you.
What do you expect when you imply that any measurement that isn't down to a plank length can't be considered accurate.
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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2020, 05:34:45 PM »
Something I learned doing karate some time ago

When you do a kata, if you left out a move or did an incorrect move, did you do the prescribed kata? No. You did something different. You cant call whatever you did the kata you intended because it is different. You either did the kata or you didn't.
So were your moves within one Planck length of the prescribed move? If not, by your own definition, you did the wrong move.

Maybe there's no connection between karate and astronomy and your analogy is worthless.

*

sokarul

  • 18695
  • Extra Racist
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2020, 06:27:00 PM »
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be. So you can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc)

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem



Also if we launch a rocket into space, the Earths orbit is also affected. You may think it's infinitesimal but over thousands of launches and millions of years, the information you look at is wrong.

Also, in the case of our solar system, it's a hell of a lot more than 3 bodies. And in the case of the observable universe, the planet count alone is 1024 Not including stars, asteroids etc

Keep in mind Newtons equation:


So why is so much faith put into these predictions when a simple '3 body' system is called a 'problem'? Counting all the stars, planets and asteroids, we could have at least 1026 bodies if not more. And that's just the 'observable' portion of the universe. That's only counting the few % of it that we can see (not counting the so called 'dark matter')

So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.

I require more significant figures. This is Technology, Science & Alt Science. Don't cop-out.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #15 on: January 22, 2020, 10:07:45 PM »
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be. So you can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc)

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem



Also if we launch a rocket into space, the Earths orbit is also affected. You may think it's infinitesimal but over thousands of launches and millions of years, the information you look at is wrong.

Also, in the case of our solar system, it's a hell of a lot more than 3 bodies. And in the case of the observable universe, the planet count alone is 1024 Not including stars, asteroids etc

Keep in mind Newtons equation:


So why is so much faith put into these predictions when a simple '3 body' system is called a 'problem'? Counting all the stars, planets and asteroids, we could have at least 1026 bodies if not more. And that's just the 'observable' portion of the universe. That's only counting the few % of it that we can see (not counting the so called 'dark matter')

So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.

I require more significant figures. This is Technology, Science & Alt Science. Don't cop-out.

Some people feel belittled or inferior to be presented with such information. To spare them, you'll have to make do


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19627
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #16 on: January 22, 2020, 10:53:22 PM »
Everything is impossible, just ask anyone.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2020, 12:48:11 AM »
I require more significant figures. This is Technology, Science & Alt Science. Don't cop-out.
Some people feel belittled or inferior to be presented with such information.
But most people realise just how little you know of planetary orbital simulation.
You wrote:
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
Why would anyone bother to "download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be" that "uses predictions based only on 2 bodies"?
Unless, of course, they were totally ignorant on such matters, as you seem to be.

Quote from: Shifter
To spare them, you'll have to make do
In other words you were posting rubbish that you're unable to substantiate, just as we all knew.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19627
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2020, 12:55:23 AM »
I require more significant figures. This is Technology, Science & Alt Science. Don't cop-out.
Some people feel belittled or inferior to be presented with such information.
But most people realise just how little you know of planetary orbital simulation.
You wrote:
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
Why would anyone bother to "download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be" that "uses predictions based only on 2 bodies"?
Unless, of course, they were totally ignorant on such matters, as you seem to be.

Quote from: Shifter
To spare them, you'll have to make do
In other words you were posting rubbish that you're unable to substantiate, just as we all knew.

rab, do you do your own calculations
or do you rely on the internet to do your work for you?




*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2020, 01:24:38 AM »
I require more significant figures. This is Technology, Science & Alt Science. Don't cop-out.
Some people feel belittled or inferior to be presented with such information.
But most people realise just how little you know of planetary orbital simulation.
You wrote:
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
Why would anyone bother to "download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be" that "uses predictions based only on 2 bodies"?
Unless, of course, they were totally ignorant on such matters, as you seem to be.

Quote from: Shifter
To spare them, you'll have to make do
In other words you were posting rubbish that you're unable to substantiate, just as we all knew.

Not true. If what you say is true, the orbits of the Kuiper belt objects would not be a mystery.

When those programs tell you that Mercury will be in x position at a point in time, did it take into account every celestial body in the solar system?

And to sound like a fuss pot, did it take into account every celestial body in the (at least) observable universe?

Because what the stars were doing elsewhere in the universe when our solar system formed and what they will be doing billions of years from now will make a measurable difference.

The point of the post was to highlight a problem in the field of science such as the '3 body problem' and that orbital mechanics of a system the size of our solar system with many massive bodies and billions of smaller ones is a chaotic one. The universe even more so. Have you heard of entropy?

Wow, some people got real butt hurt over it. ::)


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2020, 02:56:33 AM »
Not true. If what you say is true, the orbits of the Kuiper belt objects would not be a mystery.
No it wouldn't!
No one in "current science" claims to know "the orbits of all of the Kuiper belt objects".
So why would not knowing "the orbits of all of the Kuiper belt objects" be any failing of "current science"?
You claimed "So your current science is full of contradictions and holes" is quite wrong!

Quote from: Shifter
<< I've ignored you stuff about objects so far from Mercury and the Sun that they could have no measurable effect. >>

The point of the post was to highlight a problem in the field of science such as the '3 body problem' and that orbital mechanics of a system the size of our solar system with many massive bodies and billions of smaller ones is a chaotic one.
Why is "the 3-body problem a particular "problem in the field of science". It's been known and studied for centuries and the Solar System is not a 3-body problem anyway.

But the crux is your the claim was:
current science is full of contradictions and holes.
How can that be true if "current science" was well aware of every point you raised years ago?
"Current science" has never claimed to be able to predict the motion of every object in the Solar System, no matter how small.

Now address this point or simply admit your OP was wrong.
So the onus is on you to prove that "current science if full of contradictions and holes".
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 04:18:14 AM by rabinoz »

*

sokarul

  • 18695
  • Extra Racist
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2020, 04:16:26 AM »
You can download a program or app that can tell you where and when a planet or star may be. So you can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc)

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences. Introduce a 3rd body and the system is chaos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem



Also if we launch a rocket into space, the Earths orbit is also affected. You may think it's infinitesimal but over thousands of launches and millions of years, the information you look at is wrong.

Also, in the case of our solar system, it's a hell of a lot more than 3 bodies. And in the case of the observable universe, the planet count alone is 1024 Not including stars, asteroids etc

Keep in mind Newtons equation:


So why is so much faith put into these predictions when a simple '3 body' system is called a 'problem'? Counting all the stars, planets and asteroids, we could have at least 1026 bodies if not more. And that's just the 'observable' portion of the universe. That's only counting the few % of it that we can see (not counting the so called 'dark matter')

So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.

I require more significant figures. This is Technology, Science & Alt Science. Don't cop-out.

Some people feel belittled or inferior to be presented with such information. To spare them, you'll have to make do
Never heard of that. It seems your just being lazy.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2020, 04:23:12 AM »
Not true. If what you say is true, the orbits of the Kuiper belt objects would not be a mystery.
No it wouldn't!
No one in "current science" claims to know "the orbits of all of the Kuiper belt objects".
So why would not knowing "the orbits of all of the Kuiper belt objects" be any failing of "current science"?
You claimed "So your current science is full of contradictions and holes" is quite wrong!

Quote from: Shifter
<< I've ignored you stuff about objects so far from Mercury and the Sun that they could have no measurable effect. >>

The point of the post was to highlight a problem in the field of science such as the '3 body problem' and that orbital mechanics of a system the size of our solar system with many massive bodies and billions of smaller ones is a chaotic one.
Why is "the 3-body problem a particular "problem in the field of science". It's been known and studied for centuries and the Solar System is not a 3-body problem anyway.

But the crux is your the claim was:
current science is full of contradictions and holes.
How can that be true if "current science" was well aware of every point you raised years ago?
"Current science" has never claimed to be able to predict the motion of every object in the Solar System, no matter how small.

Now address this point or simply admit your OP was wrong.
So the onus is on you to prove that "current science if full of contradictions and holes".
Hey rab, I scroll past jb's and your posts because they are so pathetically broken up and honestly un-fucking-readable.

You are better than this.
Help ;D! I put it through the washing machine and it shrank ;).

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 19627
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #23 on: January 23, 2020, 04:50:29 AM »
You were quick on the quote.   :D

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41653
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #24 on: January 23, 2020, 07:08:18 AM »
The point of the post was to highlight a problem in the field of science such as the '3 body problem' and that orbital mechanics of a system the size of our solar system with many massive bodies and billions of smaller ones is a chaotic one. The universe even more so. Have you heard of entropy?
Do you honestly think that this is a new revelation to the scientific community? ???
Chaos and stability of the solar system

Renu Malhotra, Matthew Holman, and Takashi Ito
PNAS October 23, 2001 98 (22) 12342-12343; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231384098

Abstract

Over the last two decades, there has come about a recognition that chaotic dynamics is pervasive in the solar system. We now understand that the orbits of small members of the solar system—asteroids, comets, and interplanetary dust—are chaotic and undergo large changes on geological time scales. Are the major planets' orbits also chaotic? The answer is not straightforward, and the subtleties have prompted new questions.
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.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #25 on: January 23, 2020, 12:29:08 PM »
The point of the post was to highlight a problem in the field of science such as the '3 body problem' and that orbital mechanics of a system the size of our solar system with many massive bodies and billions of smaller ones is a chaotic one. The universe even more so. Have you heard of entropy?
Do you honestly think that this is a new revelation to the scientific community? ???
Chaos and stability of the solar system

Renu Malhotra, Matthew Holman, and Takashi Ito
PNAS October 23, 2001 98 (22) 12342-12343; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.231384098

Abstract

Over the last two decades, there has come about a recognition that chaotic dynamics is pervasive in the solar system. We now understand that the orbits of small members of the solar system—asteroids, comets, and interplanetary dust—are chaotic and undergo large changes on geological time scales. Are the major planets' orbits also chaotic? The answer is not straightforward, and the subtleties have prompted new questions.

Does everything said on this forum have to be ground breaking revelations?


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #26 on: January 23, 2020, 01:43:22 PM »
Does everything said on this forum have to be ground breaking revelations?
No, but it's a good idea to avoid claims that are totally incorrect like "Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong".

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41653
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2020, 04:19:44 PM »
Does everything said on this forum have to be ground breaking revelations?
If you want to meaningfully prove that celestial predictions are wrong, then yes.
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.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #28 on: January 23, 2020, 10:17:19 PM »
Does everything said on this forum have to be ground breaking revelations?
If you want to meaningfully prove that celestial predictions are wrong, then yes.

So you assert there are no errors in the predictions? That the gravity of all influences, known and unknown have been taken into account?


Quote from: sokarul
what website did you use to buy your wife? Did you choose Chinese over Russian because she can't open her eyes to see you?

What animal relates to your wife?

Know your place.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #29 on: January 23, 2020, 11:08:27 PM »
So you assert there are no errors in the predictions? That the gravity of all influences, known and unknown have been taken into account?
That is not the point at all. Whoever asserted that "there are no errors in the predictions"? Certainly not "current science"!

You thread started out with a completely fallacious premise and so it is no better than the classic strawman argument!

Admit that your whole thread is based on a ridiculous illogical premise and we can rationally discuss the various numerical methods used in modern simulators.

Maybe you could learn something by reading Computing the long term evolution of the solar system with geometric numerical integrators.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 11:11:31 PM by rabinoz »