Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.

  • 98 Replies
  • 3187 Views
Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« on: March 14, 2020, 03:27:25 AM »
My first answer is why this debate about what shape do Earth have exists anyway? And the second, is there any proof that the Earth is flat, because i saw a lot of theories here but non of them makes sence to me.
Please serious answers and no speaking about celestial bodies and other stuff.

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2020, 05:37:28 AM »
Proof in my opinion is very subjective. For example if you stand in a wide open space with a reasonably clear view of the horizon all around you then it looks pretty flat. Standing on the deck of cruise ship in the middle of the ocean on a calm day your senses will tell you that the surface the Earth is flat. However there are other observations that we can make during the year that would start to challenge that conclusion. Some can be made with the naked eye, others need a telescope. You don't want to talk about celestial bodies so I will not go into that anymore other than to say much of the evidence that counters flat Earth belief comes from the observation of the sky.  Perhaps that explains why most flat Earthers are so dismissive of what I would call proper astronomy. Not the so-called 'pseudo-astronomy' that flat Earthers focus on.

So the horizon looks flat. That to many a flat Earther is proof enough. When challenged they revert back to the mid 19th century when a guy called Rowbotham (the hero of all FE believers) did a series of not exactly scientifically based experiments (since they were obviously carried out by someone with a biased mind) and made some drawings about what he did and the results he got. He conveniently did not mention or apparently consider any alternative reasons for his results. His results 'proved' to him that the Earth was flat because that's exactly what he wanted them to do.

Likewise if asked to prove the existence of God someone of religious mind would probably feel the need to do little else other than point out the world around us and the rich variety of life it supports. Our existence they would say is proof of the existence of God. A scientist would say proof is not the right word here but simply a personal interpretation that is based on faith or belief.

The latter is why FE believers believe the Earth is flat.  It is based on their interpretation of what they see. And for that reason no further 'proof' is necessary. Anything which counters that belief is regarded as a deliberate attempt to deceive them or lie to them.

Let me ask you this: How many RE models are there (clue its less than 2) and then how many FE models are there?  What does that tell you.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 09:16:08 AM by Solarwind »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2020, 10:14:58 AM »
Let me ask you this: How many RE models are there (clue its less than 2) and then how many FE models are there?  What does that tell you.

It tells me that you are trolling. There are multiple RE models of gravity. Disagreements about the age of the universe, size of the universe, model of the sun, nature of the galaxies, etc. On nearly every subject we can find disagreement, many in the mainstream, regardless of whether you only declare only one view to be 'correct' .

If you want to tell us about FE who believe in a religious firmament I can tell you about a significant number of religious RE who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and motionless. The different views on RE actually outnumbers anything FE produces. Asking us not to compare that is total hypocracy.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 10:26:38 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2020, 10:37:28 AM »
It depends on how wide you want to cast your net Tom. I never 'troll' in the internet context of the word but I didn't think flat Earthers were too concerned about the universe on the large scale. You yourself stated that in FE world not much is known about the nature of the celestial bodies.  How would you describe the nature of stars for example?

You can't even agree between yourselves how your version of the solar system is arranged yet so worrying about what is happening beyond the solar system is a bit premature for you I would have thought?!?

Science is an ongoing journey of investigation and discovery as you well know. We believe we know how the solar system works though.  It has the Sun in the centre and the planets, comets, asteroids etc etc orbit around it. That of course will tempt you to start on about your 3 body problem obsession. 

OK let me simplify my earlier point...  which do you subscribe to more, the monopole or bipolar flat Earth model?

Quote
I can tell you about a significant number of religious RE who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and motionless

Go on then... fill your boots.   Believing in something doesn't make it true though does it.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 10:45:36 AM by Solarwind »

*

rabinoz

  • 25564
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2020, 03:36:17 PM »
Let me ask you this: How many RE models are there (clue its less than 2) and then how many FE models are there?  What does that tell you.

It tells me that you are trolling. There are multiple RE models of gravity.
Where are these "multiple RE models of gravity" that differ in the behaviour of gravitation in our vicinity - ie within the Solar System and even relatively near stars.
All "RE models of gravity" have gravitation behaving extremely close to Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation - even GR differs almost imperceptibly.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Disagreements about the age of the universe, size of the universe,
These are totally irrelevant to the questions of the shape of the Earth and to the Heliocentric Solar System vs the Geocentric Universe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
model of the sun,
Where are these various models of the Sun that differ significantly in its external operation?
And how is it relevant to the questions of the shape of the Earth and to the Heliocentric Solar System vs the Geocentric Universe?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
nature of the galaxies, etc.
Again this is totally irrelevant to the questions of the shape of the Earth and to the Heliocentric Solar System vs the Geocentric Universe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
On nearly every subject we can find disagreement, many in the mainstream, regardless of whether you only declare only one view to be 'correct' .
Really? Where is there any disagreement as to the shape and size of the Earth, the Solar System and anything in astronomy that would affect these.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
If you want to tell us about FE who believe in a religious firmament I can tell you about a significant number of religious RE who believe that the earth is 6000 years old
The age of the Earth is totally irrelevant to it's shape and to the Heliocentric Solar System.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
and motionless.
Which is totally irrelevant to the Earth's shape and this is the Flat Earth Society.

Sort out the shape of the Earth before bothering your head over whether it rotates or not.
The rotation of the Earth cannot be proven without either astronomical observations or some sort of measuring instruments.

But a large Sun and all the planets etc orbiting a relatively small Earth is quite contrary to even the simply laws of motion.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The different views on RE actually outnumbers anything FE produces. Asking us not to compare that is total hypocracy.
So you say but all you have is words.
You have no shown relevant disagreement other that the Heliocentric vs Geocentric systems and "mainstream science" has no disagreement there.
Geocentrism is promoted by only a few, such as Robert Sungenis who at best can be called a pseudo-scientist with virtually no understanding of physics.

On the other hand, flat Earthers differ on some major or obvious issues such as:
  • The continental layout of the flat Earth.
    Most claim this is North Pole centred with Antarctica as a ring continent and an impassable ice-wall around the outside as on the left, below.
    A few others claim that both the North and South Poles are discrete points and the continents are laid out something like as on the right:

    Ice Wall Map
    the usual "Flat Earth Map".
       

    Sandokhan's
    "True" Flat Earth Map
    That Ice-Wall map is quite impossible for a number of reasons
          one being the apparent rotation of the stars about a single South Celestial Pole and
          another being the numerous polar circumnavigations of the Earth that travel via both poles as in Polar Circumnavigation.

    And the bipolar layout is equally impossible because of the numerous crossings of the Pacific Ocean by air and sea including:
    Latitude Zero: Mike Hornís Horizontal Solo Circumnavigation of the Globe at the Equator
    He'd surely have noticed falling off the edge or going all that extra distance to cross the Pacific Ocean. He wrote:
    Quote
    Latitude Zero: Mike Hornís Horizontal Solo Circumnavigation of the Globe at the Equator, Stage 3
    It was back onto my trimaran in the Pacific Ocean to cross from Ecuador to Borneo, sailing through the Galapagos Islands, completing 8685 nautical miles in 2 months and 16 days.

    I would claim that if flat Earthers cannot even decide on a basic layout of their flat Earth then they have nothing!

  • The cause and behaviour of "things falling down".
    Some flat Earthers assume that the Earth accelerates upwards at 9.8 m/s2 and that mimics gravity fairly well but has many problems.
    Others accept essentially Newtonian Gravitation and claim that is acceptable on an infinite flat Earth.
    Then we have the many who have some sort of relative density/buoyancy theory etc, etc.
So the differences between flat Earthers on the layout and other issues are very fundamental and far-reaching and have been quuite recent.

On the other hand, the shape and size of the Globe have changed little for well over a thousand years, notwithstanding the confusion of Christopher Columbus.
And the basic Heliocentric Solar System has changed little since the time of Newton. All that has been added to that has been more accurate measurements, the discovery of more planets etc and GR explaining some very slight anomalies.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 06:08:56 PM by rabinoz »

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2020, 05:29:45 PM »
There are multiple RE models of gravity. Disagreements about the age of the universe, size of the universe, model of the sun, nature of the galaxies, etc. On nearly every subject we can find disagreement
Do you notice some key things you left out?
The shape of Earth.
The location of the continents.
The layout of the continents.
The reason the sun appears to set.
The reason why different stars are seen in the sky at night in different locations.

Meanwhile, FE can't decide if Earth is a finite disk or infinite.
If the north pole is at the centre or the south pole, or some point on the equator and likewise if Antarctica is a ring or a continent.
Many FEers refuse to provide a definitive map and instead declare every map presented as a possibility or idea, all to avoid the fact that any map they produce will inevitably get large sections wrong.

What you listed has basically nothing to do with the shape of Earth, and thus are not "RE models".

For example, there are different models of gravity. These are not RE models.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2020, 05:31:34 PM by JackBlack »

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2020, 06:48:37 PM »

It tells me that you are trolling. There are multiple RE models of gravity. Disagreements about the age of the universe, size of the universe, model of the sun, nature of the galaxies, etc. On nearly every subject we can find disagreement, many in the mainstream, regardless of whether you only declare only one view to be 'correct' .

If you want to tell us about FE who believe in a religious firmament I can tell you about a significant number of religious RE who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and motionless. The different views on RE actually outnumbers anything FE produces. Asking us not to compare that is total hypocracy.

Scientific disagreements in these things (which doesnít include the opinions of young earth creationists) is on the fringes of what can be determined.  For example, if gravitons are real, they would be theoretically impossible to detect with our current technology.  We may never be able to from what I gather.  Astronomers and cosmologist have tried to piece together the age, size and formation of the universe from looking at distant points of light.  Itís not easy.  So yes, there at opposing theories, and scientists are looking for ways to test them.  Thatís how this stuff works.

Really basic things like working out the shape of the planet we live on, however is not that difficult.  Certainly not on an age when we can (at least until very recently) easily hop on a plane to the other side .  Not to mention the thousands of satellites in orbit.

Itís not remotely the same thing.

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2020, 02:13:09 AM »
Let's not forget that RE means round Earth and FE means flat Earth.  That's pretty clear and specific to the Earth. Scientists from various disciplines have all measured the Earth very accurately now using a variety of methods.

So what our OP is asking with the above in mind is why is there any need to have a debate about what shape the Earth is. Not unreasonably he is suggesting that we've managed to figure that out!

We live on a globe and moreover we live on a globe that happens to be surrounded by a layer of air.  That air can vary in stability, temperature, density etc etc and that can often make the Earths surface appear to be both less and more curved than it actually is. Air can alter the paths of light waves significantly. Since our eyes rely entirely on light to function and since FEers seem to base their beliefs only on what they can directly, that is a problem for them even if they don't realise/accept it.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2020, 02:32:59 AM by Solarwind »

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2020, 05:16:52 AM »
I can't believe why some peole still lives in stone age or what is it. You can't just say "Earth is flat, because i don't see the curve". Yes you don't because you are on it and not enough high to see it. And about the videos that were recorded by camera with fish eye, it is problem of the camera because curve of the planet is really not that much as on the videos. But how someone can believe that gravity does not exists and the nonsense about that the Earth is continuously speeding up and the force is pushing us to the ground? And where is the energy that speeding up the Earth? This is called perpetuum mobile, and not a real force. Also the information that nobody was ever on south pole because military is guarding it? Is this an old thread that is no longer true or someone still thinks that it is? And can you explain, if the Earth is flat then how compas works? And how deep is Earth? if i could dig through ground to the end i will fall to void or what? Our planet is not Minecraft. Earth is regular planet like others but the only difference is that there is life, (life can be also on others but far away from us) and there are, well how can i say it, people so it is not special. We are not special. We are just part of the universe and nobody cares because we are so small compared to whole universe that if we disappear, it will be worthless to know it. But the most important think for me is knowledge but exactly right here where im writing this, i will not gain it because what i read here, it has effect on me like black hole that is sucking all my information from my primitive brain.

And why everyone thinks that NASA or what is lying? they won't get payed for it because who will pay for lying? (about Earth shape) I won't. They are investing so much money for rockets and other stuff and you think that they are throwing money to bin? And they are just sitting in some room and doing nothing?
Really what is wrong with this world? (not whole, just some part of it)
« Last Edit: March 15, 2020, 05:19:44 AM by Prema K »

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2020, 06:33:10 AM »
It all comes down to these things that are called conspiracy theories. Think of any mainstream theory or model and no matter how strong or obviously correct it seems to be to most of us, there will always be a minority who choose to rebel against it and create their own, alternative reality. Why?  You would have to ask them. Perhaps it gives them some deluded sense of importance...  'we know something no one else does..and that makes us better than anybody who doesn't believe what we do'  or similar.  They won't accept or admit to being wrong no matter what evidence you present to them.  Anything that counters their belief is simply dismissed as a deliberate attempt to lie to them or such like.

You will find reference to things like 'Electromagnetic Acceleration' and 'Universal Acceleration' which are concepts that the flat Earthers have conjured up themselves in order to make light and gravity behave they way they do in the physical world but with the underlying assertion that the Earth is flat. Just have a read up about how they use EA as a way of explaining the Moon phases.  It's fascinating!

Most of what you read up about 'modern' flat Earth theories seems to be based books written many years ago. One of the most 'up to date' publications that is a popular favourite is 'Earth is not a Globe' By a certain Samuel Rowbotham. He lived in the mid-19th century and certainly had some interesting ideas.  Make of it what you will!
« Last Edit: March 15, 2020, 06:40:50 AM by Solarwind »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2020, 05:43:47 PM »
If you want to tell us about FE who believe in a religious firmament I can tell you about a significant number of religious RE who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and motionless.
I hate to tell you this Tom, but even RE geocentrists have better, more accurate models than FE'ers do. 
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

  • 25564
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2020, 08:09:20 PM »
If you want to tell us about FE who believe in a religious firmament I can tell you about a significant number of religious RE who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and motionless.
I hate to tell you this Tom, but even RE geocentrists have better, more accurate models than FE'ers do.
Have a look at ďWhy the Universe does not Revolve Around the Earth: Refuting Absolute GeocentrismĒ.
Robert Sungenis is a "neo-Tychonian Geocentrist" and Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati are "Young Earth Creationists".
Could be Interesting . . . .

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39304
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #12 on: March 15, 2020, 08:27:30 PM »
I didn't say that RE geocentrists are right, just that they have better models than FE'ers.  Of course that isn't saying much.
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #13 on: March 15, 2020, 09:33:28 PM »
They don't even have a working model. The n-body problems do not work, heliocentric or geocentric. Nor do they have an answer for the Moon Tilt Illusion.

*

rabinoz

  • 25564
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #14 on: March 15, 2020, 10:51:56 PM »
They don't even have a working model.
Really? That is totally untrue.
Not only are there models but there are accurate simulations of the main bodies of the Solar System.

Now what have you got other than no agreement even on the basic layout of the continents nor on "why things fall down"!
Shall I list all these different "flat Earth models"?

Quote from: Tom Bishop
The n-body problems do not work, heliocentric or geocentric.
Not this again?
Your silly "n-body problems do not work" hypothesis was trounced long ago.
All the "n-body problem" amounts to is that there is no closed analytic solution for a system of more that two bodies.

But long-term simulations of the Solar System show that the system of the Sun, planets and most of the moons is stable for much longer than the human race is likely to last.

A three-body system can be stable if the mass ratios are high enough and the smallest body orbits within the sphere-of-influence of its parent body.
In the Sun-Earth-moon system the mass ratio is about 330,000:1.00:0.012.
The Earth's sphere of influence with reference to the Sun has radius of about 930,000 km and the Moon orbits well within that distance.
You might read: Stability of the sun-earth-moon system - NASA/ADS by V Szebehely

On the other hand, the asteroids in asteroid belt are moving in a chaotic manner and some do get tossed out of the asteroid belt from time to time.

But your flat-Earth has a Sun, Moon, planets and stars circling above and supported by nothing.
So please justify the stability of your flat-Earth Sun, Moon, planets and stars.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Nor do they have an answer for the Moon Tilt Illusion.
Of course we do! It is simply perspective as has been demonstrated numerous times.
It's not our problem if you are unable to understand something so obvious.

But please present the "answer for the Moon Tilt Illusion" in your Sun, Moon and Earth system and unsupported hypotheses are unacceptable.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #15 on: March 15, 2020, 11:52:00 PM »
You haven't proven stabilty of the n-body problems. From the abstract of your link "It may be concluded, therefore, that the Moon may escape the orbit of the Earth..."

Shown wrong by the abstract of your own link. That author is arguing the opposite of what you are arguing. Embarrassing.

You are merely spamming random links that you search for, and have shown us nothing except verification that the n-body problem does not work. Many physcists say that the Three Body Problem is unsolved or insoluble: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote
Of course we do! It is simply perspective as has been demonstrated numerous times.
It's not our problem if you are unable to understand something so obvious.

I expect you to go through the tfes Wiki link on that topic and show us with explanations and diagrams why the arguments there are wrong. Merely stating that perspective is the answer is insufficient as evidence. Answer the oppositon.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 12:07:22 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #16 on: March 16, 2020, 12:01:07 AM »
But long-term simulations of the Solar System show that the system of the Sun, planets and most of the moons is stable for much longer than the human race is likely to last.

Incorrect again.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators

See the article at the bottom of that link which discuss those simulations. New Scientist tells us directly that that the simulations are not built on the laws of motion that apply in our familiar three-dimensional space, and rely on geometry preserving methods. This would not be necessary if the n-body problems were solvable.

Dozens of physcists say that the Three Body Problem is chaotic and unstable, and New Scientist says directly that the symplectic methods for those models you are referencing do not use the laws of motion.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 10:37:30 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #17 on: March 16, 2020, 02:22:34 AM »
I don't think anyone has actually claimed to have reached a 100% accurate solution to the 'n body problem' but astronomers seem to have managed to reach a stage where they can correctly predict to the second when eclipses, occultations, conjunctions, oppositions (of planets) and satellite transits of Jupiter are going to occur.  If we can predict future events to that level of accuracy, is the underlying mechanism of how we do it actually that important?

How does that work in FE models Tom?  And how do the stars emit light of varying brightness and colour Tom?

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #18 on: March 16, 2020, 02:24:28 AM »
They don't even have a working model. The n-body problems do not work, heliocentric or geocentric. Nor do they have an answer for the Moon Tilt Illusion.
And there you go repeating the same old pathetic lies.
They DO have a working model. A model which can explain quite a lot.

Sure, some of it can't easily be reduced to simple equations, but that doesn't mean there is no model.

If you want to claim that the n-body problem is any sort of problem to the reality of the RE, you need to do more than repeatedly assert the same lies and blatant misrepresentations.

Likewise, if you want to repeat your claim that the moon tilt illusion isn't explained, you actually need to deal with the explanations. Making sure you understand the difference between disproving FE nonsense claims regarding it and proving that the moon is actually pointing towards the sun as the 2 are vastly different. Perhaps you can actually produce a 3D model to show the problem.

If you don't have anything to back up your claims, then stop repeating the same old garbage.

Now perhaps you can actually address the OP?

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #19 on: March 16, 2020, 03:25:55 AM »
We seem to have a working model that is able to predict eclipses, occultations, transits (planetary and satellite), oppositions and pretty much any other solar system event that I can think of down to an accuracy of seconds.

Science has never claimed it can explain everything perfectly.  But the original question was:

Why is flat Earth a more accurate theory than RE?

And that doesn't seem to have been answered properly by anybody on the FE side yet.

*

rabinoz

  • 25564
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2020, 03:50:28 AM »
But long-term simulations of the Solar System show that the system of the Sun, planets and most of the moons is stable for much longer than the human race is likely to last.
Incorrect again.
No, not incorrect!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
https://wiki.tfes.org/Symplectic_Integrators

See the article at the bottom of that link which discuss those simulations. New Scientist tells us directly that that the simulations are not built on the laws of motion that apply in our familiar three-dimensional space, and rely on geometry preserving methods.
Sure and I read this:
Quote
10.2 Position Space
  ď The three dimensional space in which the location of a particle is completely given by the three position coordinates, is known as position space. Ē
Thus, if the geometry of Phase Space is preserved with a Symplectic Integrator, the geometry of Position Space is also preserved.
I'm afraid that you are incorrect with you conclusion!  Preserving the geometry of Phase Space with a Symplectic Integrator preserves the energy of the system which is essential in a stable integration method for a conservative system.
Preserving the geometry of Phase Space does not imply that "geometry of Position Space is also preserved"!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
This would not be necessary if the n-body problems were solvable.
But whether or not "n-body problems are solvable" is totally irrelevant!

Nobody is claiming that the n-body problems are analytically solvable! How long is going to you to recognise that?
All that we are claiming is that n-body problems can be stable.
The planetary orbits of the Solar System are so dominated by the mass of the Sun, being 99.86% of the total mass, that the Solar System can be stable.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Dozens of physcists say that the Three Body Problem is chaotic and unstable,
No! Those "Dozens of physcists say that the" general "Three Body Problem" can be "chaotic and unstable".
Nevertheless, as I wrote before, a 3-body system with a sufficiently wide mass ratio can easily have stable, though not usually periodic, orbits.
You did read this? Stability of the sun-earth-moon system - NASA/ADS by V Szebehely which opened with:
Quote
The models of the restricted and general problems of three bodies are used to determime
the stability of the Sun-Earth-Moon system by means of surfaces of zero velocity. Hillís
result is verified by the model of the restricted problem as long as the ratio
mE/ms > 2.52 x 10-6.
Now mE/ms = 3.003 x 10-6 so the Sun-Earth-Moon can be stable.
And you could also read this: Dynamics and Stability System by Jefferys, W. H. & Szebehely, V. G.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
and New Physcist says directly that the symplectic methods for those models you are referencing do not use the laws of motion.
The might not explicitly use the laws of motion but those laws are still inherently built into the methods.
In any case the use of "symplectic methods" has nothing to do with whether they "use the laws of motion" directly
But you now seem be claiming support of these "Dozens of physcists" yet doubt their word that "the symplectic methods for those models" are not valid simulations.

In closing, you might read this:
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.



Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2020, 04:01:34 AM »
I have a different question. Does believing in flat Earth means to be original and somehow special? Does it mean that 95% of people who believe in round Earth are wrong or something?

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2020, 04:17:21 AM »
You haven't proven stabilty of the n-body problems. From the abstract of your link "It may be concluded, therefore, that the Moon may escape the orbit of the Earth..."

Shown wrong by the abstract of your own link. That author is arguing the opposite of what you are arguing. Embarrassing.

You are merely spamming random links that you search for, and have shown us nothing except verification that the n-body problem does not work. Many physcists say that the Three Body Problem is unsolved or insoluble: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote
Of course we do! It is simply perspective as has been demonstrated numerous times.
It's not our problem if you are unable to understand something so obvious.

I expect you to go through the tfes Wiki link on that topic and show us with explanations and diagrams why the arguments there are wrong. Merely stating that perspective is the answer is insufficient as evidence. Answer the oppositon.

Several things going on at once here.

Does the 3 body problem have a solution? Yes there are numerical solutions to the three body problem. Many differential equations are solved with numerical solutions because they don't have an analytical solution. A whole host of engineering problems would never be attempted if we were only allowed to use analytical solutions to problems. Working out PI is typically done using numerical methods, what are we supposed to do, just say PI is 3 and a bit and leave it at that?

Is the solar system stable? Well hard to know because the solar system is an n-body problem where n is unknown (but very large) and even for the bodies within the n that we do know to exist, there are uncertainties concerning mass, position etc. This is a lot more complex than a straightforward theoretical 3-body problem where everything is precisely known. But all this means is that we take everything we do know and solve that problem via numerical methods and use that as our best current model. We continue to refine that model as we learn more. We use these approximate models all the time when designing cars, aeroplanes, buildings etc.

Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2020, 04:42:35 AM »
Quote
Does it mean that 95% of people who believe in round Earth are wrong or something?

Of course not. It means the onus is on the 5% of people who don't subscribe to the overwhelmingly popular view that is held by the remaining 95% to come up with a very good reason why.

If a particular view is supported by 95% of what is a very large population of people then there has got to be a reason why don't you think?  If there was a vote (call it a referendum if you like which normally had two options) and 95% of people vote the same way then by anyones estimation that would be called a landslide victory.

What are the chances do you think of us ever seeing a day when this proportion is reversed?
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 04:57:41 AM by Solarwind »

*

rabinoz

  • 25564
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #24 on: March 16, 2020, 05:37:20 AM »
I missed a bit (due, I suppose to using the small screen of a tablet) earlier so I'll expand a bit here.

You haven't proven stabilty of the n-body problems.
There is no need to prove the stability of general n-body problems especially as we know that they general n-body problems can readily be quite chaotic.

All we need to investigate is the stability of the Solar System where the mass of the Sun (99.86% of whole Solar System) and the distance and current orbits makes it far from a "general n-body problem".

Quote from: Tom Bishop
From the abstract of your link "It may be concluded, therefore, that the Moon may escape the orbit of the Earth..."
But NOT if "the ratio mE/ms > 2.52 x 10-6" as it is for the Sun-Earth-Moon system!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Shown wrong by the abstract of your own link. That author is arguing the opposite of what you are arguing. Embarrassing.
So no, it is NOT "shown wrong" and it is not the slightest bit embarrassing! Did you read and understand what you read - try again:
Stability of the sun-earth-moon system - NASA/ADS by V Szebehely which opened with:
Quote
The models of the restricted and general problems of three bodies are used to determime the stability of the Sun-Earth-Moon system by means of surfaces of zero velocity.

Hillís result is verified by the model of the restricted problem as long as the ratio mE/ms > 2.52 x 10-6.
Now mE/ms = 3.003 x 10-6 so the Sun-Earth-Moon can be stable.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
You are merely spamming random links that you search for, and have shown us nothing except verification that the n-body problem does not work. Many physcists say that the Three Body Problem is unsolved or insoluble: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
Saying "that the Three Body Problem is unsolved or insoluble" is simply stating that there is no general analytic solution.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote
Of course we do! It is simply perspective as has been demonstrated numerous times.
It's not our problem if you are unable to understand something so obvious.

I expect you to go through the tfes Wiki link on that topic and show us with explanations and diagrams why the arguments there are wrong. Merely stating that perspective is the answer is insufficient as evidence. Answer the oppositon.
I couldn't care less what you expect me to do! Why should I bother to "go through the tfes Wiki link on that topic and show us with explanations and diagrams why the arguments there are wrong"?

The normal to the terminator is pointed directly at the Sun - and that is illustrated here:
Have a look again at:

Moon Terminator Illusion


The string is a straight line joining the ball representing the Moon to the second ball representing the Sun.
That first ball is lit exactly as we see the Moon illuminated and it is what we see that matters!


And the other end is aligned with the Sun as in here:


I fail to see the need for complicating the issue unnecessarily.


Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #25 on: March 16, 2020, 08:26:34 AM »
Tom, regarding your interest and concerns about the 'Moon tilt illusion', this link should help to explain things for you.

https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~amyers/MoonPaperOnline.pdf


Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #26 on: March 16, 2020, 09:02:22 AM »
You haven't proven stabilty of the n-body problems. From the abstract of your link "It may be concluded, therefore, that the Moon may escape the orbit of the Earth..."

Shown wrong by the abstract of your own link. That author is arguing the opposite of what you are arguing. Embarrassing.

You are merely spamming random links that you search for, and have shown us nothing except verification that the n-body problem does not work. Many physcists say that the Three Body Problem is unsolved or insoluble: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote
Of course we do! It is simply perspective as has been demonstrated numerous times.
It's not our problem if you are unable to understand something so obvious.

I expect you to go through the tfes Wiki link on that topic and show us with explanations and diagrams why the arguments there are wrong. Merely stating that perspective is the answer is insufficient as evidence. Answer the oppositon.
My understanding is that the moon is moving out words by less then an inch  a year and will eventually escape while the earth will slow in it's rotation and both the earth and moon will expand there rotation  around the sun.
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

*

Shifter

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 13185
  • ASI
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #27 on: March 16, 2020, 09:53:29 AM »
You haven't proven stabilty of the n-body problems. From the abstract of your link "It may be concluded, therefore, that the Moon may escape the orbit of the Earth..."

Shown wrong by the abstract of your own link. That author is arguing the opposite of what you are arguing. Embarrassing.

You are merely spamming random links that you search for, and have shown us nothing except verification that the n-body problem does not work. Many physcists say that the Three Body Problem is unsolved or insoluble: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

Quote
Of course we do! It is simply perspective as has been demonstrated numerous times.
It's not our problem if you are unable to understand something so obvious.

I expect you to go through the tfes Wiki link on that topic and show us with explanations and diagrams why the arguments there are wrong. Merely stating that perspective is the answer is insufficient as evidence. Answer the oppositon.
My understanding is that the moon is moving out words by less then an inch  a year and will eventually escape while the earth will slow in it's rotation and both the earth and moon will expand there rotation  around the sun.

Check that cave of yours. The Moons destiny is to have its orbit decay and break apart as it passes the Roche limit. It will end its life as it began. As a ring around the Earth.


Rabinoz = Coronoz. Australias corona virus super spreader

*

sokarul

  • 17071
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #28 on: March 16, 2020, 10:39:02 AM »
What source are you using?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17521
Re: Why is flat earth more accurate theory than globe.
« Reply #29 on: March 16, 2020, 10:46:01 AM »
And you could also read this: Dynamics and Stability System by Jefferys, W. H. & Szebehely, V. G.

Refrain from spamming and read the papers you link.

« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 11:00:53 AM by Tom Bishop »