[Sceptom]

Hi there,

a friend of mine sent me a link about the eclipse that will be visible from where I am (Belgium) on March 20th: http://www.eclips2015.be/fr and I couldn't help thinking about this forum where I posted a few topics some time ago (including one that successfully falsified FET).

The link is in french, but you can see the pictures and animations which are kind of obvious. The green lines, for example, show the path where a total eclipse will be visible. In my case, it won't be total but the sun should be 83% blocked by the moon.

Now, these are predictions, as the eclipse didn't occur yet. But you'll notice that these are pretty detailed predictions: exact path, timing (to the minute), shape of eclipse, etc.
Knowing that FET is wrong, and that calculations for those predictions are based on RET, I actually won't be surprised to see those predictions come true.

But what is the position for FEers? that the predictions will fail? or that they will indeed be true but simply because of luck (a LOT of it) ? or... something else?

thanks!
Sceptom

[Ghost of V]

The Flat Earth Society has been using the Shadow Object to accurately predict lunar eclipses since 1881.

[Sceptom]

The Flat Earth Society has been using the Shadow Object to accurately predict lunar eclipses since 1881.

Is there some place where we can see the calculations based on the Shadow Object concept? (more specifically for the March 20th eclipse)

[Tom Bishop]

Equations for finding the lunar eclipse can be found at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

[Sceptom]

Equations for finding the lunar eclipse can be found at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

What about solar ecplises, such as the one occuring on March 20th 2015?

[Thork]

They do it using historical tables. Not whirling ball mathematics.

They interpolate tables and have done for hundreds of years.

Christopher Columbus, in an effort to induce the natives of Jamaica to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus.[2]

1504. Copernicus didn't publish his heliocentric theories until 1534. So there was definitely no whirly ball maths going on there.

[Pongo]

PSA: It's dangerous to view a solar or lunar eclipse due to the proven deleterious effects of moonlight.  If you live in Europe and wish to view this rare event, make sure you take the proper precautions.  Limited exposure, lots of layers of clothing, things like that.

[Sceptom]

They do it using historical tables. Not whirling ball mathematics.

They interpolate tables and have done for hundreds of years.

Christopher Columbus, in an effort to induce the natives of Jamaica to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus.[2]

1504. Copernicus didn't publish his heliocentric theories until 1534. So there was definitely no whirly ball maths going on there.

Right but I'm not talking about the date of the eclipse. I'm talking specifically about the exact path it's going to take (the green lines on this link show the predicted path of the full eclipse, more details on this one) and how the RET-based calculations to predict it could be true while RET is false.

[spanner34.5]

It's getting dark.....we are doomed.

[Tau]

including one that successfully falsified FET

Sure, sure.

Now, these are predictions, as the eclipse didn't occur yet. But you'll notice that these are pretty detailed predictions: exact path, timing (to the minute), shape of eclipse, etc.
Knowing that FET is wrong, and that calculations for those predictions are based on RET, I actually won't be surprised to see those predictions come true.

But what is the position for FEers? that the predictions will fail? or that they will indeed be true but simply because of luck (a LOT of it) ? or... something else?

thanks!
Sceptom

Of course the predictions won't fail. They're based on observations dating back thousands of years. Claiming that they're based on RET is a bit of an exaggeration. The math linking the eclipse to RET is completely ad hoc.

[Sceptom]

including one that successfully falsified FET

Sure, sure.

If you disagree, please provide your refutation on the post.

Now, these are predictions, as the eclipse didn't occur yet. But you'll notice that these are pretty detailed predictions: exact path, timing (to the minute), shape of eclipse, etc.
Knowing that FET is wrong, and that calculations for those predictions are based on RET, I actually won't be surprised to see those predictions come true.

But what is the position for FEers? that the predictions will fail? or that they will indeed be true but simply because of luck (a LOT of it) ? or... something else?

thanks!
Sceptom

Of course the predictions won't fail. They're based on observations dating back thousands of years. Claiming that they're based on RET is a bit of an exaggeration. The math linking the eclipse to RET is completely ad hoc.

Again, the observations dating back thousands of years are not capable of predicting the exact path the eclipse would take. Those predictions are based on models of the solar system, in this case the JPL DE405.

So my question remains: how does RET-based calculations give accurate true predictions while RET is false?

[Sceptom]

Still no answers. I'm starting to think this could be the second post that proves FET wrong...

[Ghost of V]

Still no answers. I'm starting to think this could be the second post that proves FET wrong...

What are you proving exactly? You asked how we predict eclipses, and we answered you.

[Sceptom]

Still no answers. I'm starting to think this could be the second post that proves FET wrong...

What are you proving exactly? You asked how we predict eclipses

No, that was not my question.

and we answered you.

And no, you didn't answer me.

My question was not about how FET predict eclipses, and it was not about eclipses in general but the eclipse of March 20th 2015, and even more specifically about the path where the full eclipse would be visible, about how this path was predicted using RET-based calculations, about how this prediction was indeed accurate, and, the very core of my question, how all this is possible if RET is wrong.

And all the answers I got were about lunar eclipses.

So, again, RET:1 - FET:0

[Tom Bishop]

Thork answered how the solar eclipses are predicted.

[Tau]

I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.

[Rama Set]

I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.

I don't get it.

[markjo]

I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.

I don't get it.

Probably because this forum is so full of gibberish.

[Sceptom]

Thork answered how the solar eclipses are predicted.

No, he did not. He talked about the prediction of the dates of eclipses. I was talking about the path where the full eclipse would be visible (see this link). This path was calculated with a model of the solar system with a round earth (and round moon, round sun). And the question is: how is it that this RET-based calculation worked?

You failed again at answering my question. (And probably at simply understanding it).

[Sceptom]

I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.

and yet, no one was able to answer my question, or even understand it.

This is the second post that proves FET wrong.