Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
"Peer review"? Since when has anything FE been peer reviewed? Please, do show me the peer-reviewed FE science. (And when you say Rowbotham, do explain how his flowery, random unfounded assertions-filled rantings about steam holding up the oceans and whatnot, were ever "peer-reviewed".) I thought you guys were anti-peer-review? What with your "sacred text", and massive global scientific conspiracy theory.
So it seems that Mr Bishop will accept the dusty old writings of some explorer in the 16th century - but will not accept any modern information. This is a very strange position to assume.
It sounds unnecessarily dodgy to me? If you think those predictions are false, just say so? If you except them, then we can move on. I guess I was assuming what time it is around the world was excepted along with our ability to know those times going forward at least a few months.
How about this:
On either equinox, at the equator, when the sun rises, it will be almost directly east of the observer.
Can you get on board with that? Anyone?
Interesting you would say "rise" and "set" and I was attempting to cover "ranges through the year" with Plus or minus for time of year. But I think that was basically us agreeing?
At any rate, we can just pick an equinox so it's as close to directly East as it can be.
So if your standing on the equator in Quito, Ecuador, on 9/21/2017 at 6:04AM(GMT-5) Sunrise.
Closest city I could find to having the sun at it's zenith, on the equator (64 km = 40 miles away) is Makokou, Ogooue-Ivindo, Gabon (0°34′25″ N, 12°51′51″ E) where it would be 12:04PM
Any issue with any of these fagcts?
If that were the case the sun would be visible from all points on earth all the time... no? In the spot light model painted by the wiki.The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.
And how is it impossible for the sun to be seen from both poles at some point in the bipolar model?
"The coordinates of the Sun used in these eclipse predictions have been calculated on the basis of the VSOP87 theory constructed by Bretagnon and Francou (1988) at the Bureau des Longitudes, Paris."
"For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of Chapront-Touzé and Chapront (1983), again of the Bureau des Longitudes."
The section says nothing about the coordinates of the sun or moon being used to predict when the eclipse will occur.
lol that's literally exactly what it says. like, almost word-for-word. you keep quoting this bit, but you don't seem to understand that it supports my argument. elp-2000 is an ephemeris. this literally says "we used two ephemerides to predict eclipses: vsop87 and elp-2000." not "we used saros cycles to predict these eclipses."
The accuracy of the eclipse maps depends principally on two factors. The first is the rigorousness of the solar and lunar ephemerides used in the calculations (Sect. 1.3). The Moon’s close proximity to Earth coupled with its relatively low mass, results in orbital perturbations that make the Moon’s position far more difficult to predict compared to the Sun’s position.
The sun being visible from both poles can be explained in RET because in Spring and Autumn the earths tilt is tangential to its orbital path. This means it does not appear tilted relative to the sun and neither pole would be in the earths shadow.
you obviously just did a search for the word saros, found it, and moved on. you keep making the same mistake of taking "here is some information about saros cycles" to mean "saros cycles are the only way to predict when and where an eclipse will occur." the section you quote absolutely does not say that saros cycles "explain how the Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses was made." literally none of the sources you or i have provided have said anything like that.
"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 are still of great value in understanding the periodicity and frequency of eclipses."
the five millennium canon is exactly that. check my last post. i even pointed you to an open source python program that does this.
so, just to be clear, you're acknowledging that these predictions are based on tables of coordinates of the sun and moon as described by these two ephemerides, yes? doesn't that kind of undercut your argument that they're based on saros cycles?
hill's lunar theory addresses the latter point. it's true, but some special cases are tractable and equations of motion can be derived. the e-m-s system is close enough that semi-analytic solutions can be found and used to construct a table of positions for the moon over some period of time.
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].
1.2.2 Saros Series Number
Each eclipse belongs to a Saros series (Sect. 4.2) using a numbering system first introduced by van den Bergh (1955). This system has been expanded to include negative values from the past, as well as additional series in the future. The eclipses with an odd Saros number take place at the ascending node of the Moon’s orbit; those with an even Saros number take place at the descending node.
The Saros is a period of 223 synodic months, or approximately 18 years, 11 days, and 8 hours. Eclipses separated by this period belong to the same Saros series and share very similar geometry and characteristics.
No - but other occasions when the sun is visible from both poles simultaneously DO occur every spring and summer.
We're standing in the center of your newly-found continent of Antarctica on midsummer day (Dec 21st) - the sun orbits all around us and is continually visible. At some point therefore, it must be closer to the ice-wall (I want to say the "south" - but in this map, that's tricky terminology) than Antarctica...right?
This happens when it is noon at some point on the planet. Precisely where is hard to say...but it's always noon SOMEWHERE.
So - according to this new and exciting version of FET - the sun is both someplace between the continent of antarctica and the ice wall AND vertically above some place on the equator.
You want to take a shot at where that is?
Maybe get a copy of your map and put a nice red dot where you think the sun must be...I'd love to see that.
There are two magnetic and celestial poles in the most modern Flat Earth model. See The Sea Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions in our literature repository.
So you are saying the sun rotates around both poles? How is that possible?
The midnight sun of the north and south does not occur simultaneously.
Agree. But please explain how Antarctica could have 24-hour sunlight without messing up the day/night cycle in the rest of the world. Given that FE says the sun revolves around the North Pole.
QuoteIf you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.
The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?
This post proves to me you are a troll. Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.
Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.
As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north. Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent. It proves nothing.
Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.
Tom-
That is exactly the point.
The length of the coast line of Antartica is known to be about 11,000 Miles.
There is ample evidence and proof of this.
Unless all photographs, maps, geodesic surveys, etc. of Antarctica are fakes.
But there is absolutely no evidence nor proof of a so-called "ice wall" that would have to be 78,000 miles in circumference.
The only "flat earth model" I have seen is the well known Unipolar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection (of the globe) with all of its distortion.
That ice berg isn't even part of the coastline.
Notice the gap.
It has broken away from the coastline.
If I might be pardoned for saying so......
Tom, I think you may have just shot yourself in the foot.
My condolonces.
Of course that is just my "IMHO".
