Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong

  • 54 Replies
  • 2870 Views
*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #30 on: January 24, 2020, 12:08:33 AM »
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.

So then leave a comment on PBS Space time telling him his entire episode was pointless and well understood for centuries then


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 #31 on: January 24, 2020, 12:33:07 AM »
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.

So then leave a comment on PBS Space time telling him his entire episode was pointless and well understood for centuries then
Why would I do that? They don't have any crap like this:
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.
Where did they say anything like that?

Garbage like "It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences" is pure Shifter crap.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #32 on: January 24, 2020, 12:52:17 AM »
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.

So then leave a comment on PBS Space time telling him his entire episode was pointless and well understood for centuries then
Why would I do that? They don't have any crap like this:
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.
Where did they say anything like that?

Garbage like "It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences" is pure Shifter crap.

Does the planet MakeMake factor into the calculations of the orbit of Earth? Or Earth on MakeMake? Why leave any body that has a gravitational influence out?

How about one of the biggest black holes ever discovered? Holm 15A? If you're going to say that its effect is 'negligible' then you forget or minimise the law of



Perhaps the result is 'negligible' if your only looking for a result to next week.

But you dont even understand the 'stuff' that make up the bulk of the universe. Perhaps you are happy wading in ignorance because you can only 'see' 5%. If anything is 'invisible' to you, you just stick your fingers in your ears screaming 'lalalala' because you dont want to hear


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.

Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #33 on: January 24, 2020, 01:40:20 AM »
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?
Wow, I thought jroa had left us, but his spirit lives on.
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 #34 on: January 24, 2020, 02:00:58 AM »
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?
Wow, I thought jroa had left us, but his spirit lives on.

Yeah whatever happened to that guy? He was cool 8)


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 #35 on: January 24, 2020, 02:19:13 AM »

Does the planet MakeMake factor into the calculations of the orbit of Earth? Or Earth on MakeMake? Why leave any body that has a gravitational influence out?
Why include any body that has no measurable effect out to gigayears?
I'm not the one who does these long term simulations. Let's see what those that do say:
Quote from: Renu Malhotra, Matthew Holman, and Takashi Ito
Chaos and stability of the solar system
The orbital evolution of planetary orbits on giga-year time scales has been investigated recently via several numerical simulations. These have led to a most interesting conclusion that the orbits of the planets themselves evolve chaotically. The characteristic Lyapunov time is 5–10 million years. A new analytic theory (2) shows that chaos among the Jovian planets results from a delicate interaction—also a three-body resonance—among Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. The theory also confirms the numerical estimate of the Lyapunov time associated with this chaos and shows that the escape time of Uranus is long (1018 years), substantially longer than the lifetime of our sun.

Although the numerical simulations all indicate chaos in planetary orbits, in a qualitative sense the planetary orbits are stable—because the planets remain near their present orbits—over the lifetime of the sun. However, the presence of chaos implies that there is a finite limit to how accurately the positions of the planets can be predicted over long times. Of all of the planets, Mercury's orbit appears to exhibit changes of the largest magnitude in orbital eccentricity and inclination. Fortunately, this is not fatal to the global stability of the whole planetary system owing to the small mass of Mercury. Changes in the orbit of the Earth, which can have potentially large effects on its surface climate system through solar insolation variation, are found also to be small.

Takashi Ito discussed several properties that may be responsible for the long term stability of our solar system. Among these, the difference in dynamical separation between terrestrial and Jovian planetary subsystems seems to be quite interesting and important. The terrestrial planets have smaller masses, shorter orbital periods, and wider dynamical separation. They are strongly perturbed by the Jovian planets, which have larger masses, longer orbital periods, and narrower dynamical separation. As a subsystem, the Jovian planets are not perturbed by any other massive bodies.

Ito and Tanikawa (3) have performed a set of numerical experiments to understand how these differences between terrestrial and Jovian planets affect their long term stability. They have considered various kinds of terrestrial planetary subsystems with equal dynamical separations and determined their typical instability time scales under the disturbance from the massive Jovian planets. They find that the terrestrial planetary subsystems with smaller dynamical distances (<18RH) are likely to become unstable in a short time scale (<107 years). This rapid instability is caused by the strong gravitational perturbation from massive Jovian planets. Thus it seems that the present wide dynamical separation among terrestrial planets (>26RH) is possibly one of the significant conditions to maintain the stability of the planetary orbits in giga-year time spans.


Quote from: Shifter
How about one of the biggest black holes ever discovered? Holm 15A?
So what? Why would we be concerned with the effect of an object "700 million light-years from Earth"?

Quote from: Shifter
If you're going to say that its effect is 'negligible' then you forget or minimise the law of

No I'm not! In any case that's the wrong equation to judge the effect of distant masses.
Why would anyone, even a fuss-pot like you, bother with something that might has roughly 5 x 1031 times the effect of our Sun.

Quote from: Shifter
Perhaps the result is 'negligible' if your only looking for a result to next week.
I'm not the expert and obviously your not.
But that paper indicates that even the Earth has little effect on giga-year timescales.

Quote from: Shifter
<< Stop your silly fishing expedition on a topic you know nothing about. >>
Go and discuss it with a cosmologist.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #36 on: January 24, 2020, 02:26:14 AM »

Does the planet MakeMake factor into the calculations of the orbit of Earth? Or Earth on MakeMake? Why leave any body that has a gravitational influence out?
Why include any body that has no measurable effect out to gigayears?
I'm not the one who does these long term simulations. Let's see what those that do say:
Quote from: Renu Malhotra, Matthew Holman, and Takashi Ito
Chaos and stability of the solar system
The orbital evolution of planetary orbits on giga-year time scales has been investigated recently via several numerical simulations. These have led to a most interesting conclusion that the orbits of the planets themselves evolve chaotically. The characteristic Lyapunov time is 5–10 million years. A new analytic theory (2) shows that chaos among the Jovian planets results from a delicate interaction—also a three-body resonance—among Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. The theory also confirms the numerical estimate of the Lyapunov time associated with this chaos and shows that the escape time of Uranus is long (1018 years), substantially longer than the lifetime of our sun.

Although the numerical simulations all indicate chaos in planetary orbits, in a qualitative sense the planetary orbits are stable—because the planets remain near their present orbits—over the lifetime of the sun. However, the presence of chaos implies that there is a finite limit to how accurately the positions of the planets can be predicted over long times. Of all of the planets, Mercury's orbit appears to exhibit changes of the largest magnitude in orbital eccentricity and inclination. Fortunately, this is not fatal to the global stability of the whole planetary system owing to the small mass of Mercury. Changes in the orbit of the Earth, which can have potentially large effects on its surface climate system through solar insolation variation, are found also to be small.

Takashi Ito discussed several properties that may be responsible for the long term stability of our solar system. Among these, the difference in dynamical separation between terrestrial and Jovian planetary subsystems seems to be quite interesting and important. The terrestrial planets have smaller masses, shorter orbital periods, and wider dynamical separation. They are strongly perturbed by the Jovian planets, which have larger masses, longer orbital periods, and narrower dynamical separation. As a subsystem, the Jovian planets are not perturbed by any other massive bodies.

Ito and Tanikawa (3) have performed a set of numerical experiments to understand how these differences between terrestrial and Jovian planets affect their long term stability. They have considered various kinds of terrestrial planetary subsystems with equal dynamical separations and determined their typical instability time scales under the disturbance from the massive Jovian planets. They find that the terrestrial planetary subsystems with smaller dynamical distances (<18RH) are likely to become unstable in a short time scale (<107 years). This rapid instability is caused by the strong gravitational perturbation from massive Jovian planets. Thus it seems that the present wide dynamical separation among terrestrial planets (>26RH) is possibly one of the significant conditions to maintain the stability of the planetary orbits in giga-year time spans.


Quote from: Shifter
How about one of the biggest black holes ever discovered? Holm 15A?
So what? Why would we be concerned with the effect of an object "700 million light-years from Earth"?

Quote from: Shifter
If you're going to say that its effect is 'negligible' then you forget or minimise the law of

No I'm not! In any case that's the wrong equation to judge the effect of distant masses.
Why would anyone, even a fuss-pot like you, bother with something that might has roughly 5 x 1031 times the effect of our Sun.

Quote from: Shifter
Perhaps the result is 'negligible' if your only looking for a result to next week.
I'm not the expert and obviously your not.
But that paper indicates that even the Earth has little effect on giga-year timescales.

Quote from: Shifter
<< Stop your silly fishing expedition on a topic you know nothing about. >>
Go and discuss it with a cosmologist.

Gigayears, quintayears, yottayears. There is a measurable difference. (well our solar system wont be around in a yottayear anyway)

'SkyGlobe' is at least honest enough to admit the data isn't even correct to within tens of thousands of years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyglobe
Quote
Skyglobe accounts for the earth's precession in its calculations and should therefore be accurate to tens of thousands of years in the past and the future, but its manual does warn that the positions of planets might not be accurate throughout this range (it says "their coordinates are approximately correct for as far back and forward as we have data").

I said the predictions are wrong. Why so uptight? Do you get this uptight if anyone dares say next weeks weather report is wrong?


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 #37 on: January 24, 2020, 03:27:35 AM »
I said the predictions are wrong.
You didn't simply say "the predictions are wrong"!
How many times must you be reminded than you said this:
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.
How could anyone be idiotic enough to claim that "a program or app . . . .  can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc) . . . . based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences"?

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences."

Quote from: Shifter
Do you get this uptight if anyone dares say next weeks weather report is wrong?
Of course not but there's not the remotest connection.

What is totally untrue with your OP is:
    your claim that predictions are "based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other
gravitational influences" and
    as a result "current science if full of contradictions and holes".
Both of those are total crap and I'm sure that you know it by now.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #38 on: January 24, 2020, 03:52:30 AM »
I said the predictions are wrong.
You didn't simply say "the predictions are wrong"!
How many times must you be reminded than you said this:
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.
How could anyone be idiotic enough to claim that "a program or app . . . .  can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc) . . . . based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences"?

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences."

Quote from: Shifter
Do you get this uptight if anyone dares say next weeks weather report is wrong?
Of course not but there's not the remotest connection.

What is totally untrue with your OP is:
    your claim that predictions are "based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other
gravitational influences" and
    as a result "current science if full of contradictions and holes".
Both of those are total crap and I'm sure that you know it by now.

It isn't crap. Even when we launch a rocket into outer space it affects the Earths orbit. So tell me has your precious apps take that into consideration? Earthquakes can affect the Earths rotation and shape which in turn could affect the Earths orbit

Falling space matter and micrometeorites build up and over time, increase the mass of the Earth which affect the Earths orbit. So tell me, has the app accounted for all of these things?


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 #39 on: January 24, 2020, 04:35:19 AM »

What is totally untrue with your OP is:
    your claim that predictions are "based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other
gravitational influences" and
    as a result "current science if full of contradictions and holes".
Both of those are total crap and I'm sure that you know it by now.

It isn't crap.
What you posted in your OP was crap.

Quote from: Shifter
Even when we launch a rocket into outer space it affects the Earths orbit.
Sure but how much is the question.
The mass of the Earth is almost 6 x 1024 kg and the mass of a rocket under 1.5 x 106 kg - go figure!

Quote from: Shifter
So tell me has your precious apps take that into consideration?
I have no "precious apps" that was YOU remember.

Quote from: Shifter
Earthquakes can affect the Earths rotation and shape which in turn could affect the Earths orbit
So? But just how much is a virtually undetectable change in the rotation rate going to affect the orbit?

Quote from: Shifter
Falling space matter and micrometeorites build up and over time, increase the mass of the Earth which affect the Earths orbit. So tell me, has the app accounted for all of these things?
No, why would it?
Who said that any of those professional simulation programs even attempt to work to that accuracy.
Those that work to giga-years (the predicted lifetime of the Sun) are only concerned with the stability of the system, not in attempting to predict the exact location of the various bodies.

What you posted in your OP was crap - get used to it!

Now run off and read the references I posted and linked to and stop wasting time with trivla.
Quote from: Renu Malhotra, Matthew Holman, and Takashi Ito
Chaos and stability of the solar system
The orbital evolution of planetary orbits on giga-year time scales has been investigated recently via several numerical simulations. These have led to a most interesting conclusion that the orbits of the planets themselves evolve chaotically. The characteristic Lyapunov time is 5–10 million years. A new analytic theory (2) shows that chaos among the Jovian planets results from a delicate interaction—also a three-body resonance—among Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. The theory also confirms the numerical estimate of the Lyapunov time associated with this chaos and shows that the escape time of Uranus is long (1018 years), substantially longer than the lifetime of our sun.

Although the numerical simulations all indicate chaos in planetary orbits, in a qualitative sense the planetary orbits are stable—because the planets remain near their present orbits—over the lifetime of the sun. However, the presence of chaos implies that there is a finite limit to how accurately the positions of the planets can be predicted over long times. Of all of the planets, Mercury's orbit appears to exhibit changes of the largest magnitude in orbital eccentricity and inclination. Fortunately, this is not fatal to the global stability of the whole planetary system owing to the small mass of Mercury. Changes in the orbit of the Earth, which can have potentially large effects on its surface climate system through solar insolation variation, are found also to be small.

Takashi Ito discussed several properties that may be responsible for the long term stability of our solar system. Among these, the difference in dynamical separation between terrestrial and Jovian planetary subsystems seems to be quite interesting and important. The terrestrial planets have smaller masses, shorter orbital periods, and wider dynamical separation. They are strongly perturbed by the Jovian planets, which have larger masses, longer orbital periods, and narrower dynamical separation. As a subsystem, the Jovian planets are not perturbed by any other massive bodies.

Ito and Tanikawa (3) have performed a set of numerical experiments to understand how these differences between terrestrial and Jovian planets affect their long term stability. They have considered various kinds of terrestrial planetary subsystems with equal dynamical separations and determined their typical instability time scales under the disturbance from the massive Jovian planets. They find that the terrestrial planetary subsystems with smaller dynamical distances (<18RH) are likely to become unstable in a short time scale (<107 years). This rapid instability is caused by the strong gravitational perturbation from massive Jovian planets. Thus it seems that the present wide dynamical separation among terrestrial planets (>26RH) is possibly one of the significant conditions to maintain the stability of the planetary orbits in giga-year time spans.

Or this: Computing the long term evolution of the solar system with geometric numerical integrators..

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2020, 05:00:36 AM »

What is totally untrue with your OP is:
    your claim that predictions are "based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other
gravitational influences" and
    as a result "current science if full of contradictions and holes".
Both of those are total crap and I'm sure that you know it by now.

It isn't crap.
What you posted in your OP was crap.

Quote from: Shifter
Even when we launch a rocket into outer space it affects the Earths orbit.
Sure but how much is the question.
The mass of the Earth is almost 6 x 1024 kg and the mass of a rocket under 1.5 x 106 kg - go figure!

Quote from: Shifter
So tell me has your precious apps take that into consideration?
I have no "precious apps" that was YOU remember.

Quote from: Shifter
Earthquakes can affect the Earths rotation and shape which in turn could affect the Earths orbit
So? But just how much is a virtually undetectable change in the rotation rate going to affect the orbit?

Quote from: Shifter
Falling space matter and micrometeorites build up and over time, increase the mass of the Earth which affect the Earths orbit. So tell me, has the app accounted for all of these things?
No, why would it?
Who said that any of those professional simulation programs even attempt to work to that accuracy.
Those that work to giga-years (the predicted lifetime of the Sun) are only concerned with the stability of the system, not in attempting to predict the exact location of the various bodies.

What you posted in your OP was crap - get used to it!

Now run off and read the references I posted and linked to and stop wasting time with trivla.
Quote from: Renu Malhotra, Matthew Holman, and Takashi Ito
Chaos and stability of the solar system
The orbital evolution of planetary orbits on giga-year time scales has been investigated recently via several numerical simulations. These have led to a most interesting conclusion that the orbits of the planets themselves evolve chaotically. The characteristic Lyapunov time is 5–10 million years. A new analytic theory (2) shows that chaos among the Jovian planets results from a delicate interaction—also a three-body resonance—among Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. The theory also confirms the numerical estimate of the Lyapunov time associated with this chaos and shows that the escape time of Uranus is long (1018 years), substantially longer than the lifetime of our sun.

Although the numerical simulations all indicate chaos in planetary orbits, in a qualitative sense the planetary orbits are stable—because the planets remain near their present orbits—over the lifetime of the sun. However, the presence of chaos implies that there is a finite limit to how accurately the positions of the planets can be predicted over long times. Of all of the planets, Mercury's orbit appears to exhibit changes of the largest magnitude in orbital eccentricity and inclination. Fortunately, this is not fatal to the global stability of the whole planetary system owing to the small mass of Mercury. Changes in the orbit of the Earth, which can have potentially large effects on its surface climate system through solar insolation variation, are found also to be small.

Takashi Ito discussed several properties that may be responsible for the long term stability of our solar system. Among these, the difference in dynamical separation between terrestrial and Jovian planetary subsystems seems to be quite interesting and important. The terrestrial planets have smaller masses, shorter orbital periods, and wider dynamical separation. They are strongly perturbed by the Jovian planets, which have larger masses, longer orbital periods, and narrower dynamical separation. As a subsystem, the Jovian planets are not perturbed by any other massive bodies.

Ito and Tanikawa (3) have performed a set of numerical experiments to understand how these differences between terrestrial and Jovian planets affect their long term stability. They have considered various kinds of terrestrial planetary subsystems with equal dynamical separations and determined their typical instability time scales under the disturbance from the massive Jovian planets. They find that the terrestrial planetary subsystems with smaller dynamical distances (<18RH) are likely to become unstable in a short time scale (<107 years). This rapid instability is caused by the strong gravitational perturbation from massive Jovian planets. Thus it seems that the present wide dynamical separation among terrestrial planets (>26RH) is possibly one of the significant conditions to maintain the stability of the planetary orbits in giga-year time spans.

Or this: Computing the long term evolution of the solar system with geometric numerical integrators..

Science theory is full of holes. It is full of wrong or incomplete information. YOU get used to it! That's why mankind is constantly searching for answers - only to discover more questions!

If our science was not full of holes, we would know everything. Why does it trigger you when I say it. It's true!


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 #41 on: January 24, 2020, 06:37:37 AM »
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?
No, I'm saying that the predictions are accurate to within given limitations.  The notion of absolute accuracy is a hypothetical ideal that is a nice goal to strive for, but is ultimately impossible to achieve.  That doesn't take away from the usefulness of the predictions that are currently made within the given limitations.
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 #42 on: January 24, 2020, 06:51:40 AM »
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?
No, I'm saying that the predictions are accurate to within given limitations.  The notion of absolute accuracy is a hypothetical ideal that is a nice goal to strive for, but is ultimately impossible to achieve.  That doesn't take away from the usefulness of the predictions that are currently made within the given limitations.

My point. It's wrong so people shouldn't be fooled to thinking the predictions are right.

The 'prediction' is that in 100 quintillion years the planets orbits will have decayed and swirl into the sun which will by that time be a black dwarf

Having faith in that prediction would be silly. Anything with a non zero probability has a decent chance to screw that up in 100 quintillion years. A passing star or primoridal black hole could pass near our solar system and steal or eject a planet from their orbits.

Yet rabs favorite apps will happily tell him all is well

Unless rab can figure a way to make the Heisenberg uncertainty principle a 'certainty', although even then, would that even apply to life forms? Was my key taps on the keyboard pre determined from the moment of the so called 'big bang'? Well if he can solve the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in any event he'd get a Nobel prize surely. Although he's pretty old, he may have to settle to get it posthumously  :o


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.

*

sokarul

  • 18695
  • Extra Racist
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2020, 07:01:47 AM »
There real problem here is your lack of science knowledge. Do you understand science doesn’t claim absolutes?
This will help greatly when you realize. As stated by others, it’s good enough. No one has claimed a rouge star can’t wipe out the earth. It’s really that simple.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is for quantum physics. It has nothing to do here.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2020, 07:05:56 AM »
There real problem here is your lack of science knowledge. Do you understand science doesn’t claim absolutes?

Yes. That's why I said the science is full of holes. That's why I said the predictions are wrong. Nothing is absolute. Nothing is certain. And we haven't even scratched the surface in knowing what we need to know to answer all the questions we have

Somehow I say it and you all get triggered  ::)




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.

*

sokarul

  • 18695
  • Extra Racist
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2020, 07:22:59 AM »
The only one triggered is you. We all know it’s ok for predictions to be wrong. You don’t, so you are going ape-shit. Just calm down, take a breath, and relax.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2020, 07:44:51 AM »
The only one triggered is you. We all know it’s ok for predictions to be wrong. You don’t, so you are going ape-shit. Just calm down, take a breath, and relax.

So why did rab come here with a spaz attack?

Clearly you dont 'all know'

I am calm. I'm not the one with a potty mouth


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.

*

sokarul

  • 18695
  • Extra Racist
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #47 on: January 24, 2020, 07:58:15 AM »
Umm.

You started the thread.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #48 on: January 24, 2020, 08:02:06 AM »
Umm.

You started the thread.

No kidding. You want a gold star or something?

Clearly you have nothing to contribute. At least rab did.


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.

*

sokarul

  • 18695
  • Extra Racist
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #49 on: January 24, 2020, 08:03:34 AM »
I already tried to contribute.

Do you understand predictions are ok?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/2020-01-22-directv-satellite-at-risk-of-explosion.html

The satellite is predicted to pass in the moons shadow. Do you understand that’s ok?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Shifter

  • 18890
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #50 on: January 24, 2020, 08:10:42 AM »
I already tried to contribute.

Do you understand predictions are ok?

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/2020-01-22-directv-satellite-at-risk-of-explosion.html

The satellite is predicted to pass in the moons shadow. Do you understand that’s ok?

Yes. And I am saying the predictions are inherently wrong and not to put faith in something on huge timescales.

Your satellite example is far less complex the the entirety of the solar system and has issues of which consequences are known and understood

Would you agree that science is 'full of holes'? It's nothing to be ashamed about. To pretend there isn't is to have the answer to every question. Perhaps I could have worded in a fashion that was less triggering or without any negative connotations?

Simply suggestion that the further out in time you go, the greater the uncertainty to a point where the confidence in the data is near zero. As it stands, we are working with a lot of missing data to begin with. Unless.... You know something the scientific community does not?


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 #51 on: January 24, 2020, 08:35:19 AM »
And I am saying the predictions are inherently wrong and not to put faith in something on huge timescales.
Great advice, Shifter.  I'll keep that in mind next time I'm planning the itinerary for my gigayear hypersleep.

Welp, I guess that wraps up the thread.


(I say, knowing that this will continue for the sole reason that pedantic arguing is a way to spend time.)
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 #52 on: January 24, 2020, 08:52:55 AM »
And I am saying the predictions are inherently wrong and not to put faith in something on huge timescales.
Great advice, Shifter.  I'll keep that in mind next time I'm planning the itinerary for my gigayear hypersleep.
Well I'm glad someone got some useful information out of it  :)

Welp, I guess that wraps up the thread.

(I say, knowing that this will continue for the sole reason that pedantic arguing is a way to spend time.)

Well I'm happy to leave it. Not aiming to reach Heiwa's epicness

/end thread



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 #53 on: January 24, 2020, 02:23:34 PM »

Science theory is full of holes. It is full of wrong or incomplete information.
No one claims that everything is known.
Albert Einstein said that 'The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.'
And Oscar Wilde expressed the same thought 'I am not young enough to know everything.'
On this topic, no one knows any details about most of the asteroids.

What does "Science theory" even mean? There is no "central repository" of 'science theory'.

But saying "Science theory is full of holes. It is full of wrong or incomplete information" is a stupid and derogatory way to put it.

But whatever you keep going on and on and on about you OP was still CRAP and completely wrong! just admit it!
I said the predictions are wrong.
You didn't simply say "the predictions are wrong"!
How many times must you be reminded than you said this:
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So your current science if full of contradictions and holes.
How could anyone be idiotic enough to claim that "a program or app . . . .  can apparently predict that in the year 100,000 Earth may be in 'x' position around the Sun (and all the other planets etc) . . . . based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences"?

But it's wrong

It uses predictions based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other gravitational influences."

What is totally untrue with your OP is:
    your claim that predictions are "based only on 2 bodies. The Earth and the Sun. No other
gravitational influences" and
    as a result "current science if full of contradictions and holes".
Both of those are total crap and I'm sure that you know it by now.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41653
Re: Your predictions of celestial body orbits are wrong
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2020, 02:35:22 PM »
My point. It's wrong so people shouldn't be fooled to thinking the predictions are right.
Have you personally verified the accuracy of any of those predictions?

The 'prediction' is that in 100 quintillion years the planets orbits will have decayed and swirl into the sun which will by that time be a black dwarf
Actually, the current prediction is that 100 quintillion years, dark energy will have expanded the universe to the point where atoms fly apart and decay, leading to the heat death of the universe.  I doubt that anyone will be around to see if either of those predictions come true.

Having faith in that prediction would be silly. Anything with a non zero probability has a decent chance to screw that up in 100 quintillion years. A passing star or primoridal black hole could pass near our solar system and steal or eject a planet from their orbits.

Yet rabs favorite apps will happily tell him all is well

Unless rab can figure a way to make the Heisenberg uncertainty principle a 'certainty', although even then, would that even apply to life forms? Was my key taps on the keyboard pre determined from the moment of the so called 'big bang'? Well if he can solve the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in any event he'd get a Nobel prize surely. Although he's pretty old, he may have to settle to get it posthumously  :o
The thing about predictions is that they're only ever guesses.  You can pull a prediction out of your ass based on nothing more than the color and texture of your turd and still be right.  Yes, the more accurate information you have, the more educated guesses will be and the greater the probability that they will pan out, but they are still only guesses.
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.