Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110  Next >
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 10:24:15 PM »
"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:

Quote
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?

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 23, 2017, 09:25:29 PM »
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.

And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 08:43:00 PM »
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 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.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 08:02:50 PM »
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:

Quote
"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.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 07:57:22 PM »
Quote
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?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 07:10:32 PM »
Quote
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. 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.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 05:51:29 PM »
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.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 05:15:48 PM »
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

Quote
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:

Quote
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.

9
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 23, 2017, 03:17:54 AM »
No - but other occasions when the sun is visible from both poles simultaneously DO occur every spring and summer.

Source?

Quote from: 3DGeek
We're standing in the center of your newly-found continent of Antarctica on midsummer day (Dec 21st) - the sun orbits all around us and is continually visible.   At some point therefore, it must be closer to the ice-wall (I want to say the "south" - but in this map, that's tricky terminology) than Antarctica...right?

This happens when it is noon at some point on the planet.   Precisely where is hard to say...but it's always noon SOMEWHERE.

So - according to this new and exciting version of FET - the sun is both someplace between the continent of antarctica and the ice wall AND vertically above some place on the equator.

You want to take a shot at where that is?

Maybe get a copy of your map and put a nice red dot where you think the sun must be...I'd love to see that.

The sun isn't over the equator on December 21st in Round Earth Theory. How embarrassing for you that you did not know that.

10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle
« on: July 23, 2017, 03:03:05 AM »
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.

So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles?  How is that possible?

The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.

Agree.  But please explain how Antarctica could have 24-hour sunlight without messing up the day/night cycle in the rest of the world.  Given that FE says the sun revolves around the North Pole.

You are forgetting that during the time of the midnight sun in the Antarctic summer the Northern Hemiplane is having its longest winter nights.

11
Flat Earth General / Re: The Wall
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:56:09 AM »
Quote
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.

But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion. ???

That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.

If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think  you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO". ::)

The iceberg was part of the coastline when the picture was taken. It is a proof that there are walls of ice at the Antarctic coast. Nowhere in this thread or on this site has it been used as proof for anything more.

If you guys actually want to talk about the length of Antarctica, maybe you should start starting threads about that and stop starting topics about the existence of ice walls at its coast, because that is the topic that is going to be discussed and responded to.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is Below FE?
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:34:03 AM »
Unknown

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:23:23 AM »
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 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.

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 20, 2017, 09:06:47 AM »
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 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.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:08:49 PM »
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
Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote from: garygreen
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. No solving of the three body problem was necessary, since the Saros Cycle is purely a pattern based method based on past observations.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:34:22 PM »
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.

17
Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:55:27 AM »
Ah, so even though the globe folded out with North at the center and South at the perimeter is often shown as the FE model, there is not 'official' map for the FE society. Am I right?

That is either most convenient, or most unfortunate.

They are just projections of the globe that someone found and presented as a possible Flat Earth map for further investigation. The distortion of the continents gives away that it's a projection of a globe.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:12:53 AM »
What is still being investigated?  There are plenty of flight records that show that you are completely 100% wrong.

What flight records? None have been posted. And how do they prove a map which does not exist wrong?

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 12:48:52 AM »
What am I supposed to explain? I was given a flight prediction for a flight time which might occur, not a flight record, and two proposed hypothetical map possibilities for a Flat Earth which are currently being investigated. The argument made seems a little weak,.

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 19, 2017, 12:21:52 AM »
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.

Quote
You mean here? 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

Quote
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 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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 110  Next >