41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 06:50:50 PM »

So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

Interesting. Yet here I am posting numerous quotes by mathematicians who say that these problems just fall apart, and here you are giving us opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up at all. No links, no quotes, nothing. Typical.

I just put a series of quotes from the site YOU LINKED as reference for that statement. I even connected the dots for you. Lead a horse to water.....

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 06:32:57 PM »

Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

If you would continue to read the link you posted, you would find he elaborates on this statement. TL;DR: There's no single formula/equation to exactly solve for any 3-body problem, but it's possible to create a 99% accurate estimation using computer simulations and other solutions.

Really? It says that? Quote it.

I put it as TL;DR for a reason, but will do my best to back up with quotes to guide you towards this.

The unsolvableness of the 3-body problem, rather than being an embarrassing hole in physics, an obvious but unsolved problem, is actually the norm.  In physics, the number of not-baby-simple, exactly solvable problems can be counted on the fingers of one hand (that’s missing some fingers), and that includes the 2-body problem.

A statement that informs you are correct, we cannot exactly solve the 3-body problem. In fact, even the 2-body problem isn't exactly solvable.

The dynamics of two bodies, while not trivial, can be reduced by pretending that one body is sitting still, and then restricting all of your attention to the other body.  Using that technique, you find (or, at least, Newton found) that the motion of a body under gravity is an ellipse.

2-body problems can be solved by restricting what you're looking at as a form of 'trick' to make things simpler.

But, for three bodies, there doesn’t seem to be a fancy trick for finding solutions.  As a result, the exact behavior of 3 or more bodies can’t be written down.

Again, we can't write down the exact behavior of 3 or more bodies.

Despite that, we do alright, and happily, reality doesn’t concern itself with doing math, it just kinda “does”.  For example, quantum field theory, despite being the most accurate theory that ever there was, never involves exactly solving anything.  Once a physicist gets a hold of all the appropriate equations and a big computer, they can start approximating things.  With enough computing power and time, these approximations can be made amazingly good.  Computer simulation and approximation is a whole science unto itself.

Yeah, we never exactly solve things. We just create very precise approximations.

So, if you want to calculate the orbits of all the planets, a “2-body approximation” will get you more than 99% of the way to the right answer.

Using a series of 2-body approximations can get you to greater than 99% accuracy in the movement of the planets around the sun.

Point is, this effect only shows up in systems with three or more bodies, it’s chaotic (in the chaos theory sense), and there is no way to predict it exactly.  That being said, we can still get computers to come pretty close (up to a point, because chaos is a punk), and there are even some mathematical tricks to get reasonable solutions that, while not perfect, are still pretty good (and can even get us well into that last “1% of weirdness”).

Restating much of what was said earlier in another manner.

So yes, we cannot create a 100% exact replica of the solar system that will continually run. But we can get over 99% accurate in our computer modeling of it, the >1% only coming into relevance far into the future as the small unforeseen perturbations add up.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: February 01, 2019, 06:12:33 PM »

Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

"why would we need to account for gravity if this is a full simulation of gravity?"  are you serious?  relativity is a theory of gravity, dummy.

the simulation calculates the motion of each object based on newton's equation for the force of gravity.  corrections are applied based on relativity, a more accurate theory of gravity.

why not just calculate everything from the equations of general relativity, you say?  because they're computationally expensive.  solving newton's equations is straightforward and computationally simple.

You guys just gave two entirely different explanations for what the corrections are. Get your act together.

The paper says nothing about "the motion of each object based on newton's equation for the force of gravity.  corrections are applied based on relativity, a more accurate theory of gravity." You are apparently just making things up, per usual.

Go ask this mathematician at askamathematician.com on the matter:

https://www.askamathematician.com/2011/10/q-what-is-the-three-body-problem/

Q: What is the three body problem?

Physicist: The three body problem is to exactly solve for the motions of three (or more) bodies interacting through an inverse square force (which includes gravitational and electrical attraction).

The problem with the 3-body problem is that it can’t be done, except in a very small set of frankly goofy scenarios (like identical planets following identical orbits).

It says directly that very few scenarios are possible. None look like heliocentric orbits, all are incredibly sensitive and can only exist in those exact velocities and configurations, and all require at least two bodies of equal masses.

Do you read the links you post all the way, or just go looking for tidbits you can cherry pick things to support your bias/position? It always seems to be the latter.

If you would continue to read the link you posted, you would find he elaborates on this statement. TL;DR: There's no single formula/equation to exactly solve for any 3-body problem, but it's possible to create a 99% accurate estimation using computer simulations and other solutions. F.E. the solar system can be estimated to 99% accuracy or better by solving it as a series of 2-body problems.

This supports what comes up every single time you raise this objection. There's no analytical solution to the 3-body problem. But that doesn't mean it can't be solved/simulated to a near arbitrary degree of accuracy short of 100% for long spans of time.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Predictive power of FE theory

« on: January 31, 2019, 04:24:21 AM »

The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work.

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.

45

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 23, 2019, 06:10:19 PM »

If you do watch the eclipse, take note of whether it comes from the East or the West on the moon's surface. Sometimes it runs contrary to RET.

Source?

This is a misunderstanding on Tom's part. A number of us attempted to explain how it works, but I'm not sure he ever understood it or not. As of his last post in that thread he continued to state he didn't.

I recall not responding to the sloppy diagram you posted in that other thread because I didn't feel the need of embarrassing you over something that all could see was wrong.

I'd love to see you explain how it's wrong. At worst I learn something new. At best we figure out where your ability to comprehend the situation is failing and we can correct it. Win/win. Not everyone has an inability to fathom they can be wrong. I'd also note not a single person commented that it was incorrect, and I'm willing to bet if I had it as wrong as you claim plenty of RE proponents would have corrected me on the matter. But let's see it hmm? I'd also note, your unwillingness to comment more doesn't make my statement false. You WERE still confused about the topic last you posted, and I maintain it's due to some misunderstanding on your end.

If you do watch the eclipse, take note of whether it comes from the East or the West on the moon's surface. Sometimes it runs contrary to RET.

The direction in which the shadow moves over the Moon is entirely dictated by observer position/geographical location

Physically, it moves from right to left behind the Earth (if viewed from a point between Earth and Sun), but observers on or close to the equator will see/saw the shadow move from top to bottom or vice versa, whereas those at the poles will see it move from L-R or R-L depending on which pole they are at.

Something that moves from East to West will not move from West to East from a different position.

East to West still needs to be defined. Which is the N pole of the Moon?  Is it supposed to be E to W from the perspective of Earth? I'm also still genuinely curious to see any evidence you have of the Eclipse NOT moving in the correct direction.

46

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 21, 2019, 04:30:10 AM »

If you do watch the eclipse, take note of whether it comes from the East or the West on the moon's surface. Sometimes it runs contrary to RET.

Source?

This is a misunderstanding on Tom's part. A number of us attempted to explain how it works, but I'm not sure he ever understood it or not. As of his last post in that thread he continued to state he didn't.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 10, 2019, 08:52:27 PM »

The phenomenon of the Lunar Eclipse is evidence that something is casting a shadow on it. If the light from the moon is coming from the sun, that body must be somwhere between the path of the moon and the sun. Since we can't see any body at night, it must be on the day side

Yes you are absolutely right Tom. I don't hesitate to agree with you when you say something that is true and this is one of those occasions. The body that you talk about is the Earth itself. Common sense tells you that and the fact that you only see a total lunar eclipse at the time of Full Moon when the Earth is directly between the Sun and the Moon is a big clue to that. The Moon enters the Earths shadow and hence the Earth casts its shadow on it.  Ancient astronomers and philosophers even realised that.

Please show us your model. Provide the Three Body Problem solution for the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

The Lunar Eclipse does not seem to work at all in the Round Earth model. Not only is it unable to be modeled, some of the things that occur do not appear to be physically possible for RET.

Here is one for you. The eclipse is occurring at sunrise during the selenelion eclipse:



In the video the shadow of the earth is obscuring the moon from the top down rather than the bottom up, contrary to what would be expected when the earth is passing between the moon and sun. The sun's light should be peeking over the earth's horizon and hitting the moon from the top down.

Draw a diagram. Show how this is possible to cast a shadow that moves in this way.



Where is the sun? Is the sun at A, B or C? If there is an explanation, show us how it works. If this diagram is flawed in any manner, show the correct one. It is difficult to see how any nitpicking about scale makes this possible.

Let's approach this from a different angle this time. What we need to visualize is the way the moon moves in relation to the Earth rotation and where the sun is. I'll make a small side note here, as this touches on a topic discussed elsewhere. If we were to watch this eclipse from the other side of the world (where the sun was setting) we would see exactly what you think we should be seeing here. This is because of globe nature of the Earth and how the moon shifts it's orientation to the horizon. We've touched on this before, so try and keep that at least somewhat in mind as we go forward here.

Whew, putting this together makes me wish I knew how to animate as it's gonna be rough trying to get this point across via text. But here goes. A rough sketch of the moon/Earth system. The arrows indicate the direction things are moving as we look down on it from Polaris. The Earth in blue rotates anticlockwise. The moon moves on it's orbital path anticlockwise. The whole system moves anticlockwise around the sun. This is what the arrows are for. The little red line is our viewer.



Now, as the Earth rotates around to bring the sun around to light up the horizon, and the moon sinks 'down' towards it's own horizon, the moon is moving along it's path as well. This brings it ever closer to the Earths shadow cast by the sun. If you notice, the shadow is 'above' the moon from the perspective of our red line. So as the moon moves into the shadow, it appears to creep from the top down. Again, if we were to watch this from the opposite side of the Earth we would watch the shadow move upwards from the bottom, as you no doubt expect it to.

This drawing clearly isn't to scale in any manner, I'm just hoping it can get the idea across. If I had any skills in animating I would take a swing at doing that, but alas.

EDIT: Oh, and as I know you're going to bring up the 'rising sun' bit, I'll reiterate the point from every single other time you bring this video up. The sun isn't actually risen by the time the video ends. Watch the water tower. No sunlight. This is during the 'twilight' period before the sun actually comes above the horizon, which can last for some time depending on the season. For example, today in Albuquerque twilight lasted approx. 1.5 hours.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 09, 2019, 02:24:14 PM »

I mean, can you present the equation that can be used? You're the claimant here that this is all based on simple patterns. I've done the best I can with the resources I have. I cannot figure out how to work out the durations from what I would call first principles, and you've offered nothing to assist. I'll revise to say I find it improbable it's entirely based on simply repeating patterns, but I'm not gonna spend more time on it unless I can locate CSV files for the Saros Cycles, and preferably some useful information on integrating them.

Can you show us the solution to the Three Body Problem that this is based on?

How does this have any relevance to whether you or I can work out an equation based on the information provided by the Saros Cycles?

Just look at what NASA provides.

Image from https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html



Direct link to larger image: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-big.JPG

Do you see any patterns here? The patterns in the above image are graphical and apparent. To continue the pattern one only needs to perform the same two right and four down pattern, or whatever it might be. No equations are necessary.

I see the appearance of a pattern, but no usable pattern that repeats itself, PLUS none of this helps indicate the DURATION of any of these occurrences. Which is what I have been moreso attempting to work with. If you can manage to find an actual pattern in this chart feel free to point it out. All I see is yet more evidence that a usable pattern/equation that you can use for more than one cycle, or construct with the first half of a cycle to predict the second half, is unlikely to exist. The human mind is great at trying to put together a pattern out of randomness. I hypothesize that's all that's going on when we're looking at the chart.That there isn't actually a pattern here, just the appearance that there *should* be one. Feel free to prove me wrong though. I'll happily attempt to apply anything you come up with against other sets of Saros cycles and report back.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Shape of the sun and moon

« on: January 09, 2019, 02:26:17 AM »

I've read through a lot of the wiki and other base line information, as well as some of the forums.  In FE theory, what shape does the sun, moon,  other planets take? Are they considered flat as well? Just trying to sort a few things out,  for my own understanding.

Thanks

Are you sure you've read through 'a lot' of the wiki? Planets are round as noted in the FAQ https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_the_planets_are_round.2C_why_isn.27t_the_Earth.3F
Sun and moon are round, as noted on their respective pages in the wiki. https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 08, 2019, 05:42:23 PM »

Tom likes to say it’s just patterns to predict eclipses both solar and lunar except he is missing the enormous flaw in FE wiki.  FET can’t even explain phases of the moon as seen for the entirety of the Earth.  Tom show me a diagram where a full moon (which is only time lunar eclipses happen) is even possible to be seen for everyone who can see the moon.

This is so incredibly basic that having this discussion about a relatively rare events compared to the daily events that FET has no explanation for is a little silly.

This isn’t even getting into Solar eclipses where the Moon would have to follow the same increasing and decreasing distances of the FE Sun and neither of those things happen by simple observation verified by their speeds not changing every single day.

FE perspective 'explains' the full moon thing. It sort of works, but I don't personally feel there's any evidence for it that doesn't rely on the preliminary assumption of the Earth being flat.

TBH there's a reason I was far more interested in poking at Lunar Eclipses. FE doesn't even have a map to use for the prediction of Solar Eclipse locations. I wasn't going to even think about digging into all of the issues there unless I could find a way to reliably/easily make predictions for the duration of Lunar Eclipses work. But I'm trying to figure them out using the base data, and it's not as easy as I was hopeful for tbh.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 08, 2019, 05:13:11 PM »

It sound like you have admitted that there are patterns in each series to itself, but that you were unable, for whatever the cause, to use that same pattern for another series.

Since you were able to find a pattern in the series, and that each series has patterns that predict what the future will be in that series, it seems to me the claim is verified.

I imagine that a good mathematician could find some sort of pattern between the first entry of series 1, 2, 3, etc, until they repeat again. In fact, since the eclipses repeat, we know that the first entry of series 2 will repeat, if we go through them all in sequential border, so there must be a pattern in some manner.

 3.. 78000... 23... 4... 78001... is a pattern.

Incorrect. I was unable to determine a workable pattern even for an individual series either. I.E. I could not find a way to construct an equation using any number of the first half or so of the set, that would then give me the numbers/information for the rest of the set. Is it possible that I would need to use the equation of a set, adjusted for the starting information in another set, and then I might be able to formulate decent ideas for what the rest of that second set contains? Yes. But I have at present been unable to do so. Although I also lack tools that would make that feasible in any kind of shorter time frame, and I'm not going to spend months going over these cycles on the chance I can make something work.

So because you can't do it, no one can, and therefore the claim is busted. I see.

I mean, can you present the equation that can be used? You're the claimant here that this is all based on simple patterns. I've done the best I can with the resources I have. I cannot figure out how to work out the durations from what I would call first principles, and you've offered nothing to assist. I'll revise to say I find it improbable it's entirely based on simply repeating patterns, but I'm not gonna spend more time on it unless I can locate CSV files for the Saros Cycles, and preferably some useful information on integrating them.

Can you show us the solution to the Three Body Problem that this is based on?

How does this have any relevance to whether you or I can work out an equation based on the information provided by the Saros Cycles?

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 08, 2019, 04:05:48 PM »

It sound like you have admitted that there are patterns in each series to itself, but that you were unable, for whatever the cause, to use that same pattern for another series.

Since you were able to find a pattern in the series, and that each series has patterns that predict what the future will be in that series, it seems to me the claim is verified.

I imagine that a good mathematician could find some sort of pattern between the first entry of series 1, 2, 3, etc, until they repeat again. In fact, since the eclipses repeat, we know that the first entry of series 2 will repeat, if we go through them all in sequential border, so there must be a pattern in some manner.

 3.. 78000... 23... 4... 78001... is a pattern.

Incorrect. I was unable to determine a workable pattern even for an individual series either. I.E. I could not find a way to construct an equation using any number of the first half or so of the set, that would then give me the numbers/information for the rest of the set. Is it possible that I would need to use the equation of a set, adjusted for the starting information in another set, and then I might be able to formulate decent ideas for what the rest of that second set contains? Yes. But I have at present been unable to do so. Although I also lack tools that would make that feasible in any kind of shorter time frame, and I'm not going to spend months going over these cycles on the chance I can make something work.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 08, 2019, 02:47:22 PM »

So you are looking to see how you work out the lengths of the penumbral and umbral parts of a lunar eclipse and also how you work out the length of totality is that right? What figures did Tom quote out of interest?

Been trying to find a way to use the duration of the parts of the eclipse to create an equation that would predict the duration of eclipses of other saros cycles (or honestly even just work to predict future ones in that cycle). Either via the lengths of penumbral/etc or via the given durations of the parts of the eclipse. I've just been using the 'raw' eclipse information from the various Saros cycles on NASA's website. f.e. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros001.html this is the relevant info for Saros 001.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 08, 2019, 02:27:18 PM »

Alright, I've worked the numbers regarding how long the parts of the Lunar Eclipse will last in every way I can, but I can't wring a pattern/equation that will reliably get me close to another series' numbers out of them. I'm neither a supercomputer, nor an expert on the topic, but I fail to see how Tom's claim that the duration of the eclipse is simply derived via working with patterns. I would love to see him validate his own claim however, assuming he even can. For now though as far as I'm concerned that idea is busted.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar spotlight

« on: January 07, 2019, 07:22:51 PM »

A step by step approach regarding the Sun might be better....


1.  Is the Sun a sphere?  If not, why not?
2.  Does light emanate from every surface of the Sun? If not, then explain...
3.  If a spherical Sun emanates light from all of its surface, why does it spotlight?

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Perspective according to one version of FE, electromagnetic acceleration according to another.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar spotlight

« on: January 05, 2019, 05:56:53 PM »

What makes you think you can see forever through the atmoplane of the earth, and infinitely across the earth? More to the point, if you can't see the sun, it can't see you.

The rays of the sun are projected onto the atmoplane, and you will see the apparent sun when the sun is close enough and the circular area of light passes over you.

I'm not sure it would work like that. Take a spotlight, for example. I can be standing in darkness yet still see the beams and the source. Like this:

http://www.tannerhiggin.com/summer11eng1c/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/147_spotlight_mine.png

If there is too much atmosphere between you and those light sources, when you are in the dark area and far from the sun, that might not apply. You are talking about hundreds or thousands of miles of atmosphere. The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent and builds up with distance.

Of interest, Wise has an interesting investigation on the other website that, during the day, not all of the light may not be coming from the direction of the sun, and has several examples.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66236.msg2110544#msg2110544

Whether it is some sort of perspective illusion, I could not say.

There is also this: https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?9059-For-those-who-claim-shadows-must-be-parallel

Like your image, and what wise is showing, the light seems to be coming across a band of space in the sky.

Just for the record your first photo set is a terrible one to attempt to base an argument on for FE. Google Earth street view? Really? Have you ever walked around in street view? They use fisheye lenses to capture greater than a 360 degree view around the car/vehicle so a computer can then stitch together and attempt to smooth out the images. There tend to be distortions that only get more so as you move away from the center of frame. Heck, I've seen distortions of known objects in the middle of the frame. This seems to be a poor choice to try and base such an analysis on.

For your second it definitely doesn't show anything like "the light seems to be coming across a band of space in the sky." That would produce shadows that would get wider as you got towards the top. Even FE shouldn't be ready to agree with what is shown in this image. There's only a single sun ever visible in the sky. This suggest 7 different suns, each one affecting just 1 of the posts. This photo is quite likely doctored. The shadows don't even appear to maintain the same ratio to the height of their post, suggesting the light shining on each one is at a different height as well.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 04, 2019, 12:37:40 AM »

Take a look at Saros Series 1

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros001.html

The first entry and second entry are 18 years apart from each other in 2570 BC and then 2552 BC. Those eclipses down that list are the ones which repeat.

Look down the Gamma field column. Those numbers gradually lessen in interger. Penn Magg gradually increases in interger. Um. Mag lessens in interger.

To find the pattern in a series of increasing or decreasing numbers like that there are tools to turn it into a polynomial equation.

Yes, the Eclipses that occur under a single Saros Cycle start with a Penumbral Eclipse, progress through partial, total, partial, and back to penumbral ones again before ending the cycle. I've run a number of these through a tool to make them into an equation. They've returned what I would best describe as 'gobbledegook' in terms of an equation. Essentially creating a unique equation specifically to link those points that has little bearing to the equation of any other Saros cycle. The only 'reliable pattern' that I have so far determined is the duration between each eclipse in a cycle. But I have yet to figure out any manner by which to determine something more granular about a specific eclipse outside of this using only information from other eclipses. I also haven't found anything online yet about creating an equation specifically in this manner.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 03, 2019, 09:40:38 PM »

So, some information provided by Tom in another thread really got me thinking last night. He said roughly that the sun projects itself onto the atmoplane a bit like a projector for the FE hypothesis. So what we see isn't in fact the actual sun. Thinking about this, it presents a few issues for how FE currently presents its idea. First off, it means FE has no actual idea on the size of the sun. If all we're seeing is a projection, we can't know the actual size of the sun based on that. The same obviously goes for the moon and other celestial bodies. Secondly, by extension we don't know the actual height of the sun or moon. We know this 'atmoplane' should be roughly 3000 miles up. But the height of the actual sun/moon? Completely unknown. So, we've now thrown two important factors out the window in regards to what? Eclipse prediction.

Since this would mean FE can't possibly create a model for the celestial objects to assist with predicting eclipses, they must rely completely upon their being reliable patterns in the Saros cycles. It's been Tom's claim for some time now that eclipse predictions are all based on patterns anyway. Lets try and put this to the test.

I decided to focus on Lunar Eclipses, since that would eliminate the need to explore at least one bit of data (namely *where* they occur would be a touch less impactful) too thoroughly. So, I pulled up the data for some lunar eclipses on NASA's website. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEdecade/LEdecade2001.html Plenty of easy links to other resources from there. As you can no doubt see though, there seems to be little help in looking at just a decade or two of eclipses. Clearly we need something else to look for patterns. Oh, Saros Cycles! Those things claimed to be how all predictions are made! Let's go take a look!

I started by grabbing the cycle that will have this years big upcoming eclipse in it, which happens to be cycle 134. The easiest pattern to spot from just a single Saros Cycle is that they appear to follow a sort of 'curve' where they start with very minor penumbral eclipses, move up to total eclipses, then slide back down to penumbral eclipses. That's good! Clearly there IS a pattern going on here. Now, can we get more granular?

This is about where my solo attempts to glean info started running into problems. Perusing that single Saros Cycle there doesn't appear to be any pattern to things like duration or magnitude. Time to look further afield! Thankfully NASA has a handy bit of info at the top of each Saros Cycle page, so we can take a look at that to start, and move forward from there. I looked over that starting info on each of 10 consecutive Saros Cycles. I've got nothing. Granted, I'm not looking even at quite 10% of the total Saros Cycles we have identified, but I can't find any sort of pattern here with regards to: Total number of eclipses, number of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, ratio of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, duration of longest or shortest eclipse. Now I don't have the familiarity with a program that I could run to help me look for patterns, but by napkin math I'm not seeing any sort of pattern that could be used here to replicate the precision being offered by these predictions.

I know we're a bit away from the original question, but how does or would an FE predict anything but the periodicity of these eclipses? I'm not seeing any sort of pattern to their duration, or similar. Obviously we have the time between them, but I'm unable to locate any other pattern that could be used. Perhaps someone else might be able to?

The eclipses repeat themselves every 18 and such years. Looking at a conseucive series of 10 or 20 eclipses might not suggest a patten. It follows from the Saros Cycle that there would be patterns by looking at the ones that are 18 years + n eclipses later

I didn't look at a series of 10 or 20 eclipses. I looked at 10 different consecutive Saros Cycles, looking for any sort of reliable pattern within the cycle or between the cycles. The cycles held between 71 and 82 eclipses in them. I could find no pattern among them that would appear to indicate how many would be in a cycle. I saw no discernable pattern that would indicate what percentage Total/Partial/Penumbral eclipses would occur of the number of total eclipses in the cycle. I could see no pattern indicating a guide to discern how long the longest/shortest eclipse would be for that cycle. If you have a suggestion for how to attempt to glean an actual pattern out of them beyond the Saros Cycles, I'm all ears. Or a suggestion on how to setup an Excel sheet (or similar program) to make it easier that would also be great. But as is I am unable to locate anything suggesting a pattern to the more granular eclipse predictions set forth by NASA.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 03, 2019, 07:28:23 PM »

A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.

In an attempt to revert back to basics about lunar eclipses, this extract from FE Wiki should make it clear that the satellite of the Sun or 'shadow object' they refer to is in fact the Earth.

The Earth is not a satellite of the sun under the FE hypothesis though? You're drawing an incorrect conclusion at best here. The Earth is does in no way orbit the sun under FE.

The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

This sentence should be deleted because it is factually wrong.  For the reasons explained in my previous post. You are standing on the thing that is causing the shadow!

See above. The Earth is not a satellite of the sun.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse

« on: January 03, 2019, 02:42:36 PM »

So, some information provided by Tom in another thread really got me thinking last night. He said roughly that the sun projects itself onto the atmoplane a bit like a projector for the FE hypothesis. So what we see isn't in fact the actual sun. Thinking about this, it presents a few issues for how FE currently presents its idea. First off, it means FE has no actual idea on the size of the sun. If all we're seeing is a projection, we can't know the actual size of the sun based on that. The same obviously goes for the moon and other celestial bodies. Secondly, by extension we don't know the actual height of the sun or moon. We know this 'atmoplane' should be roughly 3000 miles up. But the height of the actual sun/moon? Completely unknown. So, we've now thrown two important factors out the window in regards to what? Eclipse prediction.

Since this would mean FE can't possibly create a model for the celestial objects to assist with predicting eclipses, they must rely completely upon their being reliable patterns in the Saros cycles. It's been Tom's claim for some time now that eclipse predictions are all based on patterns anyway. Lets try and put this to the test.

I decided to focus on Lunar Eclipses, since that would eliminate the need to explore at least one bit of data (namely *where* they occur would be a touch less impactful) too thoroughly. So, I pulled up the data for some lunar eclipses on NASA's website. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEdecade/LEdecade2001.html Plenty of easy links to other resources from there. As you can no doubt see though, there seems to be little help in looking at just a decade or two of eclipses. Clearly we need something else to look for patterns. Oh, Saros Cycles! Those things claimed to be how all predictions are made! Let's go take a look!

I started by grabbing the cycle that will have this years big upcoming eclipse in it, which happens to be cycle 134. The easiest pattern to spot from just a single Saros Cycle is that they appear to follow a sort of 'curve' where they start with very minor penumbral eclipses, move up to total eclipses, then slide back down to penumbral eclipses. That's good! Clearly there IS a pattern going on here. Now, can we get more granular?

This is about where my solo attempts to glean info started running into problems. Perusing that single Saros Cycle there doesn't appear to be any pattern to things like duration or magnitude. Time to look further afield! Thankfully NASA has a handy bit of info at the top of each Saros Cycle page, so we can take a look at that to start, and move forward from there. I looked over that starting info on each of 10 consecutive Saros Cycles. I've got nothing. Granted, I'm not looking even at quite 10% of the total Saros Cycles we have identified, but I can't find any sort of pattern here with regards to: Total number of eclipses, number of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, ratio of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, duration of longest or shortest eclipse. Now I don't have the familiarity with a program that I could run to help me look for patterns, but by napkin math I'm not seeing any sort of pattern that could be used here to replicate the precision being offered by these predictions.

I know we're a bit away from the original question, but how does or would an FE predict anything but the periodicity of these eclipses? I'm not seeing any sort of pattern to their duration, or similar. Obviously we have the time between them, but I'm unable to locate any other pattern that could be used. Perhaps someone else might be able to?