[QED]

"Sergey N. Arteha is hardly a freshman physics student. Take a look at his biography."

I understand that he is not a freshman physics student. I am simply saying that he argues points which can easily be refuted by freshman physics students. You believe his arguments, and so this indicates, apparently, that you do not understand freshman physics. So why should anyone believe your claims/evaluations regarding physics?

This is not a good position to champion, Thomas. At some point, Sergey fell off the rail and started spouting nonsense. Do not follow if you wish to maintain credibility.

You are claiming that a Theoretical Physicist with a PhD and who is Deputy Chief of the Department of the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Science does not understand freshman physics?

This is what we call in the business: the fallacy of appeal to authority.

You see, I hold a PhD in physics too, and sustain a rather lucrative position in the US public sector. The RAS defines multiple degrees of membership. Not all of them equal, and not all of them recognized across the globe as reputable. This is Russia we are talking about here. There are no checks and balances, and everyone else besides them knows this.

Thomas, you are slipping.

I do not claim that this person misunderstands freshman physics. Again, I am stating that YOU do not understand it, and he is fooling you with easily disprovable claims.

What are you even talking about? You posted one of his sections and accused him of misunderstanding physics, and that even a freshman could see through it. Now you are claiming that he wrote a fake book to fool people?

You are making no sense at all.

I am not claiming this at all. I am simply saying that multiple formulae he presents are not even dimensionally justified. I have no idea why he would do this...it is not an evaluation of motive. It is an evaluation of basic physics. One cannot add 3 seconds to 5 meters and get a consistent result. Do you understand this example? Can you apply it to formulae he proposes?

How can you not see this?

I am shocked.

[juner]

It really is the most simple of questions and their inability/unwillingness to answer them that makes me wonder if this is actually Poe’s law at work.

If you whine to whine about FE, there is a forum for that. Keep it out of the FE fora. Warned.

[juner]

This is not a good position to champion, Thomas.

I specifically asked you to stop doing this after you got back from your previous ban. You are free to be a condescending douche in AR/CN, but keep it out of the upper fora. Since we are on ban #3, you can have a month off to review the rules. I will also be banning your alt permanently.

[Tom Bishop]

I guess this is more directed to Rama Set, or whomever, now:

The three body problem is indeed not solvable analytically...yet. We may need new mathematics to do so. It may be that we never find this...

Numerically, the three-body problem is trivial. We just make computers do it. They cannot provide a closed-form solution; a perfect mathematical solution. But that is okay, they can render numerical estimates that are demonstrably so close that we would never notice. Check this out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_simulation

We are well beyond three-body. We simulate millions of bodies!

Three Body simulations cannot do anything you want them to do. They must still obey the laws of the system. Poincare pointed out that they are very sensitive and limited.

From 'Mathematics Applied to Deterministic Problems in Natural Sciences' we read an account of Poincare's discoveries:

As Poincare experimented, he was relieved to discover that in most of the situations, the possible orbits varied only slightly from the initial 2-body orbit, and were still stable, but what occurred during further experimentation was a shock. Poincare discovered that even in some of the smallest approximations some orbits behaved in an erratic unstable manner. His calculations showed that even a minute gravitational pull from a third body might cause a planet to wobble and fly out of orbit all together.

Look into George Hill's work on the Three Body Problem and heliocentric orbits. When you add in a third mass to a two body system, it just goes crazy as the system attempts to kick out the smallest body, often tearing apart the system or destroying it in the process. The only way Hill was able to make any progress at all was by using the Restricted Three Body Problem. The Restricted Three Body Problem assumes that the mass of the moon is zero, and even then, the mass-less moon still goes crazy in its orbits around the earth. The only benefit of the Restricted Three Body Problem and the Mass-less moon is that the moon is no longer ejected from the system. It is confined to what is known as "Hill's Region".

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem



As seen above, even in this scenario the moon will go crazy and do random u-turns. If it were so easy to make the Sun-Earth-Moon system, in the above link we would be reading about a success story rather than an illustration of many problems and difficulties.

Poliastro, an astrodynamics software developer shared several Numerical Restricted Three Body Problem solutions (where the smaller body is assumed to be mass-less) as applied to the Sun-Earth-Moon system.

https://twitter.com/poliastro_py/status/993418078036873216

Look at this beautiful plot of several numerical methods for the restricted three body problem taken from Harier et al. "Solving Ordinary Differential Equations I". The use of high order Runge-Kutta methods is pervasive in Celestial Mechanics. Happy Monday!

Does this look anything like the Earth-Moon-Sun system in the heliocentric system?

See this article:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2148074-infamous-three-body-problem-has-over-a-thousand-new-solutions/

Infamous three-body problem has over a thousand new solutions

The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.

...

Perhaps the most important application of the three-body problem is in astronomy, for helping researchers figure out how three stars, a star with a planet that has a moon, or any other set of three celestial objects can maintain a stable orbit.

But these new orbits rely on conditions that are somewhere between unlikely and impossible for a real system to satisfy. In all of them, for example, two of the three bodies have exactly the same mass and they all remain in the same plane.

...

Knot-like paths

In addition, the researchers did not test the orbits’ stability. It’s possible that the tiniest disturbance in space or rounding error in the equations could rip the objects away from one another.

“These orbits have nothing to do with astronomy, but you’re solving these equations and you’re getting something beautiful,” says Vanderbei.

Aside from giving us a thousand pretty pictures of knot-like orbital paths, the new three-body solutions also mark a starting point for finding even more possible orbits, and eventually figuring out the whole range of winding paths that three objects can follow around one another.

“This is kind of the zeroth step. Then the question becomes, how is the space of all possible positions and velocities filled up by solutions?” says Richard Montgomery at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “These simple orbits are kind of like a skeleton to build the whole system up from.”

The paths they can make are very limited. They are self admittedly at the "zeroth step."

Here is an N-Body Orbit Gallery, which showcases the limited orbits that can be made, and which must assume that the bodies are of equal mass or mass-less.

http://rectangleworld.com/demos/nBody/

As we can see, the Three Body problem simulations and solutions can't simply "do anything." They have trouble simulating things with more than two bodies.

[Tom Bishop]

Here is a fun one from the last time we had this thread:



This is a Three Body Simulator Demo. Change the slider values very slightly and see what happens.

Only very specific and very sensitive configurations may exist. In this case we have three bodies of equal mass in a very specific orbit. The slightest deviation, such as with a system with unequal masses, or the minute influence from a gravitating body external to the system, will cause the entire system to fly apart! It's a demonstration of Chaos Theory. The slightest imperfection causes wide-spread instability and destruction.

This demo illustrates why Poincare said that the stable systems were so sensitive and limited, and why the Three Body Solutions don't really apply to anything in nature.

[Rama Set]

You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?

This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it.  Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth.  It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.

EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy.  Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about.  Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path.  None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.

The 3-Body problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.

At this point your opinion means little.  You have been pointed to multiple sources indicating that numerical solutions have been produced and are used, in practice to create, extremely accurate simulations.  Nasa cites it as the basis for their eclipse prediction using supercomputers, scientists refer to working solar system simulations that use numerical solutions. All you have pointed out is a paper produced by a high school competition.  I post this not for you, but for all the other readers who might consider taking you seriously

Feel free to point out on NASA's Eclipse Website where they are using a Three Body Problem solution, like I demonstrated how they are using the Saros Cycle solution.

Demonstrate rather than assert.

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

https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/how-do-computers-predict-eclipses

Demonstrated. You’ve had it demonstrated before too. Physicists explaining that there are simulations of the solar system that use numerical solutions to n-body problems. It’s astonishing that you fail to acknowledge this. It’s worse that other’s trust your critical mind.

[Tom Bishop]

You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?

This is absolutely correct, but Tom will never concede it.  Indeed, when NOAA talks about predicting solar eclipse paths, it specifically documents the process of applying coordinate transformations to eclipse predictions so that they are useful for every coordinate on Earth.  It's obvious that Tom's objection to astronomy is feeble, but he will never, ever concede a point.

EDIT: According to NASA, they use ephemerides and currently observed locations and velocity of the sun and moon. Plug them into numerical solutions of the 3-body problem and can thusly predict eclipses for 100s of years with a minute accuracy.  Literally no mention of Saros cycles, only mentions of the solutions to 3-body problems that Tom ostriches about.  Not only are they able to use this process to predict eclipse paths of totality with incredible accuracy, super accurate maps of the earth and moon are used to predict paths within 100m's of accuracy as well so that observers can observe exotic effects that only occur along the edge of the eclipse path.  None of this depends on Saros cycles, all of it depends on things Tom claims do not exist.

The 3-Body problem has never been solved. I disagree with that. The numerical simulations are very limited in what they can do.

At this point your opinion means little.  You have been pointed to multiple sources indicating that numerical solutions have been produced and are used, in practice to create, extremely accurate simulations.  Nasa cites it as the basis for their eclipse prediction using supercomputers, scientists refer to working solar system simulations that use numerical solutions. All you have pointed out is a paper produced by a high school competition.  I post this not for you, but for all the other readers who might consider taking you seriously

Feel free to point out on NASA's Eclipse Website where they are using a Three Body Problem solution, like I demonstrated how they are using the Saros Cycle solution.

Demonstrate rather than assert.

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

https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/how-do-computers-predict-eclipses

Demonstrated. You’ve had it demonstrated before too. Physicists explaining that there are simulations of the solar system that use numerical solutions to n-body problems. It’s astonishing that you fail to acknowledge this. It’s worse that other’s trust your critical mind.

I believe that is just a paragraph from the FAQ written by who-knows and for what-reason. There are few details.

Look where they redirect people some questions down in that same FAQ when they want to know when the eclipses will occur:

https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/faq

How many times will a total solar eclipse fall on my birthday?

Well…my birthday is November 23.  The last total solar eclipse on my birthday was in 2003. The next one is in the year 2337, followed by the years 2356 and 2728, so the intervals are 334 years, 19 years and 372 years. So depending on which part of the cycle you are on, you may either wait about 20 years or about 350 years for the next occurrence!  Check out the Five Millennium Canon of Eclipses to find the one nearest your birthday.  It is located at    https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html (link is external)

eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov is NASA's main eclipse predicting site.

This website explains that the eclipse prediction methods use are via the Saros Cycle: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

Count the number of times "Saros" appears. Many times. It's talking explicitly about the Saros cycle, not a computer model of the Three Body Problem.

If such real models exist, and is the method you assume is being used in astronomy, isn't it funny that NASA claims to be using a computer model and then sends people to their eclipse prediction page which goes to great lengths to describe a eclipse prediction method created by an ancient society of people who believed that the earth was flat?

From what I have read, the n-body problem, which was created with a goal of simulating the heliocentric solar system, is the greatest unsolved problem in physics, mathematics, and astronomy. It has has remained unresolved for hundreds of years. The solution would win a Nobel Prize.  Perhaps we should lobby NASA to release this wonder to the world.

[Rama Set]

I believe that is just a paragraph from the FAQ written by who-knows and for what-reason. There are few details.

It demonstrates the details you requested. What you believe is irrelevant.

Look where they redirect people some questions down in that FAQ when they want to know when the eclipses will occur:

https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/faq

How many times will a total solar eclipse fall on my birthday?

Well…my birthday is November 23.  The last total solar eclipse on my birthday was in 2003. The next one is in the year 2337, followed by the years 2356 and 2728, so the intervals are 334 years, 19 years and 372 years. So depending on which part of the cycle you are on, you may either wait about 20 years or about 350 years for the next occurrence!  Check out the Five Millennium Canon of Eclipses to find the one nearest your birthday.  It is located at    https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SEcatalog.html (link is external)

eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov is NASA's main eclipse predicting site.

Great. So what?

This website explains that the eclipse prediction methods use are via the Saros Cycle: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html

Count the number of times "Saros" appears. Many times. It's talking explicitly about the Saros cycle, not a computer model of the Three Body Problem.

It’s not odd that an article titled “Eclipses and the Saros” mentions the Saros cycle multiple times or that it details the method of determining of determining an eclipse with the Saros cycle.

Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?

If such real models exist, and is the method you assume is being used in astronomy, isn't it funny that NASA claims to be using a computer model and then sends people to their eclipse prediction page which goes to great lengths to describe a eclipse prediction method created by an ancient society of people who believe that the earth was flat?

We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.

On the other hand, you regurgitate badly presented 200 year-old pseudoscience on a regular basis. It’s no wonder you feel a closer kinship to Miles Mathis than Albert Einstein.

[Tom Bishop]

Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?

The Saros Cycle just tells you when the Lunar or Solar Eclipse will occur. That is not to say that the sun or the moon will actually be in the sky for you at that time. There is more or less a 50/50 chance.

In order to know if the sun or moon would be visible at that time, you would need to use another model.

During a Lunar Eclipse anyone who can see the moon in their sky will see the eclipse. During the Solar Eclipse, the eclipse is only visible from a smaller strip of land around the sun, and it would also be important to know where the sun is directly over the earth is in order to attempt a map of the strip.

We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.

There are no such similar messages on that eclipse predicting website. See the main page and resources page. It only ever talks about the Saros Cycle as the method.

If the Three Body Problem were solved, and if this were the method that was being used, is it not more reasonable that NASA would be talking about how they solved the famous Three Body Problem rather than going on and on on that website about an ancient method that is not in use?

What you are proposing seems a bit absurd. Numerous pages about the Saros Cycle, but not a word about how they are really predicting the eclipse.

[Tom Bishop]

Back to Cavendish:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

Gravity, one of the constants of life, not to mention physics, is less than constant when it comes to being measured. Various experiments over the years have come up with perplexingly different values for the strength of the force of gravity, and the latest calculation just adds to the confusion.

The results of a painstaking 10-year experiment to calculate the value of “big G,” the universal gravitational constant, were published this month—and they’re incompatible with the official value of G, which itself comes from a weighted average of various other measurements that are mostly mutually incompatible and diverge by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties.

The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”

In fact, the discrepancy is such a problem that Quinn is organizing a meeting in February at the Royal Society in London to come up with a game plan for resolving the impasse. The meeting’s title—“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”—reveals the general consternation.

Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.”

This inherent difficulty has caused big G to become the only fundamental constant of physics for which the uncertainty of the standard value has risen over time as more and more measurements are made. “Though the measurements are very tough, because G is so much weaker than other laboratory forces, we still, as a community, ought to do better,” says University of Colorado at Boulder physicist James Faller, who conducted a 2010 experiment to calculate big G using pendulums.

...

“Either something is wrong with the experiments, or there is a flaw in our understanding of gravity,” says Mark Kasevich, a Stanford University physicist who conducted an unrelated measurement of big G in 2007 using atom interferometry. “Further work is required to clarify the situation.”

If the true value of big G turns out to be closer to the Quinn team’s measurement than the CODATA value, then calculations that depend on G will have to be revised. For example, the estimated masses of the solar system’s planets, including Earth, would change slightly. Such a revision, however, wouldn’t alter any fundamental laws of physics, and would have very little practical effect on anyone’s life, Quinn says. But getting to the bottom of the issue is more a matter of principle to the scientists. “It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved,” he adds. “We should be able to measure gravity.”

The last sentence implies that they cannot measure gravity or are having a lot of trouble doing so.

[Rama Set]

Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?

The Saros Cycle just tells you when the Lunar or Solar eclipse will occur. That is not to say that the sun or the moon will actually be in the sky for you at that time. There is a 50/50 chance.

In order to know when the sun and moon will be visible for whom, you would need to use another model.

So the Saros cycle is insufficient to predict an eclipse with anything approaching the accuracy we see. God we agree.

During a Lunar Eclipse anyone who can see the moon in their sky will see the eclipse. During the Solar Eclipse, the eclipse is only visible from a smaller strip of land around the sun, and it would be important to know where the sun over the earth is in order to attempt a map of the strip.

We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.

There are no such similar messages on that eclipse predicting website. See the main page and resources page. It only ever talks about the Saros Cycle as the method.

If the Three Body Problem were solved, and this the method that was being used, is it not more reasonable that NASA would be talking about how they solved the famous Three Body Problem rather than going on on that website about an ancient method that is not in use?

What you are proposing seems a bit absurd. Numerous pages about the Saros Cycle, but not a word about how they are really predicting the eclipse.

I literally showed you a site where NASA said they were using Newtonian Mechanics to make predictions. I also pointed out that predictions were made using two separate computational theories in their catalogues. It is cited in their catalogues. You can keep denying but you look sillier every time.

[Curious Squirrel]

Furthermore, the article never says that the saros is what is used by NASA. In fact, when you look at their catalog of eclipse predictions you see that it uses VSOP87 for the sun’s coordinates and ELP2000/82 theory for the Moon’s coordinates. One might wonder why this is needed if they were using The Saros and not a computational model?

The Saros Cycle just tells you when the Lunar or Solar Eclipse will occur. That is not to say that the sun or the moon will actually be in the sky for you at that time. There is more or less a 50/50 chance.

In order to know if the sun or moon would be visible at that time, you would need to use another model.

During a Lunar Eclipse anyone who can see the moon in their sky will see the eclipse. During the Solar Eclipse, the eclipse is only visible from a smaller strip of land around the sun, and it would also be important to know where the sun is directly over the earth is in order to attempt a map of the strip.

We’ve already seen that you have misrepresented the information on that site. Indeed I’ve demonstrated (not asserted) that they use a computational model to carry out their predictions. The theories are cited in the catalog whereas Saros cycles are not. Unfortunately for you, Astronomy is incredibly substantial and not regurgitation of ancient knowledge.

There are no such similar messages on that eclipse predicting website. See the main page and resources page. It only ever talks about the Saros Cycle as the method.

If the Three Body Problem were solved, and if this were the method that was being used, is it not more reasonable that NASA would be talking about how they solved the famous Three Body Problem rather than going on and on on that website about an ancient method that is not in use?

What you are proposing seems a bit absurd. Numerous pages about the Saros Cycle, but not a word about how they are really predicting the eclipse.

Do you just forget the bottom of the page every time? How can I point this out to you literally every time you try and bring this nonsense in, yet you persist in peddling it? Both of those pages have this at the bottom:

"All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy. Some of the information presented on this web site is based on data originally published in Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035, Fifty Year Canon of Lunar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035, Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 , Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000, Five Millennium Canon of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 , and Five Millennium Catalog of Lunar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000.

Permission is freely granted to reproduce this data when accompanied by an acknowledgment:

"Eclipse Predictions by Fred Espenak, NASA/GSFC Emeritus"

For more information, see: NASA Copyright Information."

If we go to the page for Five Millenium Catalog of Solar Eclipses we see a bunch of stuff talking about Saros Cycles, followed by the header "Predictions" whereupon it is plainly stated the following:

"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]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002).

The largest uncertainty in the eclipse predictions is caused by fluctuations in Earth's rotation due primarily to tidal friction of the Moon. The resultant drift in apparent clock time is expressed as ΔT and is determined as follows:

pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)
1955-present: ΔT obtained from published observations
future: ΔT is extrapolated from current values weighted by the long term trend from tidal effects
A series of polynomial expressions have been derived to simplify the evaluation of ΔT for any time from -1999 to +3000. The uncertainty in ΔT over this period can be estimated from scatter in the measurements."

NASA's eclipse predictions are not based upon the Saros cycle. It is simply a handy tool to know approximately when to 'dial in' to look for the next eclipse if you must. Or a neat thing for the layman to know about, as it's more easily understood than the physics and math behind the two primary calculations for where things are.

[Tom Bishop]

Fred Espenak

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Espenak

He was employed at Goddard Space Flight Center, where he used infrared spectrometers to measure the atmosphere of planets in the Solar System.[3] He provided NASA's eclipse bulletins since 1978. He is the author of several canonical works on eclipse predictions, such as the Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986–2035 and Fifty Year Canon of Lunar Eclipses: 1986–2035,[1] both of which are standard references on eclipses.[

His wiki page says that he provided NASA's eclipse bulletins since 1978. The page also says that he is known as "Mr. Eclipse."

http://www.mreclipse.com/Totality3/TotalityApG.html

NASA astronomer Fred Espenak and Canadian meteorologist Jay Anderson publish special NASA bulletins for each major eclipse of the Sun. Produced through NASA's Reference Publication (RP) series, the eclipse bulletins are prepared in cooperation with the Working Group on Eclipses of the International Astronomical Union and are provided as a public service to both the professional and lay communities, including educators and the media. Each eclipse bulletin is a complete reference for a specific eclipse and contains detailed predictions, tables, maps, and weather prospects.

He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.

[Tom Bishop]

"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]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002).

The largest uncertainty in the eclipse predictions is caused by fluctuations in Earth's rotation due primarily to tidal friction of the Moon. The resultant drift in apparent clock time is expressed as ΔT and is determined as follows:

pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)
1955-present: ΔT obtained from published observations
future: ΔT is extrapolated from current values weighted by the long term trend from tidal effects
A series of polynomial expressions have been derived to simplify the evaluation of ΔT for any time from -1999 to +3000. The uncertainty in ΔT over this period can be estimated from scatter in the measurements."

NASA's eclipse predictions are not based upon the Saros cycle. It is simply a handy tool to know approximately when to 'dial in' to look for the next eclipse if you must. Or a neat thing for the layman to know about, as it's more easily understood than the physics and math behind the two primary calculations for where things are.

We just read that NASA's Eclipse Bulletins are coming/came from Fred Espenak.

We need another calculator to know the coordinates of the sun and moon in order to know if they will be in the sky at the time of the eclipse.

[stack]

He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.

Apparently your statement is false.

From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)

In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"
 
ALGORITHMS, EPHEMERIDES AND PARAMETERS

Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.

The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/19940510/text/ephemerides.html

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

You can't predict where to observe the eclipse from, nor the extent to which you will see the eclipse, without applying some globe geometry. Can you?

If you can identify the pattern, you can predict anything.

What's the pattern, then, to two eclipses proceeding NW to SE, one going SW to NE, and others following opposite semi-circular patterns to the North? And bear in mind these are only the eclipses passing over North America, there's more variation in those hitting other parts of the world.

How would this apply to a flat earth as opposed to a globe? What would cause the eclipse to describe these varying shapes, other than the motion of the moon's shadow across a curved surface, and the increase in angle the further North having more influence on the movement of the shadow?

[Ofcourseitsnotflat]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

[Curious Squirrel]

"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]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002).

The largest uncertainty in the eclipse predictions is caused by fluctuations in Earth's rotation due primarily to tidal friction of the Moon. The resultant drift in apparent clock time is expressed as ΔT and is determined as follows:

pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)
1955-present: ΔT obtained from published observations
future: ΔT is extrapolated from current values weighted by the long term trend from tidal effects
A series of polynomial expressions have been derived to simplify the evaluation of ΔT for any time from -1999 to +3000. The uncertainty in ΔT over this period can be estimated from scatter in the measurements."

NASA's eclipse predictions are not based upon the Saros cycle. It is simply a handy tool to know approximately when to 'dial in' to look for the next eclipse if you must. Or a neat thing for the layman to know about, as it's more easily understood than the physics and math behind the two primary calculations for where things are.

We just read that NASA's Eclipse Bulletins are coming/came from Fred Espenak.

We need another calculator to know the coordinates of the sun and moon in order to know if they will be in the sky at the time of the eclipse.

I have no idea what you're attempting to say here, other than seeming to dodge the point that we've just shown you NASA's future eclipse predictions are NOT based upon simply the Saros cycle as you've claimed repeatedly. Will you finally admit you are wrong on this? Or do we have to run around in circles for a few more pages and not get anywhere like every other time?

[MCToon]

Reading this thread on eclipse prediction I think there is agreement on these two things:

1. The day of an eclipse *can* be predicted using Saros cycles.
2. Saros cycles do not predict the exact locations on earth where an eclipse will be seen, this requires complicated calculations.

Am I correct?  Is there agreement on these two items?

[AATW]

Where have you proven him wrong on anything he has ever said? You have not shown or demonstrated anything.

You're right. I can't prove that Stephen Hawking wasn't really replaced by an impostor years ago.
Because I can't prove a negative.
I'd suggest however that it's a pretty extraordinary claim which requires some pretty extraordinary evidence.
The burden of proof is very much on him and all he's come up with is a load of supposition and allegation.

And sure, it could be that all the other crazy shit he believes is wrong (John Lennon faked his own death was a good one) and he just happens to be right about the Cavendish experiment.
But has his paper about that been published in a serious scientific journal? Has it been peer reviewed?
If not and, as I suspect, is only on his own website then he's just another crazy person who before the internet would have been shouting crazy things on a street corner. Now he's shouting them across the internet but that doesn't give him any credibility. Anyone can set up a website and use it to pontificate.

What are his credentials which mean he should be taken seriously on this subject?
Has his paper about this been peer reviewed and published in any serious scientific forum?
It is telling that I have posted a video about the Cavendish experiment several times and this is the first attempt I've seen from any FE person at a refutation and it comes from a person whose jam seems to be to claim that most of mainstream science is incorrect and whose ideas have not been accepted by any serious scientist as far as I know. It is either confirmation bias writ large or just trolling that you try and use this as a serious refutation of it.

Why are you more credible than he is?

Because I don't believe all this crazy shit
https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/conspiracy-theories/