The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: chipsullivan on July 12, 2017, 07:57:22 PM
-
I'm trying to explain the FE model to a friend and she raised a few questions I couldn't answer, which made me think of a few more.
In the Flat Earth model:
What is the Sun's composition?
What are its mass and dimensions?
How far is it from Earth?
Who made the measurements, from where, and what instrumentation and procedures did they use?
And most importantly, did anyone else check their work?
Thanks!
-
Also, how does it stay so hot? What is the mechanism?
-
I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but the truth is that this theory doesn't enjoy of enough scientifical proof, theoretical coherency and common sense. There are too many lack and unanswered question that make of all this points a mere conspiracy without a kind of support by reason. It's good thing to follow a continuous cycle of researching, because it is typical of Man, but like someone here already said "not always what you see is true, and what you claim according to your sight might be misunderstood"
-
I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but the truth is that this theory doesn't enjoy of enough scientifical proof, theoretical coherency and common sense. There are too many lack and unanswered question that make of all this points a mere conspiracy without a kind of support by reason. It's good thing to follow a continuous cycle of researching, because it is typical of Man, but like someone here already said "not always what you see is true, and what you claim according to your sight might be misunderstood"
You lost me at scentifical. So, no answers leads to really only one conclusion. Flat Earth is more of a faith than an empirically based system of belief.
-
What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.
-
What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.
The spectrum of light coming from the sun has indeed been measured (rather carefully and by an enormous number of solar astronomers).
The spectrum looks like this:
(https://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/images/d5/sun.jpg)
From this, it's easy to determine that almost all solar activity comes from the fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium...and from that, and the observed amount of "insolation" (light and heat from the sun, measured from high altitude balloons and (sorry) spacecraft) - we can tell how much radiation the sun is emitting...which corroborates the spectral images we obtain.
I could go on to explain how we use this (and other) astronomical observations to determine the precise size and distance to the sun - but I can tell you're already ignoring the evidence.
-
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.
-
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
There is zero cohesiveness in the flat earth theory, and your methods of "proving" your theory are never consistent. You have to suffer from some severe delusions if you are not able to see the blatant hypocrisy and mountain of lies that is involved in this comical conspiracy theory.
-
What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.
I did not suggest that anyone could know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it, Tom. I asked specific questions about the flat Earth model. Not one of those questions has been answered. You could take the bold step forward and speak for your movement by simply replying, "We don't know."
The mechanism underlying the motions of the sun, planets, asteroids, comets, etc. is well known. It is gravity as defined by Newton’s laws of motion.
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?
Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?
Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
Firstly, what does the nature of Lake Michigan have to do with this? Secondly, if you're going to constantly reference that text, the least you could do is link the chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) when you ask someone to read a chapter from it. It's not a particularly difficult thing to do, and makes others more inclined to follow through upon your suggestion/request.
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?
Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
But Tom - why do you accept Rowbotham's result rather than Ulysses Grant Morrow's very similar experiment which "proved" that the Earth is concave and Henry Yule Oldham's result which "proved" that the Earth is convex?
There are NUMEROUS results from these kinds of test that show all three outcomes.
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment - which describes the whole horrible fiasco.)
Why dismiss Morrow and Oldham out of hand and accept Rowbotham?
The intellectually honest conclusion is that because these "visibility over water" experiments clearly produce mixed results, that we have to conclude that this is an (at best) unreliable way to decide the issue. We all see things like mirages and Fata Morgana over water - we KNOW that light bends in close proximity to a water surface - so why...WHY...are you happily ignoring those effects and taking Rowbotham's result as the gospel truth when other, equally accomplished, experimenters came to two completely opposite conclusions?
The rational way to deal with these varying results is to try to explain what was different between them (air temperature, pressure and humidity seem like reasonable candidates) - and look for an explanation for their wildly differing conclusions rather than to pick one of the three conflicting results and determine that the whole of physics, geography, etc is incorrect.
To simply pick one of the three as "correct" and ignore the others is simply not a reasonable approach.
Now - if you wish to deny the "refraction" explanation - that's fine...it's a tough thing to prove.
But if you do that, then the Bedford Level experiment and it's successors proved (at best) an inconclusive result - we should not base our entire discussion upon them.
Instead - take the evidence of things like the phases of the moon - the rising and setting of the sun/moon/stars - the orientation of the moon as seen from different locations - the variation in the force of gravity over the surface of the earth. All of those observations are a perfect fit for a round earth - and do not require multiple layers of increasingly bizarre theories.
So - remind us again what is responsible for the phases of the moon and the experimental evidence you have for that?
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?
Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
Firstly, what does the nature of Lake Michigan have to do with this? Secondly, if you're going to constantly reference that text, the least you could do is link the chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) when you ask someone to read a chapter from it. It's not a particularly difficult thing to do, and makes others more inclined to follow through upon your suggestion/request.
You will need to read the chapter to understand how the first point about Lake Michigan is relative.
-
But Tom - why do you accept Rowbotham's result rather than Ulysses Grant Morrow's very similar experiment which "proved" that the Earth is concave and Henry Yule Oldham's result which "proved" that the Earth is convex?
There are NUMEROUS results from these kinds of test that show all three outcomes.
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment - which describes the whole horrible fiasco.)
Why dismiss Morrow and Oldham out of hand and accept Rowbotham?
Oldham was his only witness as he took his pictures where Rowbotham and Blount had plenty.
Per Morrow, he speaks highly of Rowbotham in his book, supported the results of Rowbotham's experiments 100%, and conducts similar experiments of looking at things across long bodies of water, making the same conclusions that water is not convex. He does bring up some other points which might suggest that the earth is concave, but he had no problem with the results of the water convexity experiments Rowbotham describes. I encourage you to read Morrow's work.
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
I have never seen the results of such a study. If the surface of water is truly flat as you say, then why do images of Chicago from across Lake Michigan show only the top portion of the tallest buildings? If the surface of the water is truly flat, shouldn't I be able to see more of the building?
Firstly, "Lake" Michigan is not really a lake, it is an inland sea. Secondly, for an explanation, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in the book Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Robotham.
Firstly, what does the nature of Lake Michigan have to do with this? Secondly, if you're going to constantly reference that text, the least you could do is link the chapter (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm) when you ask someone to read a chapter from it. It's not a particularly difficult thing to do, and makes others more inclined to follow through upon your suggestion/request.
You will need to read the chapter to understand how the first point about Lake Michigan is relative.
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.
-
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.
Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
-
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE. He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.
-
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.
Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
You have an astounding ability to ignore facts given, and insist your view is the only correct or relevant one. Lake Michigan being an inland sea or not is entirely irrelevant. The two terms are nearly interchangeable, and only shift depending upon size of the body of water. Inland sea can even be defined as 'a large lake'. So no, the matter is not relevant in this context, and I can't believe I'm even discussing this. Especially considering the only reason you appear to bring it up is apparently because the chapter is called 'perspective at sea' so for some strange reason that means, if Lake Michigan is a lake, the explanation no longer fits. Because that's the only reason I can come up with.
-
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE. He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.
Yeah, very much weasel words: "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.
-
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.
Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
You have an astounding ability to ignore facts given, and insist your view is the only correct or relevant one. Lake Michigan being an inland sea or not is entirely irrelevant. The two terms are nearly interchangeable, and only shift depending upon size of the body of water. Inland sea can even be defined as 'a large lake'. So no, the matter is not relevant in this context, and I can't believe I'm even discussing this. Especially considering the only reason you appear to bring it up is apparently because the chapter is called 'perspective at sea' so for some strange reason that means, if Lake Michigan is a lake, the explanation no longer fits. Because that's the only reason I can come up with.
If you seek clarification for why waves or seas or lakes matter, read the chapter you were directed to.
-
So what? If I call a large body of water a 'lake' it suddenly doesn't have the properties of a sea? The first point has no relevance to the chapter. 'Lake' and 'Inland Sea' are descriptive terms, with little relation to the size of the body of water they refer to. Lake Michigan (and in fact most of the Great Lakes) is called a lake due to a combination of historical verbiage, the fact it doesn't have an outlet to the sea, salt content, and at one point an inland sea was required to be on or near sea level. The Great Lakes are all, in fact, lakes (except perhaps Ontario, but it's still a fair bit from the sea and I believe it's fresh water). But it's irrelevant in the context of 'a large body of water one cannot see the other shore across'. Not every question is answered with 'read the book I highly revere recommend' Tom.
Lake Michigan has waves large enough to fit a surfer inside. This is why the matter is relevant.
You have an astounding ability to ignore facts given, and insist your view is the only correct or relevant one. Lake Michigan being an inland sea or not is entirely irrelevant. The two terms are nearly interchangeable, and only shift depending upon size of the body of water. Inland sea can even be defined as 'a large lake'. So no, the matter is not relevant in this context, and I can't believe I'm even discussing this. Especially considering the only reason you appear to bring it up is apparently because the chapter is called 'perspective at sea' so for some strange reason that means, if Lake Michigan is a lake, the explanation no longer fits. Because that's the only reason I can come up with.
If you seek clarification for why waves or seas or lakes matter, read the chapter you were directed to.
I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.
-
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE. He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.
Yeah, very much weasel words: "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".
They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.
The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.
You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?
-
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE. He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.
Yeah, very much weasel words: "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".
They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.
The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.
You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?
Still we wait for you to provide details of current experiments. Specific links.
-
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE. He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.
Yeah, very much weasel words: "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".
They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.
The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.
You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?
There is an FET answer for eclipses (the "shadow object") - which although seemingly implausible to me - doesn't appear to violate any reasonable principles of geometry or logic.
The "sinking ship effect" is a bit like the Rowbotham experiments - while under carefully controlled conditions, it can reveal the true nature of the world, it's FAR too easy for ikky refraction issues to derail any simplistic demonstration of it. So while I do believe that ships sink below the horizon in the right circumstances - there are enough mirage/Fata Morgana type of effects to make that approach to deciding between RET and FET become more trouble than it's worth.
My go-to arguments are relating to sunrise/sunset, moonrise/moonset, and also to moon phases, how the sun lights the world, how the stars appear to move, the orientation of the moon - how gravity varies from place to place - how the coriolis effect comes about - how travel times across the southern hemisphere are entirely implausible in FET.
Those things have yet to be answered to any satisfactory degree - either in the Wiki or in conversations here on the Forums.
I'm also horrified by the size of the conspiracy theory you need to hide all of the dirty little secrets.
So FET is still very seriously lacking.
-
Don't you use "observation" as the basic premise for your belief that the earth is flat?
Nope. The basic premise is based on the controlled water convexity experiments which have been repeated numerous times over 150 years, under a variety of atmospheric conditions, with human eye sight and with lasers, by multiple researchers, on multiple types of water environments, published in multiple mediums including a scientific journal seeking to peer review such experiments, and sometimes with barometric pressure instrument controls at request.
I see.. So you yourself have never observed any of this and are just accepting this information as valid because it supports your position, and are dismissing the 1000s of years of information that exists indicating the earth is a globe?
Also, I can show you several comments that you yourself made in which you dismiss the information somebody presents you under the pretense that they have not observed that information for themselves.
I am honestly convinced you are a willing participant in a fraudulent scam or are suffering from some severe delusions.
-
Tom continues to avoid current experiments and uses carefully crafted words to try to prove a FE. He has a problem with links to proof from the last 10 years.
Yeah, very much weasel words: "Morrow...(makes) the same conclusions that water is not convex."....well, Morrow concluded that the water was concave ...which, I'll admit means that he thought it was "not convex" - but it doesn't mean "flat"...it means "concave".
They are not weasel words. Some of Rowbotham's experiments may be used in favor of a concave earth theory. Morrow references Robotham's experiments in his work as a proof against convexity and adds some of his own which suggest that the earth may be concave.
The Flat Earth is a logical conclusion from the results of Rowbotham's investigation and from a multitude of many other points Rowbotham brings up in the book. Experiment 2 and 3 in particular seems to suggest that the earth is flat and not concave, and are slightly different experiments than the basic convexity experiment.
The fact that Mr Bishop can only seem to point to totally archaic documents as evidence is quite damning.
You guys bring up 3000 year old sinking ship effects and lunar eclipse proofs on a daily basis. What does that make you?
Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it. This appears to be the sum total of your debate strategy, just directing us to somewhere else. So let's try something new.
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.
But what I haven't seen is current day experiments that produce the same results as Robowtham linked here. We haven't seen current day proofs of the refutation of the sinking ship effect linked here. We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here. You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote? Astonishing. Remember, early man also believed the Earth was flat because of the evidence of his eyes. He also believed in many other, stranger things because of his eyes, which are an imperfect device.
-
I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.
After reading the chapter a question pops up on how the explanation would apply to Lake Michigan, as it is a lake and not a sea. My point was to clarify that Lake Michigan is actually an inland sea.
Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it.
The chapter explains how observations on a sea are different than observations on smaller standing bodies of water. Lake Michigan being a sea and not a lake is relevant to the chapter.
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.
The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.
But what I haven't seen is current day experiments that produce the same results as Robowtham linked here. We haven't seen current day proofs of the refutation of the sinking ship effect linked here.
Have you not seen the Flat Earth resurgence on youtube? People are making a ton of experiments. There are even laser experiments. Go to youtube and start searching.
We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here.
There is a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later renamed Earth), available in the libraries of this site and the .org site, which reviewed Rowbotham's original experiments.
You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote?
Is there something wrong with your computer? Recent Flat Earth experiments are available on youtube. Off you go!
-
I read it at the very start. Try something new instead of deflecting. Like pointing out the paragraph or sentence that you think means there has to be a distinction. Because the difference between calling something a sea or a lake is irrelevant. Waves are what matter in that chapter, and 'sea' or 'lake' have no waves behind their definitions, only size. An inland sea can even be a large lake, by the very definition of the word.
After reading the chapter a question pops up on how the explanation would apply to Lake Michigan, as it is a lake and not a sea. My point was to clarify that Lake Michigan is actually an inland sea.
Tom, your entire debate style thus far appears to consist of deflecting, and directing people to outside resources for things that should be relatively easy to put into your own words. We just had 6 posts where basically all you did was go "It's a sea, and that matters." without addressing a single point I brought up, or even explaining why it being a sea and not a lake mattered. Instead presuming referring to a chapter in a book would explain it.
The chapter explains how observations on a sea are different than observations on smaller standing bodies of water. Lake Michigan being a sea and not a lake is relevant to the chapter.
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.
The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.
You mean here? (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/ephemeris.html) Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?
We haven't seen peer reviewed articles, that produced results that are repeatable, linked here.
There is a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later renamed Earth), available in the libraries of this site and the .org site, which reviewed Rowbotham's original experiments.
Great, can you give a link to a good article on the topic from that journal? Shouldn't be hard I should think.
You refer over and over to Robowtham, as though he was the only one to produce these results in centuries of thinking the Earth was round. Then question why we want to see experiments done and thoroughly documented in the last few decades, since technology and more has advanced an incredible amount since he wrote?
Is there something wrong with your computer? Recent Flat Earth experiments are available on youtube. Off you go!
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room (http://i.imgur.com/2UfayAM.mp4) looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.
-
The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.
The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.
It has been said that the these analysis only predicts when eclipses will happen but not where they can be seen wich can be done today.
-
Tom is just a troll. This is shown by his repeated reference to a single source for information and his refusal to acknowledge any evidence that proves his position wrong. His source, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe, is antiquated, mistake-filled and obsolete, like many medical books from the same era. It does provide evidence of the Earth being flat, but that evidence is flawed, and Tom knows this. He is not a stupid man and he surely recognizes that modern science provides unequivocal proof that the Earth is a nearly perfect rotating sphere. But like most other trolls, he is being disingenuous and thus should be ignored.
-
Stellar fusion has not been demonstrated in a lab. It is a completely hypothetical concept. There may be many possibilities for why the sun looks as it does, and observation alone just does not cut it.
What has been demonstrated in a lab is that plasma of individual gases have unique spectral signatures. Here is a picture of three different gases and their plasma signatures.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=spectrum+of+helium+plasma&fr=mcafee&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfe.net%2Fimages%2FSpectralEmissions-c.jpg#id=8&iurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dfe.net%2Fimages%2FSpectralEmissions-c.jpg&action=click
The sun's spectral signature tells a story of many different gases in a plasma state. Gaseous plasma can be reproduced in a laboratory, in fact we use plasma to create things such as integrated circuits (plasma can lay down materials, or etch them off as needed). We use spectral detectors in these processes in order to determine when the recipe of the plasma has changed its chemical composition. We know a lot about plasma, how to create it and change it and how to detect what is in the gas as it is in this excited state. Therefore, we can observe what gases are excited within the sun by looking at its spectral signature.
-
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.
Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.
You mean here? (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/ephemeris.html) Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?
That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.
However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem)
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room (http://i.imgur.com/2UfayAM.mp4) looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.
If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.
-
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.
Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.
You mean here? (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/ephemeris.html) Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?
That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.
However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem)
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room (http://i.imgur.com/2UfayAM.mp4) looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.
If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.
If even the slightest shred of what you are saying has any remote truth to it, why is it that we can predict where exactly planets and stars are going to be 100s of years from now?
How is it that we know the exact date and time of the upcoming solar eclipse?
Why are you fighting a battle you know has no cause and you have already lost?
-
Again Tom refuses to provide actual links. Interesting that he said in a reply he is at school.
-
If even the slightest shred of what you are saying has any remote truth to it, why is it that we can predict where exactly planets and stars are going to be 100s of years from now?
How is it that we know the exact date and time of the upcoming solar eclipse?
Why are you fighting a battle you know has no cause and you have already lost?
Astronomers use a prediction method for celestial events based on pattern recognition of past occurrences in the sky to predict when the next occurrence will occur. This is the way events in astronomy have been predicted for thousands of years, and while different forms of math and different cycle periods have been used at times to make this pattern match prediction, the basic method remains unchanged.
-
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.
Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.
And again, I've read the chapter, and do not understand to what you are referring. We're not talking about a small lake, we're talking about a large lake. A term interchangeable with sea. Either give a shot at attempting to explain, or we can both stop worrying about it.
You mean here? (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/ephemeris.html) Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?
That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.
However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem)
Solar and lunar coordinates are then used to assist in predicting the eclipse, and to predict the path of it upon the Earth. As stated on that page.
Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room (http://i.imgur.com/2UfayAM.mp4) looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.
If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.
Which I have done so on videos. This isn't the proper place to be criticizing random Youtubers. You brought it that they exist, I simply pointed out the fact that many of them have flaws, and a simple visual experiment over water isn't the most conclusive proof for either scenario. There are far more compelling problems for a flat Earth to overcome, such as moon phases, and making a workable map.
Any chance of a link for what you would consider a good/strong article in the Journal you mentioned? Or elsewhere perhaps? A vague "Look in that direction" isn't helpful.
-
Astronomers use a prediction method for celestial events based on pattern recognition of past occurrences in the sky to predict when the next occurrence will occur. This is the way events in astronomy have been predicted for thousands of years, and while different forms of math and different cycle periods have been used at times to make this pattern match prediction, the basic method remains unchanged.
this is wildly untrue. the history of eclipse prediction is robust and dynamic.
the earth-moon-sun system is a special case of the 3-body problem called the circular restricted 3-body problem. basically if m1 >> m2 >> m3, and if m2 and m3 have circular orbits, then the 3-body problem is tractable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf
Hill considered a special case of the CR3BP in which two masses were much smaller than the first one (the problem is now known as the Hill problem), and in this way he discovered a new class of periodic solutions. His main contribution was to present a new approach to solve the Sun-Earth-Moon three-body problem. After almost two hundred years since the original formulation of the problem by Newton [1687], Hill developed his lunar theory, which with some modifications made by Brown [1896], is still being used today in celestial mechanics [Gutzwiller, 1998].
the gutzwiller paper details both the history of eclipse prediction, and the equations of motion for the cr3bp developed by hill, in great detail: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316255061/Gutzwiller-Moon-Earth-Sin-Rmp-70-589
once you've determined when an eclipse will occur, local conditions (size of the umbra/penumbra, duration, location on the globe, etc.) are calculated using besselian elements (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/beselm.html).
saros cycles only tell you when an eclipse you've already seen will recur. they don't predict any other eclipses. since the babylonians were never in north america, no babylonian saros cycle will tell you that a total solar eclipse is going to occur in salem, oregon, on august 21, 2017, at ~10:15am and be visible for ~90 seconds. some nerds with computers figured that out on their own.
-
this is wildly untrue. the history of eclipse prediction is robust and dynamic.
the earth-moon-sun system is a special case of the 3-body problem called the circular restricted 3-body problem. basically if m1 >> m2 >> m3, and if m2 and m3 have circular orbits, then the 3-body problem is tractable.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf
Hill considered a special case of the CR3BP in which two masses were much smaller than the first one (the problem is now known as the Hill problem), and in this way he discovered a new class of periodic solutions. His main contribution was to present a new approach to solve the Sun-Earth-Moon three-body problem. After almost two hundred years since the original formulation of the problem by Newton [1687], Hill developed his lunar theory, which with some modifications made by Brown [1896], is still being used today in celestial mechanics [Gutzwiller, 1998].
the gutzwiller paper details both the history of eclipse prediction, and the equations of motion for the cr3bp developed by hill, in great detail: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316255061/Gutzwiller-Moon-Earth-Sin-Rmp-70-589
This is incorrect. The Circular Restricted 3 Body Problem assumes that one of the bodies has negligible mass and that the two massive bodies make circular orbits about its center mass of the system. Neither attributes apply to the earth-moon-sun system.
http://ccar.colorado.edu/imd/2015/documents/CRTBP_Handout.pdf
The Circular Restricted Three-Body Problem (CRTBP) has been examined for over 200 years. The formulation
of the equations of motion for the CRTBP presented here generally follows the work of Szebehely,1
although Szebehely provides far more detail. Figure 1 depicts the geometry of the three-body system. In the
CRTBP, the mass of the third body (i.e., the spacecraft) is assumed to be negligible in comparison to the two
massive bodies, defined as the primary and the secondary (collectively termed the primaries). It can further
be assumed that the two primaries are subjected to the Keplerian laws that govern two-body motion. In
addition, it is assumed that the two primaries rotate in circular orbits about the center of mass of the system,
known as the barycenter. It is then possible to model the motion of the spacecraft in a frame of reference
that rotates about the barycenter at the same rotation rate as the two primaries.
saros cycles only tell you when an eclipse you've already seen will recur. they don't predict any other eclipses. since the babylonians were never in north america, no babylonian saros cycle will tell you that a total solar eclipse is going to occur in salem, oregon, on august 21, 2017, at ~10:15am and be visible for ~90 seconds. some nerds with computers figured that out on their own.
The Saros Cycle has been updates since the time of the Babylonians to include data from world wide observation of the eclipses. This is described on NASA's Eclipse Website (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEperiodicity.html). No solving of the three body problem was necessary, since the Saros Cycle is purely a pattern based method based on past observations.
-
This is incorrect. The Circular Restricted 3 Body Problem assumes that one of the bodies has negligible mass and that the two massive bodies make circular orbits about its center mass of the system. Neither attributes apply to the earth-moon-sun system.
both apply to the e-m-s system. the moon is ~1% the mass of the earth and has a circular orbit around the earth-moon barycenter. the earth is like negative infinity times less massive than the sun and has a circular orbit around the earth-sun barycenter. both conditions are fulfilled.
The motion of the Moon has a significant overlap with the much smaller class of the restricted three-body problem, where two large masses move around each other on a fixed circular orbit, whereas the third mass is assumed to be so small that it does not interfere with the motion of the two large masses (Contopoulos 1966; Szebehely, 1967). Asteroids, space travel between Earth and Moon, and satellites of binary stars belong in this class. The problem is usually treated in two dimensions, so that Hill’s motion of the lunar perigee becomes a special limiting case.
The Saros Cycle has been updates since the time of the Babylonians to include data from world wide observation of the eclipses. This is described on NASA's Eclipse Website (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEperiodicity.html). No solving of the three body problem was necessary, since the Saros Cycle is purely a pattern based method based on past observations.
this, again, is just plain false. the source you cite is from the five millennium canon of solar eclipses. notice that it says: "Modern digital computers using high precision solar and lunar ephemerides can directly predict the dates and circumstances of eclipses. Nevertheless, the Saros and Inex cycles remain useful tools in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses."
saros cycles are useful, but that's not where the predictions come from. the canon of eclipses predictions rely on tables of lunar and solar positions called ephemerides.
The coordinates of the Sun used in these predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides.
these ephemerides come from numerical integration of the kinds of equations of motion you'll find in getzwiller.
For the final (integration) phase of the ephemeris creation process, there are three main ingredients, each of which constitutes a major phase itself:
• the equations of motion describing the gravitational physics which govern the dynamical motions of the bodies,
• a method for integrating the equations of motion , and
• the initial conditions and dynamical constants; i.e., the starting positions and velocities of the bodies at some initial epoch along with the values for various constants which affect the motion (e.g., planetary masses).
[...]
Numerical integration of the equations of motion is the only known method capable of computing fundamental ephemerides at an accuracy which is comparable to that of the modern-day observations; analytical theories have not been able to attain such high accuracy. The computer program which was used to integrate the equations of motion for DE405/LE405 has been demonstrated to be sufficiently accurate (Newhall et al., 1983).
With the arrival of computing machinery in the 1930s the processing of data and the preparation of ephemerides could be accomplished without the incredible drudg- ery of earlier times. Celestial mechanics received an enormous impulse in the late 1950s from the sudden push for a large program of space exploration. Lunar theory in particular profited from President Kennedy’s decision to have humans visit the Moon by the end of the 1960s. Indeed, there followed a prolific outpouring of interesting work, which will be reviewed somewhat summarily in this Section.
At the end of the 1990s it has to be admitted, however, that Tisserand’s diagnosis is still valid. The main problem of lunar theory has been completely solved for all practical purposes, but there have been no major dis- coveries in getting a more direct analytical approach, and we are still wrestling with uncertainties in the comparison with the observations of almost 1 arcsecond [of lat/long].
that's a very small error. far from being embarrassed, classical mechanics is almost literally just showing off at this point.
-
This is incorrect. The Circular Restricted 3 Body Problem assumes that one of the bodies has negligible mass and that the two massive bodies make circular orbits about its center mass of the system. Neither attributes apply to the earth-moon-sun system.
both apply to the e-m-s system. the moon is ~1% the mass of the earth and has a circular orbit around the earth-moon barycenter. the earth is like negative infinity times less massive than the sun and has a circular orbit around the earth-sun barycenter. both conditions are fulfilled.
The paths of both massive objects do not make simple circular orbits. The earth does not make a circular orbit around the sun, it makes an elliptical one.
And the mass of the moon is hardly negligable. The examples in the circular restricted problem pdf (http://ccar.colorado.edu/imd/2015/documents/CRTBP_Handout.pdf) have the earth-moon system as the two large masses the spaceshop interacts with.
I will respond the the rest of it later. The things you mention are not applicable and not in line with the actual methods involved. You are so dishonest.
-
The paths of both massive objects do not make simple circular orbits. The earth does not make a circular orbit around the sun, it makes an elliptical one.
no orbit is perfectly circular. the eccentricity of earth's orbit is 0.0167. that's very circular.
And the mass of the moon is hardly negligable. The examples in the circular restricted problem pdf (http://ccar.colorado.edu/imd/2015/documents/CRTBP_Handout.pdf) have the earth-moon system as the two large masses the spaceshop interacts with.
earth-moon-spaceship is also a cr3bp, yes. your source uses that as an example, but it doesn't say that e-m-s cannot be understood as a cr3bp. my sources are explicit that it can be.
also your own source explicitly describes the equations of motion for these systems, contra your claim that they don't exist because saros cycles or whatever.
You are so dishonest.
oh yeah well your ugly.
srsly tho your own sources explicitly agree with me. and none of them say what you claim they do, that saros cycles are the only way to predict eclipses.
-
chipsullivan, i support the hypotheses about sun being a technological object/system(a dimmable lantern (https://youtu.be/NBqnj_tie8I?t=83)) and about multiple suns (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV5MScP_e5I) deployed in different regions of Earth. Look at the stars, for anologous example (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNFo5eWf9g). When you zoom in at stars using a powerful smartphone/tablet with good camera, you see something odd familiar to holograms. You can see the fluid-like movements of the stars even with bare eyes!
This could a subliminal message of sun's underlying mechanism model, type 'hidden in plain sight': Parker Solar probe (https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/parker-solar-probe-humanity-s-first-visit-to-a-star).
There is a conspiracy theorist (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXIcEFVVyl4), who claims a poem Stolen Sun (https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/stolen-sun-korney-ivanovich-chukovsky/) by russian author Korney Ivanovich Chukovsky is a metaphore, alluding to real events with, possibly, reptilian/draconian(crocodile in the poem) involvement; I.e there was a single giant natural sun, like the official science endoctrinates us with, somewhere in the middle of the Earth, and then the malevolent(wow: male+violent!...) actions of highly-intelligent reptiles(and maybe of insectoid aliens too) have led to literal extinguishing or capturing for latter exploitation of the sun. For now nobody knows where exactly is the genuine big sun. That's a hypothesis though.
I recommend using advanced search operators (https://www.rankya.com/seo/google-advanced-search-query-syntax/) combined with your fantasy/imagination, intuition to all of the FE society.
Not only it will help you find valueable information fast, but it will give you more indepth understanding on different topics.
You can also search randomly(and for me it actually works!), until you hit something interesting.
Be very-very-very-very open-minded and listen to all kinds of information. You can search tor/freenet/i2p sites in combination, but be very careful: they are not as private, as they are advertising themselves; you should only be browsing! And also there are archiving sites, in case the page you're looking for haven't been found: archive.org (https://archive.org/search.php?query=earth), archive.is (http://archive.is/search/?q=earth+%26+sun), webcitation.org (http://webcitation.org/query)
Good luck in finding the truth (though it's still an illusion; a part of egregore system made by our collective/individual Absolute mind) in our liesworld.
-
The paths of both massive objects do not make simple circular orbits. The earth does not make a circular orbit around the sun, it makes an elliptical one.
no orbit is perfectly circular. the eccentricity of earth's orbit is 0.0167. that's very circular.
And the mass of the moon is hardly negligable. The examples in the circular restricted problem pdf (http://ccar.colorado.edu/imd/2015/documents/CRTBP_Handout.pdf) have the earth-moon system as the two large masses the spaceshop interacts with.
earth-moon-spaceship is also a cr3bp, yes. your source uses that as an example, but it doesn't say that e-m-s cannot be understood as a cr3bp. my sources are explicit that it can be.
also your own source explicitly describes the equations of motion for these systems, contra your claim that they don't exist because saros cycles or whatever.
You are so dishonest.
oh yeah well your ugly.
srsly tho your own sources explicitly agree with me. and none of them say what you claim they do, that saros cycles are the only way to predict eclipses.
Gary, if you believe that the three body problem has been solved and is able to predict the lunar eclipse, please post the method.
The words "George William Hill"+"lunar eclipse" turn up zero relevant results on Google. If this is the man who made the method for predicting the lunar eclipse with his three body problem solution, why doesn't anything show up? "George Hill"+"lunar eclipse" is also void. Surely, if this is the man who solved the eclipse problem this should be easily searchable.
-
Gary, if you believe that the three body problem has been solved and is able to predict the lunar eclipse, please post the method.
nasa's eclipse tables come from a work called the "five millennium canon of solar eclipses." this work relied on a table of lunar positions (ephemeris) called epl-2000: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/ve82-predictions.html
this is the 1982 paper published with that ephemeris: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A%26A...124...50C
here's a program in c that constructs a lunar ephemeris using the epl-2000 method: https://github.com/variar/elp2000-82b
here's a python program that uses ephemerides to do all kinds of stuff, including eclipse prediction. the documentation describes functions that output the angular separation between two astronomical objects and can be minimized to find eclipse times/locations/whatever: http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/index.html
The words "George William Hill"+"lunar eclipse" turn up zero relevant results on Google. If this is the man who made the method for predicting the lunar eclipse with his three body problem solution, why doesn't anything show up? "George Hill"+"lunar eclipse" is also void. Surely, if this is the man who solved the eclipse problem this should be easily searchable.
you made two claims: 1) nasa uses saros cycles to predict future eclipses, because 2) the 3-body problem has no general analytic solution.
hill's lunar theory addresses the latter point. it's true, but some special cases are tractable and equations of motion can be derived. the e-m-s system is close enough that semi-analytic solutions can be found and used to construct a table of positions for the moon over some period of time.
also you'll have better luck searching "hill-brown lunar theory."
-
garygreen, Tom Bishop,
let's give a little less attention to the moon, since this thread is not about who's right and who's not, it's about the sun and what it is.
Have anyone of FES had weird thoughts, drawings in their childhood related to sun?
Bring these drawings up and analyze them for something weird and astonishing - there could be lots of clues and hints "your younger version put for their older version".
Why is it important? Because, as i believe, children have increased mental sensitivity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIajOdC5spc&list=PLF78_4TwdUj-gcakqByw6EYh80lWF2QVi) to information field(s) of the earth and the universe, which, if triggered to get access to, from time to time gives them capabilities to know "everything about everything". But as children grow in the conditions of our mind-prisonworld, they become spiritually/mentally/psychically insensitive to info field(s). And don't say it's ridiculous!
-
Gary, the lunar ephemeris is a complicated equation only useful for telling us the coordinates of the moon. It does not tell us when the next lunar eclipse will occur.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MCSE.html
The coordinates of the Sun used in these predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983].
You are also WRONG that the "Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses" makes its solar eclipse predictions bases on a table of ephemeris predictions or any three-body problem solution. Here is an excerpt from a PDF which explains how the Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses was made:
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf
From Section 1: Maps and Predictions, Page 2:
1.2.2 Saros Series Number
Each eclipse belongs to a Saros series (Sect. 4.2) using a numbering system first introduced by van den Bergh (1955). This system has been expanded to include negative values from the past, as well as additional series in the future. The eclipses with an odd Saros number take place at the ascending node of the Moon’s orbit; those with an even Saros number take place at the descending node.
The Saros is a period of 223 synodic months, or approximately 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours. Eclipses separated by this period belong to the same Saros series and share very similar geometry and characteristics.
It says, quite clearly, that the eclipse predictions are based on the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is a method of pattern matching of past eclipses to predict when the next one will occur in the future. It has nothing to do with any geometric model of the earth.
-
hill's lunar theory addresses the latter point. it's true, but some special cases are tractable and equations of motion can be derived. the e-m-s system is close enough that semi-analytic solutions can be found and used to construct a table of positions for the moon over some period of time.
Show us an example where this or any other similar geometric theory has predicted the eclipse, because the "Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses" you had mentioned is based on a method created by an ancient society who believed that the earth was flat.
-
Gary, the lunar ephemeris only tells us the coordinates of the moon. It does not tell us when the next lunar eclipse will occur.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/5MCSE.html
The coordinates of the Sun used in these predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983].
so, just to be clear, you're acknowledging that these predictions are based on tables of coordinates of the sun and moon as described by these two ephemerides, yes? doesn't that kind of undercut your argument that they're based on saros cycles?
knowing the positions of the moon and sun is exactly how you predict future eclipses. if you know where the moon and sun are located at any given time, then you can work out if an eclipse is happening at any given time. more accurately, you can work out the "besselian" elements:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b9/BesselianElementsForTotalEclipse3D-en.svg/260px-BesselianElementsForTotalEclipse3D-en.svg.png)
if you're a computer-nerd with a bunch of computer-nerd friends, then you can work out these elements for any given time over the next 1,000 years and put it in a big catalog with fancy maps and shit. and you'd call it the five millennium canon of solar eclipses.
You are also WRONG that the "Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses" makes its solar eclipse predictions bases on a table of ephemeris predictions or any three-body problem solution. Here is an excerpt from a PDF which explains how the Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses was made:
it explicitly says that they do. you have yet to produce a single source that says otherwise.
here are more excerpts:
Without exception, all solar eclipse canons produced during the latter half of the 20th century were based on Newcomb’s tables of the Sun (1895) and Brown’s lunar theory (1905), subject to later modifications in the Improved Lunar Ephemeris (1954). These were the best ephemerides of their day but they have now been superseded.
The present book contains detailed, accurate maps (found in the Appendix at the back of the book) for 5,000 years of solar eclipses, from –1999 to +3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE). The following points highlight the features and characteristics of this work.
*Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
Any two eclipses separated by one Saros cycle share similar characteristics. They occur at the same node with the Moon at nearly the same distance from Earth and at the same time of year. Because the Saros period is not equal to a whole number of days, its biggest drawback as an eclipse predictor is that subsequent eclipses are visible from different parts of the globe.
you obviously just did a search for the word saros, found it, and moved on. you keep making the same mistake of taking "here is some information about saros cycles" to mean "saros cycles are the only way to predict when and where an eclipse will occur." the section you quote absolutely does not say that saros cycles "explain how the Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses was made." literally none of the sources you or i have provided have said anything like that.
Show us an example where this or any other similar geometric theory has predicted the eclipse
the five millennium canon is exactly that. check my last post. i even pointed you to an open source python program that does this.
-
so, just to be clear, you're acknowledging that these predictions are based on tables of coordinates of the sun and moon as described by these two ephemerides, yes? doesn't that kind of undercut your argument that they're based on saros cycles?
The Saros cycle just gives a time when to expect the next lunar eclipse to appear on the face of the moon. You will also need to know if you will be able to see the moon from your particular location. This is where the equations to find the coordinates of the moon come in.
The Lunar Eclipse is visible for anyone who can see the moon, and you will need to know whether the moon will be over your area at that time, not merely the time of the lunar eclipse.
The Solar Eclipse is visible for only a narrow path beneath the moon, and knowing the coordinates of the sun is necessary for knowing whether a solar eclipse will be visible in your area, not merely the time it will occur.
The coordinates of the sun and moon over the earth have nothing to do with computing the time of the lunar eclipse. It does not say that in the Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses PDF (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSE/5MCSE-Text11.pdf). The only points it brings up is a direct statement that the eclipses are predicted based on the Saros cycle in section 1.2.2 "Saros Series Number"
"Each eclipse belongs to a Saros series (Sect. 4.2) using a numbering system first introduced by van den Bergh (1955)."
In 4.4 "Saros Series Statistics" we read:
"Eclipses belonging to 204 different Saros series fall within the five millennium span of the Canon."
The document also states the coordinates for the sun and moon are used in section 1.3 "Solar and Lunar Coordinates":
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory
constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris."
"For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the
Bureau des Longitudes."
The section says nothing about the coordinates of the sun or moon being used to predict when the eclipse will occur. The coordinates of the sun is used in the eclipse predictions, but the knowledge of coordinates is only useful because it will help create a map showing where the eclipses will be visible from, which is what the map sections of the document is about.
You seem to be saying that there is some special math not mentioned in the document where the time of the eclipse can be predicted without the use of the Saros cycle, despite the document stating that each eclipse is based on a Saros cycle series.
-
the five millennium canon is exactly that. check my last post. i even pointed you to an open source python program that does this.
The Five Millennium Catalog PDF mentions Saros cycle all over the place. The word Saros appears 128 times in that document, and the document is very specific on how the Saros Cycle is used to make predictions, yet you are expecting us to believe that it does not use the Saros cycle and that, while Saros prediction method is explicitly described, it was done do for no reason, and that some other method which is not explicitly described is used instead to make the predictions. Ridiculous.
You have not shown us where an eclipse has been predicted with the "open source python program" that you had mentioned. Without experimental data why should we assume that it has ever predicted an eclipse?
-
you obviously just did a search for the word saros, found it, and moved on. you keep making the same mistake of taking "here is some information about saros cycles" to mean "saros cycles are the only way to predict when and where an eclipse will occur." the section you quote absolutely does not say that saros cycles "explain how the Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses was made." literally none of the sources you or i have provided have said anything like that.
Read section 4. It is very specific about how the Saros Cycle is used to make predictions. The Saros is talked about again and again over many pages in the entire book and you are telling us that the Saros had nothing to do with how the predictions were made and that the author is only bringing the Saros up for educational purposes. ::)
The "modern digital computers" quote you had mentioned appears at the very end of the book:
"Modern digital computers using high precision solar and lunar ephemerides can directly predict the dates and circumstances of eclipses. Nevertheless, the Saros and Inex cycles are still of great value in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses."
So if the 5 Millennium Catalog is based on these ephemerides, why is this whole book about the Saros Cycle method and not about this other method? Clearly, this ephemerides method was not the method used to create the catalog if it is only mentioning the possibility in the closing sentences of the book.
You should probably try to find information about this other prediction method mentioned, along with some observations that the predictions match reality, because that is not the standard method astronomers are using to predict the eclipse.
-
I have my doubts that the Hill-Brown Theory that was brought up earlier is even valid as a theory that accurately reflects the Round Earth model. According to this section (https://books.google.com/books?id=pdY2DgAAQBAJ&lpg=PT207&ots=7w8nGJs_K2&dq=hill-brown%20lunar%20theory%20%22eclipse%22&pg=PT206#v=onepage&q&f=false) in "Mask of the Sun: The Science, History and Forgotten Lore of Eclipses" we read that Hill started with the three body problem and had to make nearly 3000 adjustments to be able to predict anything.
"Let it be said that all previous workers had started with what is known in Newtonian theory as the two-body problem (the Earth-Moon system), and then determined what slight adjustments were needed by considering the gravitational attraction of the Sun, other planets, and the lunar tides. Hill started with the much more complicated three-body problem (the Earth-Moon-Sun system) then added adjustments. In total, he incorporated in his calculations nearly 3,000 such adjustments. And those calculation involved manipulating numbers to fifteen decimal places."
And here is a study done which claims that the using the Saros Cycle is "far better" than using the Hill-Brown Theory (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1973Moon....7....6R/0000006.000.html).
-
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris."
"For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the Bureau des Longitudes."
The section says nothing about the coordinates of the sun or moon being used to predict when the eclipse will occur.
lol that's literally exactly what it says. like, almost word-for-word. you keep quoting this bit, but you don't seem to understand that it supports my argument. elp-2000 is an ephemeris. this literally says "we used two ephemerides to predict eclipses: vsop87 and elp-2000." not "we used saros cycles to predict these eclipses."
here is the paper for how elp-2000 was created. notice that there's nothing about saros cycles: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A%26A...124...50C
more excerpts:
Without exception, all solar eclipse canons produced during the latter half of the 20th century were based on Newcomb’s tables of the Sun (1895) and Brown’s lunar theory (1905), subject to later modifications in the Improved Lunar Ephemeris (1954)...The following points highlight the features and characteristics of this work:
• Based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris. This theory gives the ecliptic longitude and latitude of the planets, and their radius vector, as sums of periodic terms. In our calculations, we used the complete set of periodic terms of version D of VSOP87 (this version provides the positions referred to the mean equinox of the date).
For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the Bureau des Longitudes. This theory contains a total of 37,862 periodic terms, namely 20,560 for the Moon’s longitude, 7,684 for the latitude, and 9,618 for the distance to Earth. But many of these terms are very small: some have an amplitude of only 0.00001 arcsec for the longitude or the latitude, and of 2 cm for the distance. In our computer program, we neglected all periodic terms with coefficients smaller than 0.0005 arcsec in longitude and latitude, and smaller than 1 m in distance. Because of neglecting the very small periodic terms, the Moon’s positions calculated in our program have a mean error (as compared to the full ELP theory) of about 0.0006 s of time in right ascension, and about 0.006 arcsec in declination.
The accuracy of the eclipse maps depends principally on two factors. The first is the rigorousness of the solar and lunar ephemerides used in the calculations (Sect. 1.3). The Moon’s close proximity to Earth coupled with its relatively low mass, results in orbital perturbations that make the Moon’s position far more difficult to predict compared to the Sun’s position.
and indeed that paper has a lot to say about saros cycles. in the section on saros cycles. under the heading "periodicity." that paper is interested in all kinds of periods and distributions, like:
- 3.2 Distribution of Eclipse Types by Century
- 3.3 Distribution of Eclipse Types by Month
- 3.4 Eclipse Frequency and the Calendar Year
- 3.17 Eclipses on February 29
- 4.3 Gamma and Saros Series
- 4.4 Saros Series Statistics
nowhere does the author indicate that the table was constructed from saros cycles. the author explicitly says he used position tables.
-
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris."
"For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the Bureau des Longitudes."
The section says nothing about the coordinates of the sun or moon being used to predict when the eclipse will occur.
lol that's literally exactly what it says. like, almost word-for-word. you keep quoting this bit, but you don't seem to understand that it supports my argument. elp-2000 is an ephemeris. this literally says "we used two ephemerides to predict eclipses: vsop87 and elp-2000." not "we used saros cycles to predict these eclipses."
No. It LITERALLY says that "the coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87." It does not say that the eclipse predictions are based on VSOP87. It merely says that they are used in the eclipse predictions.
The coordinates of the sun are important because it tells us where we will be able to see the solar eclipse from. They are used in the map described further into the book.
Look at the quote you brought up:
The accuracy of the eclipse maps depends principally on two factors. The first is the rigorousness of the solar and lunar ephemerides used in the calculations (Sect. 1.3). The Moon’s close proximity to Earth coupled with its relatively low mass, results in orbital perturbations that make the Moon’s position far more difficult to predict compared to the Sun’s position.
See that? It says that accuracy of the eclipse maps are dependent of the accuracy of the solar and lunar ephemerides that tell us the coordinates of the sun and moon. That clearly suggests that the coordinates are used in the maps portion, which are used to tell us where we will be able to see the eclipses from.
The actual method of finding when the eclipse will occur is explained at length in the book as being the Saros cycle. The Saros cycle method is not being described across over half the pages of the book for mere educational or superfluous purposes. Why dedicate so much space to a method that is not being used?
-
So... what is the sun again? Why can we not determine it's composition from its spectrum analysis when we can determine any plasma composition in a lab using a spectrum analysis?
What happened to the original topic on this thread?
-
No. It LITERALLY says that "the coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87." It does not say that the eclipse predictions are based on VSOP87. It merely says that they are used in the eclipse predictions.
"the coordinates used in these eclipse predictions" sounds to me like they used coordinates to make eclipse predictions.
here are more excerpts:
- Without exception, all solar eclipse canons produced during the latter half of the 20th century were based on Newcomb’s tables of the Sun (1895) and Brown’s lunar theory (1905).
- To make [Oppolzer's] remarkable achievement possible, a number of approximations were used in the calculations and maps. For instance, the central line path of each solar eclipse was computed for only three positions: sunrise, mid-point, and sunset. A circular arc was fit through the points to depict the eclipse path. Consequently, the central lines often differ by hundreds of miles compared to rigorous predictions generated with modern ephemerides. Furthermore, the 1887 Canon took no account of the shifts imparted to ancient eclipse paths as a consequence of Earth’s variable rotation rate and the secular acceleration of the Moon.
- [This work is] based on modern theories of the Sun and the Moon constructed at the Bureau des Longitudes of Paris rather than the older Newcomb and Brown ephemerides.
- The center of figure of the Moon does not coincide exactly with its center of mass. To compensate for this property in their eclipse predictions, many of the national institutes employ an empirical correction to the center of mass position of the Moon...We choose to ignore this convention and have performed all calculations using the Moon’s center of mass position.
- A fundamental parameter used in eclipse predictions is the Moon’s radius, k, expressed in units of Earth’s equatorial radius. The Moon’s actual radius varies as a function of position angle and libration because of irregularity in the limb profile.
- The orbital positions of the Sun and Moon required by eclipse predictions, are calculated using TD because it is a uniform time scale. World time zones and daily life, however, are based on UTa. In order to convert eclipse predictions from TD to UT, the difference between these two time scales must be known.
- Modern digital computers using high precision solar and lunar ephemerides can directly predict the dates and circumstances of eclipses. Nevertheless, the Saros and Inex cycles are still of great value in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses.
that last sentence is why he talks about saros cycles. it's an interesting periodicity.
See that? It says that accuracy of the eclipse maps are dependent of the accuracy of the solar and lunar ephemerides that tell us the coordinates of the sun and moon. That clearly suggests that the coordinates are used in the maps portion, which are used to tell us where we will be able to see the eclipses from.
so just to be clear, you now agree that ephemerides are used to predict the location/duration/type/etc of an eclipse...but not the timing. ok.
The actual method of finding when the eclipse will occur is explained at length in the book as being the Saros cycle. The Saros cycle method is not being described across over half the pages of the book for mere educational or superfluous purposes. Why dedicate so much space to a method that is not being used?
because saros cycles are an interesting periodicity. he also cataloged feb 29th eclipses, but that doesn't mean feb 29th has anything to do with predicting eclipses.
instead of reading tea leaves, we can just consult the text where he says a bunch of times in a bunch of different places very explicitly that these eclipse tables were calculated directly from ephemerides.
-
Gary, if you believe that the three body problem has been solved and is able to predict the lunar eclipse, please post the method.
Tom: Your usual blindness to modern knowledge defeats you here.
1) It can be proven for 100% sure that the 3 body problem cannot ever be solved ANALYTICALLY. That means that we can't write an equation that you can plug the positions and velocities of the three bodies into - along with some amount of time into the future - and get back the position at some other date/time. This is true - there is not and cannot EVER be a mathematical equation that does that. Nobody who understands the problem would claim otherwise.
2) BUT: It *CAN* be proven for 100% sure that for a 3 body problem where the masses are highly unequal that there is an approximate solution - and, furthermore we can prove that the true future positions will lie within some predictable range. For the Earth/Moon/Sun problem, neglecting the mass of the moon produces an error that is VERY tiny - of the order of a meter or so over a year or two. That's because (in RET) the moon is insanely tiny compared to the Sun and fairly small compared to the Earth. Because the moon's gravitational effect on the sun is COMPLETELY negligible - we can simplify this from a 3 body problem to a couple of two-body problems and those we can solve very easily. Yes, there is an error - no it doesn't matter - and we can PROVE that.
3) Although there cannot be a precise equation - there are other ways to solve the problem. Numerical integration is a good one. Using numerical integration you calculate the approximate motion of each body over a particular (short) time-step using three 2 body approximations. You then apply this math over and over again to predict a future positions of the three bodies. THEN, you pick a smaller time step (thereby getting more accurate results) and do it all over again. The difference between the answer you got the first time and the answer you have now gives you a confidence interval that tells you how close you are to a solution with "good enough" precision. Now that we have computers and can automate this, we can make calculations using (say) a microsecond as the time interval and obtain the position of moon, earth and sun to within a tiny fraction of a millimeter. Plenty good enough to predict sunrises, sunsets, moonrises, moonsets, phases of the moon and both lunar and solar eclipses thousands of year into the future.
So your complaints are frankly ridiculous. You know JUST enough to think you can jump into a problem like this ("The thee body problem cannot be solved") and blow that up into "We can't predict these things"...but you don't know anywhere near enough to understand WHY IT CAN BE DONE.
Sadly, you've now met someone who can see through these claims of yours and explain clearly and comprehensively why you're wrong. I intend to keep doing that...so don't expect these kinds of incorrect claims to slip past a gullible audience anymore.
Mathematicians are a LOT smarter than you seem to think.
-
3DGeek, garygreen, Tom Bishop, why are you talking about eclipses, when the topic is about the nature and structure of sun?
Holy shit, that's what i have found on the russian site dedicated for women:
original site (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.woman.ru%2Fpsycho%2Fmedley6%2Fthread%2F4299419%2F&edit-text=&act=url)
"I fell asleep in the day after the sunset that I was thinking about before, and I dreamed that I was gazing happily at the sun and I thought how soon it would come, and then I watched the swift sunset and it suddenly fell to the ground not far from me, and it became Some metal and it did not shine anymore, and of course it was not hot, just a ball-shaped large piece of metal, and then it rolled in my direction, and I was frightened, she thought as a bomb could explode and began to run away from him ... what could this dream mean ???? Please tell me exactly !!!"
And here is the video (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=metal+sphere+falls+down):
could this be the sun's CORE???????????????? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLi2A2MrdMs)
If that's true, it is just madness!! How the...?! What keeps these objects in the sky?
-
3DGeek, garygreen, Tom Bishop, why are you talking about eclipses, when the topic is about the nature and structure of sun?
The first problem to address with FET is WHERE is the sun? From that you can calculate it's size - and from that you can at least speculate on it's composition.
The issue of eclipses - and the deeper issue of how you can calculate them - has bearing on the "WHERE" question. Tom said that there was no way for them to be calculated using gravitation and the modern scientific RET model of the universe because of a problem called "The Three Body Problem" - which has been a thorn in the side of mathematicians and physicists since forever. Tom is narrowly correct in saying that the three body problem is analytically unsolvable. However, there are approximate solutions that work with extreme precision (albeit not perfectly) from making the assumption that one of the three bodies has a much smaller mass than the larger of the other two. In this case, the mass of the moon (in RET) is negligible compared to the mass of the sun - so we can come up with very VERY good approximations. If that's not the case then we can solve the problem numerically. In either case, we can calculate bounds on the size of the error and verify that our calculation for the moment of the eclipse is correct to within better than a millisecond.
So - all of this verbiage and math is required in this discussion to demonstrate that (a) Tom is incorrect in saying that we can't accurately predict eclipses...we most certainly can and (b) that FET cannot make any predictions whatever about these events.
You get to choose between a set of mathematical steps that can ONLY predict eclipses to that precision if the sun, moon and earth are of the masses, distances and orbital properties that RET says they are. Or shrugged shoulders from the FET community who can't show math to predict anything of the sort.
So what FE'ers are saying is that the RET math is complete nonsense, based on false data - yet somehow, as if by magic - unerringly predicts every single eclipse with extremely good precision - and using two unrelated techniques to arrive at the same answer.
Is that credible?
If you think not - then how can we rely on FET to predict the altitude of the Sun above the flat earth? The critical equation required to predict even the simplest of things (sunrise and sunset times) relies on something called "The Bishop Constant" - which even Mr Bishop himself doesn't know the value of. The equation he claims to use to calculate such things is on the Wiki - but without any kind of even approximate value for this wondrous constant, is useless. Even worse, he claims (on the Wiki) that this equation isn't even the right one - it's a simplification of something much more complicated. Repeated efforts to have him provide us with the full version (so we can check his derivation techniques) have failed to produce an answer.
Bottom line here - it's all smoke and mirrors. The FET guys can't even predict the tides or sunrise and sunset times around the world - yet they happily wave an inconsequential "factoid" about the three body problem to deflect from their utter failure to describe the world in a predictable manner.
* Do they have an equation for the motion of the sun and moon - or the planets? No - they do not.
* Do they have an equation for the distortions in the atmosphere necessary for sun and moon rising and setting to happen? Well, if they do, they won't reveal it - and even the approximated/simplified version can't be tested because nobody know the value of the constant embedded into it.
There is a very VERY good reason for this lack - the Flat Earth model of the universe simply doesn't work. If the FE'ers ever came up with an equation of any kind for any of these key things - it could be tested against the real world - and it would FAIL.
On the other hand, everything in Round Earth theory is out there - you can find all of those equations, you can plug in the constants that have been measured to many decimal digits of precision - and you can use those equations to predict the position of stars, sun, moon, planets for thousands of years into the past and the future...and they work PERFECTLY.
OK - so we establish that the FE people don't know with any accuracy where the sun and moon are...they GUESS that the sun is 3000 miles away.
Using that guess, they estimate the diameter of sun and moon to both be around 30 miles.
This produces a problem for them because there is NOTHING known to science that can produce the amount of energy we get from the sun in such a small object. Even nuclear fusion cannot do that.
So FET cannot tell you what the sun is made of or it's structure or how it works...I can tell you what it's made of and how it works in eye-watering detail for the Round Earth - and back it up with equations and observations - but for FET it's all a matter of guesswork and "We don't know".
So this is why discussion of the 3 body problem is relevant here.