The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: modera on April 22, 2021, 11:53:32 AM
-
I do not understand why people can predict when lunar eclipse or solar eclipse happen. What method do they use to predict?
-
They use the Saros cycle. A repeating pattern that tells you when the next eclipse will happen. Earth doesn't need to be round for that and no round earth maths are used.
Saros Cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy))
-
They use the Saros cycle. A repeating pattern that tells you when the next eclipse will happen. Earth doesn't need to be round for that and no round earth maths are used.
Saros Cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy))
How would you go about predicting the start of a Saros series?
-
They use the Saros cycle. A repeating pattern that tells you when the next eclipse will happen. Earth doesn't need to be round for that and no round earth maths are used.
Saros Cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy))
How would you go about predicting the start of a Saros series?
I don't need to. The Babylonians have already done it for me.
It is a repeating pattern. If I get an eclipse over London ... I know in 6585.3211 days I'm going to get a near identical one. Job done.
-
They use the Saros cycle. A repeating pattern that tells you when the next eclipse will happen. Earth doesn't need to be round for that and no round earth maths are used.
Saros Cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy))
How would you go about predicting the start of a Saros series?
I don't need to. The Babylonians have already done it for me.
It is a repeating pattern. If I get an eclipse over London ... I know in 6585.3211 days I'm going to get a near identical one. Job done.
Do you refer to lunar eclipse or solar eclipse?
-
Maybe click the link he gave you?
-
Maybe click the link he gave you?
From this website, it says 91 years.
https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/eclipses
Solar Eclipses in the UK
Last UK total solar eclipse
11 August 1999
Next UK total solar eclipse
23 September 2090
-
They use the Saros cycle. A repeating pattern that tells you when the next eclipse will happen. Earth doesn't need to be round for that and no round earth maths are used.
Saros Cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy))
How would you go about predicting the start of a Saros series?
I don't need to. The Babylonians have already done it for me.
It is a repeating pattern. If I get an eclipse over London ... I know in 6585.3211 days I'm going to get a near identical one. Job done.
Sort of, but not quite.
Solar eclipses are not visible in the same location after one Saros period - they shift by 8 hours, or 120 degrees of longitude, so if your London eclipse was solar, you'd have to travel 8 hours west to see the next one from that cycle. So if you wait three full cycles the eclipse will be back where it started, roughly speaking. Lunar eclipses are different - if the moon remains above the horizon, then a lunar eclipse will be visible from the same location after the next cycle. That's all in the link you provided us with.
There are, however, many active Saros cycles at any one time. This website says it's 40 at present - sounds about right - https://www.solar-eclipse.info/en/saros/ (https://www.solar-eclipse.info/en/saros/).
The reason that the next total solar eclipse in London is out of sync with the Saros period (see Modera's post) is because Saros cycles include both partial and total eclipses, so the previous and next total eclipses at the same location aren't necessarily from the same series. The last total London eclipse was from series 145, whereas the next one is from series 155, hence the 91 year gap.
The next problem you have is that cycles are finite - they begin and end. So, if your eclipse in London was the last of a cycle, you won't have one anywhere on the planet from that series in one Saros' time. We therefore need some way of calculating when cycles will begin and end. To make things worse, there is no discernible pattern to them - whilst the period between eclipses in any series is roughly constant, the total number and type of eclipses in each series (partial or total) vary significantly, meaning the frequency of eclipses at any one time varies - unless you know all the active cycles, you can't say when the next eclipse anywhere on earth will be. So you need to be able to predict series starts and ends.
NASA, and other RE believers, use solar and lunar ephemerides derived from orbital models, using various levels of sophistication (the NASA website cites the VSOP87 model for the sun and the ELP-2000/82 for the moon, but plenty of others are out there, all with varying strengths and weaknesses) to predict eclipses and Saros series with remarkable accuracy.
So, my question again: how would you go about calculating the start of a new Saros cycle? Or indeed the end of a current one?
-
NASA, and other RE believers, use solar and lunar ephemerides derived from orbital models, using various levels of sophistication (the NASA website cites the VSOP87 model for the sun and the ELP-2000/82 for the moon, but plenty of others are out there, all with varying strengths and weaknesses) to predict eclipses and Saros series with remarkable accuracy.
Total horse manure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse#:~:text=Christopher%20Columbus%2C%20in%20an%20effort,29%20February%20in%20the%20Americas).
^No NASA. Just used historical tables ... from which you can determine the cycles. That's it. No round earth voodoo going on.
So, my question again: how would you go about calculating the start of a new Saros cycle? Or indeed the end of a current one?
There is no start or end. They are perpetual. One after another after another. They began when God said "let there be light" and they'll stop when God declares the end of the world.
-
NASA, and other RE believers, use solar and lunar ephemerides derived from orbital models, using various levels of sophistication (the NASA website cites the VSOP87 model for the sun and the ELP-2000/82 for the moon, but plenty of others are out there, all with varying strengths and weaknesses) to predict eclipses and Saros series with remarkable accuracy.
Total horse manure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse#:~:text=Christopher%20Columbus%2C%20in%20an%20effort,29%20February%20in%20the%20Americas).
^No NASA. Just used historical tables ... from which you can determine the cycles. That's it. No round earth voodoo going on.
So, my question again: how would you go about calculating the start of a new Saros cycle? Or indeed the end of a current one?
There is no start or end. They are perpetual. One after another after another. They began when God said "let there be light" and they'll stop when God declares the end of the world.
Follow your own link. Note the box on the side where it says 'Saros cycle 105, 53 of 74'. Click on that link. Note how that cycle began in 566AD and ended in 1864. How would you have worked that out from your ancient tables?
Are you suggesting that there aren't multiple saros series active at any one time?
-
Well when the one in 566 appeared I'd remark ... whoa ... a new cycle. This must be the start of one. ::)
There is no round earth NASA maths involved in following these patterns. Its not that complicated and hardly proves the earth isn't flat.
-
Saros might tell you when, but tells you nothing about where, how long, how the speed of the eclipse shadow varies over different areas of the planet, how wide the path of totality will be, how much less of the eclipse you will see if not on the path of totality, etc. etc.
This all fits in with globe mechanics.
-
Saros might tell you when, but tells you nothing about where, how long, how the speed of the eclipse shadow varies over different areas of the planet, how wide the path of totality will be, how much less of the eclipse you will see if not on the path of totality, etc. etc.
This all fits in with globe mechanics.
Prove it. Predict the next eclipse with your magic maths. No tables. Use magic NASA maths to predict the next eclipse. I trust they somehow solved the 3 body problem and didn't tell anybody. ::)
Its all done with tables.
-
Saros might tell you when, but tells you nothing about where, how long, how the speed of the eclipse shadow varies over different areas of the planet, how wide the path of totality will be, how much less of the eclipse you will see if not on the path of totality, etc. etc.
This all fits in with globe mechanics.
Prove it. Predict the next eclipse with your magic maths. No tables. Use magic NASA maths to predict the next eclipse. I trust they somehow solved the 3 body problem and didn't tell anybody. ::)
Its all done with tables.
You don't have to analytically solve the 3 body problem, or indeed the n-body problem, in order to model it numerically. That's equally true of numerous partial differential equation problems - it's true, for example, of turbulent, compressible airflow over an aircraft wing. We can't solve the equations, but we can model the flow well enough to make good aircraft. As I said above, the NASA website Saros cycles are derived from a couple of ephemeris models, the basis of which are published and well reviewed. You can drill into a wide range of ephemeris models online - there's even some on GitHub which you can see the code for and play with yourself. There's no smoke or mirrors, or indeed hidden tables.
Well when the one in 566 appeared I'd remark ... whoa ... a new cycle. This must be the start of one. ::)
There is no round earth NASA maths involved in following these patterns. Its not that complicated and hardly proves the earth isn't flat.
That sounds very much like you've changed your position - well done - so you now accept that there isn't just one series of Saros-period separated cycles of eclipses, but rather multiple series that have finite and variable durations.
But the problem then is: if it's all done with tables, which table would have predicted, for example, the first eclipse from Saros series 156 on 1 July 2011, or could predict the start of the next new series, 157, on 21 June 2058? The start of 156 did not come as a surprise to anybody - it was predicted well in advance. I'm pretty confident that 157 will start as advertised as well, although I may not be around to verify it.
Again, NASA did it and does it with ephemeris data for the positions of the earth, moon and sun - they rinse through the data and look for occasions when the 3 line up and accurately predict position, time and nature of each eclipse.
-
Predict the next eclipse with your magic maths. No tables. Use magic NASA maths to predict the next eclipse. I trust they somehow solved the 3 body problem and didn't tell anybody. ::) Its all done with tables.
Already done, most recently for the Great American Eclipse, where the eclipse path tracked from Oregon to ... Louisiana, I think.
It was all there in the lead-up, predicted down to the last detail, with hosts of diagrams and page upon page of text telling the public what to expect. You could see how the speed of the shadow varied according to which part of the globe it was hitting. How the fall-off occurred for those outwith the path of totality. Etc etc
Far more detail than simply predicted a date in a calendar.
-
You're all saying the same thing.
You BELIEVE NASA has cracked the maths. You're not interested in looking at the maths. You've no idea what the maths entails or how it works. But you're convinced it exists and must therefore, despite not solving the n body problem, do so based on round earth maths and definitely not tables but you won't show me a shred of evidence to back your point.
Now I showed you proof you can predict eclipses with the saros cycle. I showed the Columbus historical example. We're all good for a way to predict if the earth is flat. You are trying to say there is no way to accurately do this unless you assume the earth is round ... but not one of you will show how or present evidence. Just saying "It has been done by NASA" isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid. NASA tell lies.
-
You BELIEVE NASA has cracked the maths. You're not interested in looking at the maths. You've no idea what the maths entails or how it works. But you're convinced it exists ...
Because the predictions all came true, in every respect.
Not a single person reported that the Great American Eclipse did not occur, nor that it differed in any significant way from what was predicted.
It was all laid out in advance. "Go here, at this time, this is what you will see, this is how long it will last".
And that's what happened. Didn't it?
As an aside, I've been through a big chunk of the maths and geometry involved. When the whole "the eclipse shadow is moving the wrong way" thing came up, I worked through it and satisfied myself it was moving the right way, and that NASA was not lying about this.
Look at the time intervals shown here, and how the eclipse shadow covers less surface distance in the middle of its transit, and more toward the outer edges; this variance is totally consistent with the shadow, moving in a linear fashion across the part of space occupied by the Earth, varying in speed across the surface of the Earth due to the global shape.
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/2017_eclipse_globe-370x360.jpg)
-
You're not giving me anything a saros cycle chart wouldn't.
-
You're not giving me anything a saros cycle chart wouldn't.
Show us how the Saros cycle would have predicted the change in length of the shadow's ground path in the 10mins between 17.00 to 17.10, and 18.20 to 18.30.
Or how the Saros cycle shows the location from which to view.
-
You're not giving me anything a saros cycle chart wouldn't.
Still waiting for you to explain how you would use a saros cycle chart to predict the start of a new saros series, like the one I mentioned in 2011, or the one that hasn’t happened yet in 2058.
-
Predict the next eclipse with your magic maths. No tables. Use magic NASA maths to predict the next eclipse. I trust they somehow solved the 3 body problem and didn't tell anybody. ::) Its all done with tables.
Already done, most recently for the Great American Eclipse, where the eclipse path tracked from Oregon to ... Louisiana, I think.
It was all there in the lead-up, predicted down to the last detail, with hosts of diagrams and page upon page of text telling the public what to expect. You could see how the speed of the shadow varied according to which part of the globe it was hitting. How the fall-off occurred for those outwith the path of totality. Etc etc
Far more detail than simply predicted a date in a calendar.
Who said anything about a calendar? They created tables ... and with those tables they could build computers.
Antikythera Mechanism
The ancient Greeks built a machine that can predict, for many years ahead, not only eclipses but also a remarkable array of their characteristics, such as directions of obscuration, magnitude, colour, angular diameter of the Moon, relationship with the Moon’s node and eclipse time. It was not entirely accurate, but it was an astonishing achievement for its era.
This computer was all done with gearing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism#Gearing
Exactly as flat earth describes the clockwork universe.
Thanks for playing. ;)
-
So the for the next eclipse in north america... where should I go, what time will the eclipse start, when (and for how long) will the totality hit, how wide will the shadow be, and how long will it last?
-
So the for the next eclipse in north america... where should I go, what time will the eclipse start, when (and for how long) will the totality hit, how wide will the shadow be, and how long will it last?
I don't know. I don't own an antikythera mechanism. Honestly, I don't even have my own ironing board right now.
But if you have 440 Euros, you can find out for yourself.
https://www.kotsanasmuseumshop.com/en/shop/108-antikythera-mechanism-replica-2nd-c-bc
-
Thork - you still haven’t addressed how you could predict the start of a new saros series using your tables, or an antikythera mechanism if you’d prefer.
-
Thork - you still haven’t addressed how you could predict the start of a new saros series using your tables, or an antikythera mechanism if you’d prefer.
???
The saros cycle isn't the only cycle eclipses use, that tables predict or indeed the antikythera machine can predict.
Below is an eclipse table.
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-small.JPG)
The resulting Saros-Inex Panorama proved useful in organizing eclipses. For instance, one step down in the panorama is a change of one Saros period (6585.32 days) later, while one step to the right is a change of one Inex period (10571.95 days) later. The rows and columns were then numbered with the Saros and Inex numbers.
Very convenient in the classification of eclipse cycles. Inex series, after a sputtering beginning, go on for many thousands of years giving eclipses every 29 years or so. One inex after an eclipse, another eclipse takes place at almost the same longitude, but at the opposite latitude. So just because my saros cycle ran out, I can still move a column to the right and pick up a different cycle to see where this next eclipse is coming from and restart my saros cycles from there.
There are others too: the Tritos (11 years, 1 month), the Metonic Cycle (19 years), the Exeligmos (triple Saros).
all tables, all known for thousands of years, all helping us predict eclipses.
Now, with your round earth hokum ... demonstrate how YOU would predict a new saros cycle. You seem so adamant that NASA aren't using these tables that do it for them ... show the special maths they use referring to how round the earth must be, to predict this new cycle. And when you can't, don't change the subject. You're in check ... its mate in one.
-
... show the special maths they use referring to how round the earth must be, to predict this new cycle.
Reply #16 above. Observe how the distance travelled by the shadow in each half hour increment varies according to where it falls, increasing toward the outer edges. Exactly as would be expected by a shadow moving at linear speed, falling upon a sphere.
Predicting dates will not show this.
-
Thork - you still haven’t addressed how you could predict the start of a new saros series using your tables, or an antikythera mechanism if you’d prefer.
???
The saros cycle isn't the only cycle eclipses use, that tables predict or indeed the antikythera machine can predict.
Below is an eclipse table.
The resulting Saros-Inex Panorama proved useful in organizing eclipses. For instance, one step down in the panorama is a change of one Saros period (6585.32 days) later, while one step to the right is a change of one Inex period (10571.95 days) later. The rows and columns were then numbered with the Saros and Inex numbers.
Very convenient in the classification of eclipse cycles. Inex series, after a sputtering beginning, go on for many thousands of years giving eclipses every 29 years or so. One inex after an eclipse, another eclipse takes place at almost the same longitude, but at the opposite latitude. So just because my saros cycle ran out, I can still move a column to the right and pick up a different cycle to see where this next eclipse is coming from and restart my saros cycles from there.
There are others too: the Tritos (11 years, 1 month), the Metonic Cycle (19 years), the Exeligmos (triple Saros).
all tables, all known for thousands of years, all helping us predict eclipses.
Now, with your round earth hokum ... demonstrate how YOU would predict a new saros cycle. You seem so adamant that NASA aren't using these tables that do it for them ... show the special maths they use referring to how round the earth must be, to predict this new cycle. And when you can't, don't change the subject. You're in check ... its mate in one.
Well, first of all, congratulations on learning some stuff - you've progressed from thinking that it was all just Saros periods and that the cycles went on for ever uninterrupted.
Now we're into Inex cycles. Again, great, you're learning stuff. But if you're going to quote websites, you need to read and understand everything that's going on, not just the first bit you find that matches your preconceptions. That Saros-Inex panorama is a brilliant piece of work, but as the website you yourself got it from (there's a pattern developing here, isn't there?) points out, whilst it has some useful predictive power, and it's helpful in understanding eclipse timings, it has many limitations. You can see just by looking at it that whilst there is a general pattern, the individual cycles are irregular, which limits their predictive power. Again, from your link: No single Inex-Saros combination meets all three criteria, but there are periods that do a reasonably good job for any one of them.
And then a little later: 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.
An enormous Saros-Inex panorama has been produced by Luca Quaglia and John Tilley in the form of a Microsoft Excel file. It shows 61,775 solar eclipses over a 26,000-year period from -11,000 to +15,000 organized by Saros and Inex Series.
So I guess your contention is that every ephemeride is in fact secretly using tabular data built from cycle periods, and not the gravity/orbital mechanics models they claim to be. Aside from the fact that your own source points out inaccuracies and limitations of just using tables, let's drill into ephemerides and their use a little deeper.
So, you asked for how to make predictions...here's an example that compares two ephemerides, DE200 and DE405 for accuracy.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjzgdmftpbwAhULesAKHZd0BJMQFjABegQIBRAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournal.walisongo.ac.id%2Findex.php%2Fahkam%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5036%2F2796&usg=AOvVaw3M8VLR1bh6BnuHOL3w492p (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjzgdmftpbwAhULesAKHZd0BJMQFjABegQIBRAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fjournal.walisongo.ac.id%2Findex.php%2Fahkam%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F5036%2F2796&usg=AOvVaw3M8VLR1bh6BnuHOL3w492p)
There's pretty good detail on how to analyse the data and extract eclipse instances from the raw position data.
So that's half the battle, but of course you could argue that the ephemeris itself is just cyclical tables and not actually an orbital mechanics model (although as a flat earther you should be wondering how the eclipses match so perfectly with a model that is based on spherical bodies in alignment...).
If you're interested, there's a lifetime's worth of reading on what goes into an ephemeris model. Here's a detailed description of some of the measurement data that went into one of them, DE405, for example:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120220062549/http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/de405iom/de405iom.pdf (https://web.archive.org/web/20120220062549/http://iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/de405iom/de405iom.pdf)
They are enormously complex. I suppose that the people who put that together are either in on the conspiracy, or they are genuine? The bizarre insistence that their usage of numerical methods to generate model data as evidence of fraud or invalidity that seems to pop up on this site from time to time is just plain weird - just because a set of PDEs can't be solved analytically doesn't mean they aren't correct. Indeed, having created a set of solutions it's possible to back-test the data against the original equations, and to run other tests such as energy conservation (poor solutions add or lose energy over time, which can't happen).
You're in check ... its mate in one.
I think this is the problem, neatly summed up in one short line. Good scientist shift their position on new evidence. I don't consider this to be a game of win or lose. I'm not trying to defeat you, whereas you appear to consider this to be a case of picking a side and defending it, regardless of all evidence. It's ok, in fact it's positively fantastic, to change your position. Go ahead, read some stuff, and learn.
-
Well, first of all, congratulations on learning some stuff - you've progressed from thinking that it was all just Saros periods and that the cycles went on for ever uninterrupted.
Now we're into Inex cycles. Again, great, you're learning stuff.
That's as far as I read. How about you learn some manners?
-
Well, first of all, congratulations on learning some stuff - you've progressed from thinking that it was all just Saros periods and that the cycles went on for ever uninterrupted.
Now we're into Inex cycles. Again, great, you're learning stuff.
That's as far as I read. How about you learn some manners?
My congratulations were genuine. Apologies if you inferred something else.
-
... show the special maths they use referring to how round the earth must be, to predict this new cycle.
Reply #16 above. Observe how the distance travelled by the shadow in each half hour increment varies according to where it falls, increasing toward the outer edges. Exactly as would be expected by a shadow moving at linear speed, falling upon a sphere.
Predicting dates will not show this.
I already answered this at the top of the page.
-
I already answered this at the top of the page.
You appear to address only the last sentence of my previous point, so IMHO, you did not answer this, but ... hey-ho.
-
... show the special maths they use referring to how round the earth must be, to predict this new cycle.
Reply #16 above. Observe how the distance travelled by the shadow in each half hour increment varies according to where it falls, increasing toward the outer edges. Exactly as would be expected by a shadow moving at linear speed, falling upon a sphere.
Predicting dates will not show this.
I already answered this at the top of the page.
I have to agree with Tumeni here. You haven't even come close to answering the question. All you've done is claim it can be done using tables and cite the Antikythera machine which, whilst being an amazing feat of invention and mathematics, doesn't actually work all that well, as the quote you yourself posted acknowledges. Moreover, it has absolutely no hope whatsoever of being able to predict eclipses to the level of precision and reliability that can be achieved by analysing ephemeris data in the way I showed in response to your 'check mate' questions.
-
The bigger problem with FE eclipse is not predicting them but what they look like.
Here's a snippet of the path of the Dec. 4 2021 eclipse. You can view the animation here: https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2021-december-4
(https://i.imgur.com/uIJSqwU.png)
At the time of the fullest eclipse, the sun and moon are over the Indian ocean at approximately the red X. This can be determined using Suncalc.org and Mooncalc.org and entering the coords. -23.2 Lat. 58.5 Long. and adjusting to time 11:34 UTC+4.
So the first question is how the Sun and Moon crossing at that location can cast a shadow so far west.
If you watch the animation the path of the moon's shadow is travelling east to west. How can the sun, approaching and then crossing over the moon, not cause the shadow to travel east to a point at the same longitude of the sun and moon at the time of the crossing and then have the shadow travel further east?