[Sceptom]

Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.

Who cares how eclipses work on an round earth (geocentric or heliocentric)?  This thread is about how FET explains and predicts eclipses.  Please stay on topic.

Sorry markjo, but this is not the topic. The topic is about a RET model used to predict the March 20th 2015 solar full eclipse path that actually worked. What do FEers have to say about that?

So far, I actually got no answer about that. But I think the general idea that FEers have is that this RET model wasn't really used, but instead it was predicted with the same level of accuracy using old data that are also based on a round earth, but whatever, FET is still true.

[Sceptom]

Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.

What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?

[markjo]

Well I'm assuming you are going to explain how Ptolemy's model works and therefore much of ours. I need only correct you on the bits you get wrong that way. Saves me doing all the leg work when you already know most of it already.

I'm sorry, but what gives you the impression that flat earth geocentric models work anything like Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model?  Almost all of the same problems FET has with RET, FET will have with Ptolemy.

For one thing, Ptolemy didn't require the sun and moon to orbit about some mysterious barycenter some arbitrary distance above the earth.  Ptolemy's celestial objects rose and set because they moved above and below the horizon.  He didn't need to invent aetherific eddification or some wild misinterpretation of perspective to make a sunrise or sunset.

[Tau]

Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.

Who cares how eclipses work on an round earth (geocentric or heliocentric)?  This thread is about how FET explains and predicts eclipses.  Please stay on topic.

Sorry markjo, but this is not the topic. The topic is about a RET model used to predict the March 20th 2015 solar full eclipse path that actually worked. What do FEers have to say about that?

So far, I actually got no answer about that. But I think the general idea that FEers have is that this RET model wasn't really used, but instead it was predicted with the same level of accuracy using old data that are also based on a round earth, but whatever, FET is still true.

How is it based on a round earth? You never answer that question. RE'ers are constantly claiming to us that various bits of science (this, the Equivalence Principle, relativity, etc.) are based entirely on Round Earth Theory and are therefore inherently incompatible with FET, but when asked to back up their claims they never do. I'd say I don't understand why, but I suspect I do.

[Thork]

Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.

What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?

Enough to know where to stand and when to observe it. How accurate are globular models?

[Thork]

For one thing, Ptolemy didn't require the sun and moon to orbit about some mysterious barycenter some arbitrary distance above the earth.  Ptolemy's celestial objects rose and set because they moved above and below the horizon. 

No, he ended up getting the distance and size of the sun completely wrong in RET terms, and yet his eclipse tables were flawless because he did them by interpolation, not whirly ball mathematics.

and when you say "mysterious barycentre" you mean the North Celestial Pole, just so everyone realises the FUD you like to push out on these forums.

[markjo]

For one thing, Ptolemy didn't require the sun and moon to orbit about some mysterious barycenter some arbitrary distance above the earth.  Ptolemy's celestial objects rose and set because they moved above and below the horizon. 

No, he ended up getting the distance and size of the sun completely wrong in RET terms, and yet his eclipse tables were flawless because he did them by interpolation, not whirly ball mathematics.

Umm.. Ptolemy got lots of stuff wrong in RET terms, that's why RET doesn't use it anymore.  However, the fact is that Ptolemy's model was a "whirly ball" model, he just had the balls whirling the wrong way.

and when you say "mysterious barycentre" you mean the North Celestial Pole, just so everyone realises the FUD you like to push out on these forums.

No, I mean some unknown, undetectable object about which the sun and moon must orbit because they sure don't orbit around each other.

[Sceptom]

Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.

What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?

Enough to know where to stand and when to observe it. How accurate are globular models?

to the tenth of a second.

[garygreen]

[Mostlyharmless]

At last, FETers have "admitted defeat" by refusing to reply to points that disprove their world view

[Pete Svarrior]

At last, FETers have "admitted defeat" by refusing to reply to points that disprove their world view

Two things:

• If you don't have anything of value to add to a thread, please refrain from necroposting. It helps nobody and makes active threads just a little bit harder to find.
• I think you're confusing the difference between people getting bored with flogging a dead horse (RE'ers refusing to acknowledge our points and repeating the same mantra over and over can become tiresome).

[Mostlyharmless]

At last, FETers have "admitted defeat" by refusing to reply to points that disprove their world view

Two things:

• If you don't have anything of value to add to a thread, please refrain from necroposting. It helps nobody and makes active threads just a little bit harder to find.
• I think you're confusing the difference between people getting bored with flogging a dead horse (RE'ers refusing to acknowledge our points and repeating the same mantra over and over can become tiresome).

Then by all means, counter the point raised about the precision of geographical positions of solar eclipse predictions.

[Pete Svarrior]

Then by all means, counter the point raised about the precision of geographical positions of solar eclipse predictions.

I don't understand why I would need to counter it. Solar eclipse predictions are based on prior observation and formulating a mathematical model. They're identical for the Round Earth scenario and an epicycle-based Flat Earth scenario.

[Mostlyharmless]

Then by all means, counter the point raised about the precision of geographical positions of solar eclipse predictions.

I don't understand why I would need to counter it. Solar eclipse predictions are based on prior observation and formulating a mathematical model. They're identical for the Round Earth scenario and an epicycle-based Flat Earth scenario.

While I understand what you are saying, the exact area on the earth the solar eclipse occurs is not based on historical eclipses, rather on the round earth model of the solar system. So, again, how does the exact geographical location of the shadow get predicted using RET, if RET is fake?

[Pete Svarrior]

While I understand what you are saying, the exact area on the earth the solar eclipse occurs is not based on historical eclipses, rather on the round earth model of the solar system. So, again, how does the exact geographical location of the shadow get predicted using RET, if RET is fake?

By using thousands of years of records of historical eclipses, as I already stated. However, the heliocentric model is largely equivalent to the epicyclic model, so that would work anyway.

[Mostlyharmless]

While I understand what you are saying, the exact area on the earth the solar eclipse occurs is not based on historical eclipses, rather on the round earth model of the solar system. So, again, how does the exact geographical location of the shadow get predicted using RET, if RET is fake?

By using thousands of years of records of historical eclipses, as I already stated. However, the heliocentric model is largely equivalent to the epicyclic model, so that would work anyway.

As has already been established, the times of solar eclipses is based on historical eclipses, but the place of them is not.

[Pete Svarrior]

As has already been established, the times of solar eclipses is based on historical eclipses, but the place of them is not.

It has not been established. Making a claim is not the same as establishing a position.