Next time you’re in a conversation, try to focus on the topic. Appreciate it.
Connect the dots, bro. Perciate it.
I think I don’t understand what you mean by “predictable” here. I might help if you restated your claim without using “predictable” or “predict”, because there are a few different ways that that word can be understood.
What do you mean by “non-perturbation theories”? What Wikipedia page is that screenshot from? I find this on non-perturbative, where I assume the link goes on the page you were looking at, but it describes a type of function, not a theory.
Tangent – This image is beautiful:
Math describes stuff or it’s useless. Repeating patterns can be predicted.
The (non-)perturbation screenshot is from The AdS/CFT correspondence section of this article:
Yes, those three body patterns are very beautiful. It’s too bad computers can’t model the actual reality.
Again, I ask that you restate this without using “predicted”, because I don’t know what you mean by that word in this context.
I’m also not sure about “patterns”. By repeating, do you mean periodic? There are aperiodic patterns, where a set of shapes produces no periodic repetition. I’d also consider fractals to be patterns, where a rule or relationship is repeated, but produces no periodicity.
It didn’t come together it is falling apart. The problem with science is that it is still stuck in the mindset that things come together because of gravity, and that simply isn’t the case. Objects break apart into smaller objects, ie the planets are parts that broke off the sun because the sun is breaking apart. Nothing came together it is all falling apart due to the second law of thermodynamics.
If you have the fractal pattern, you can put the fractal together regardless of linearity. You can do periodic asequential predictability. If every node is called a sequin… the fractal-patterned sequins do not have to be sequential to be predictable.
But. Again.
That does imply a living whole.
A worldview can blind you to even looking.
I know. It sounds crazy.
It’s tesselating.
MD… You keep saying that like you’re not familiar with accretion.
How come when I Google retrograde expansion nothing really pops up?
Just one link from a Google search…
Is Earth getting closer to the sun, or farther away? | Live Science.
Still, on average, the expanse between Earth and the sun is slowly increasing over time.
So the farther back in time you look the closer the earth was to the sun, to the point that it was part of the sun. In other words the earth came from the sun and continues to get farther away as time elapses.
ALL the planets in our solar system came from the sun because they are all moving away from the sun as time elapses.
Another way to say it is that the entire solar system is the sun, expanding.
I don’t think that’s true. For example, there is no simple equation to determine if a number is a member of the Mandelbrot set. The only way to check is to iterate sequentially, and for numbers near the boundary the iteration needs to be taken to significant depth before it’s shown not to be a member of the set (see here).
You have to iterate – you have do do the steps sequentially – to create the fractal.
I keep asking, and I’m beginning to think I’m not the only one who doesn’t know what you mean by these words…
This does not follow from the observation that the earth is currently moving away from the sun, and is not how planets are formed. Your article goes on to say that the sun is losing mass (because it’s converting mass into energy through nuclear fusion) and that’s why Earth is moving away.
That same article has a scenario where the expanding (because dying) sun engulfs the Earth and the Earth goes into the sun. Just saying.
…and other stuff.
You’re not thinking of a living whole that subsumes all iteration.
It certainly does. It follows that if now earth is getting farther away then in the past it was closer to the sun. The farther back in time you look the closer it was to the sun, because as time elapsed it got further away.
Leave your home in a car and drive farther away from your home. The more time that you drive the farther you are away from your home. Drive for 10 hours and notice that you are getting farther away as time elapses. If the time is now 11 PM then you were closer to your home at 10 PM, even closer at 5 PM, even closer at 2 PM, and you came from your house at 1 PM.
Earth is getting farther away over time, so the farther back in time you look the earth was closer to the sun, and look further back in time it was departing the sun, ie it came from the sun.
Why it’s moving away is not the point. The point is that it IS moving away as time elapses. So more time in the past means less distance from the sun, to the point that it was part of the sun at some distant past. It is the sun expanding and the only way to do that is for parts of the sun to get farther away.
@Motor_Daddy Follow up question: …or, do non-perturbation theories assume balanced perturbations? [Unlike your theory … which does not seem to take into consideration all (because only some) perturbations.]
I’m cognizant of it, but in the context of math, “predictable” seems like it can only meaningfully refer to something like the ability to calculate an answer to arbitrary depth without iterating (computer science has a rigorous definition for this).
And that’s how I understand it in the context of the three-body problem, because it’s idealized, it’s a question about objects that can’t exist, and their behavior in a space that can’t exist. It simplifies away the real-world considerations, so it’s a question about math. And it’s “unpredictable” in the sense that the only solutions we have involve equations with infinitely many steps.
So if we have a question like “will this group of idealized objects of masses x,y,z and positions a,b,c and momentums q,r,s fly away from each other?”, we might not be able to answer it without doing many thousands of calculations, and we also can’t say at the outset how many calculations we’ll need to do to know. That’s true even though the system is deterministic, i.e. it’s future is entirely a function of the masses, positions, and momentums.
So sure, in the Big Everything there’s a sense in which there’s an answer, it’s just inaccessible to us.
Which is super weird, because it’s math. That’s why these kinds of problems are so alluring.
Sure. But if I went out for a scenic drive through the Shenandoah Valley, and all you know is that right now I’m driving away from the Shenandoah Valley right now, you can’t conclude that I began my journey in the Shenandoah Valley. More likely I started at home, went to Shenandoah, and then turned around. I might not even have made it to Shenandoah, maybe I forgot I have a date and needed to turn around before I got there so I can get home in time.
The point is, we can’t assume that the speed and direction we observe now was constant at all times in the past.
So if the sun was more massive in the past, and that pulled in the planets, and now the sun is less massive and the planets are moving away, it would simultaneously be true that right now the earth is moving away and yet its origin was not in the sun. That is compatible with what we observe today.
1 Like
The evidence we have NOW is that the earth is moving away from the sun. There is no evidence that in the past the earth was moving towards the sun. That is some nonsense made up by some dude that claimed the sun was pulling the earth towards it. Unless you have some evidence that the earth was ever moving TOWARDS the sun then that claim is total nonsense.
I repeat:
NOW the earth is moving AWAY from the sun, and has been doing that in the past. When you have some evidence that shows how the direction was going in instead of going out then please show it. Until then it is simply nonsense that the direction used to be going in towards the sun.
The sun is pushing crap OUT and at no time was it ever attracting stuff. It is a blow torch, not a vacuum cleaner! 
Well, we do have evidence that the sun is getting less massive, right? Your own source says that. And we have observations of planets forming in accretion disks around young stars, and none of them emerging fully formed from the belly of mature stars.
And we have theories that tie these observations together and make predictions, for example about what kind of stars we should observe to have accretion disks and where in the sky we should find them and how red-shifted they should be. So we can test the theories against new observations when they come in.
I’m not saying that the observations that our orbit is getting larger on average isn’t consistent with the hypothesis that the earth originated from the sun. But that observation is consistent with other hypotheses as well. We need to check the hypotheses against other observations, to see how they fit with all the observations.
Right, the sun is getting less massive over time, which means the mass is exiting the sun. If mass was attracted to the sun then the sun would be getting more massive over time, but that is not what is happening. The sun is losing mass, and some of the mass it lost in the past was earth, and the other planets. That mass exited the sun and traveled away from the sun. It’s the only way for the sun to lose mass is for the mass to travel away from the sun. It is NOT attracting anything, it is FORCING mass away from it.
We have evidence of accretion disks with planets, because that mass came from the star, just like our planets came from the sun. They did not form around the sun they CAME FROM the sun.
Those theories are being proved wrong by JWST. Have a look.
Mass can not be attracted TOWARDS the sun while at the same time that mass traveling AWAY from the sun. How can it be attracted towards while traveling away? It is nonsense that the planets are attracted to the sun. The planets are being forced away, hence they are getting farther away from the sun.
That’s not true. Mass is being converted to energy through fusion, again your own source claims this.
Gravitational attraction is still happening, it’s just less than it used to be.
Suppose we have an equilibrium between two forces on a object:
- Left-force, F( ← )
- Right-force, F( → )
Because it’s an equlibrium we know that:
- F( ← ) = F( → )
We then decrease F( ← ). What happens? It’s no longer an equilibrium.
- F( ← ) < F( → )
The object moves to the right, because there is more force to the right. Even if F( ← ) isn’t zero, the net force is still to the right.
Now apply your own argument to this: If we know that F( ← ) is decreasing, then in the past it must have been even greater. If F( → ) is not changing, and we know that F ( ← ) has been decreasing, then we could conclude that there was a time before the equilibrium, when left-force was larger than right-force:
- F( ← ) > F( → )
And in that case, the net force is to the left, and the object moves to the left.
If the forces that created an equilibrium are changing, then the net force on the object can change direction without either of the forces being zero.
In this context, if the mass of the sun in decreasing, and therefore the gravitational pull it exerts on the earth is decreasing, earth could be moving away from the sun even if in the past there was a time when its gravitational pull was sufficient to pull it towards the sun.
Happy to. Link?