The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bad Puppy on January 01, 2019, 01:45:48 AM
-
NASA and other RE proponents are expecting a red total lunar eclipse on January 20, beginning at 11:41ET and lasting for just over an hour. This is some precise prediction. From the FE perspective, do you believe it's possible to make such a prediction with this accuracy when the cause of such an event is a mysterious black sun? If it's not the black sun or other mysterious object, please correct me.
According to https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2019-january-21 (https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2019-january-21), at the moment of the peak of the eclipse, the entire blood moon will be visible at the same moment from all of North America, South America, some western countries in Africa, Ireland, Norway, and parts of Russia.
How is this possible on a flat earth for all of these places to observe this event at the same time in its entirety?
-
RE is using ancient pattern-based methods to predict the eclipse, not a round earth or solar system model. Go over to NASA's eclipse website and count how many times the Saros Cycle is mentioned, and then count how many times the Three Body Problem is mentioned.
-
RE is using ancient pattern-based methods to predict the eclipse, not a round earth or solar system model. Go over to NASA's eclipse website and count how many times the Saros Cycle is mentioned, and then count how many times the Three Body Problem is mentioned.
Your reply has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not you think it's possible to make this prediction on a flat earth.
It also has nothing to do with how a total lunar eclipse would be visible at the same time from all the locations mentioned in my original post.
-
With respect to Toms beliefs and reliance on ancient patterns etc etc, modern astronomical predictions including those of eclipses are made based on (in no small part) Keplers laws of planetary motion and calculations using gravity. I know his way of looking at these sorts of events means he can't accept such an approach so I shall leave him to make his own interpretations on that.
For the rest of us the eclipse will occur at the moment when the Moon enters the Earths shadow. This occurs when the elongation of the Moon w.r.t the Sun is near 180 degrees. Exact timings of the eclipse for the parts of the world that can see the eclipse will vary locally due to the Earths rotation.
I see the Jan 2019 total lunar eclipse will be visible across the Americas and W Europe. That is good because it means I will see it. Total eclipse means that the Moon passes through the umbral or central, darkest region of the Earths shadow. The changes in the Moons appearance are very subtle in real time so detecting the start of the eclipse is not easy!
-
RE is using ancient pattern-based methods to predict the eclipse, not a round earth or solar system model. Go over to NASA's eclipse website and count how many times the Saros Cycle is mentioned, and then count how many times the Three Body Problem is mentioned.
This is unquestionably incorrect and total denial from you to say so. A member of the NASA eclipse prediction team has directly refuted these tired canards. Please, all readers, ignore it.
-
RE is using ancient pattern-based methods to predict the eclipse, not a round earth or solar system model. Go over to NASA's eclipse website and count how many times the Saros Cycle is mentioned, and then count how many times the Three Body Problem is mentioned.
This is unquestionably incorrect and total denial from you to say so. A member of the NASA eclipse prediction team has directly refuted these tired canards. Please, all readers, ignore it.
He didn't didn't deny using the Saros Cycle.
Did you perform the count as I suggested?
-
I'll help you.
Google search term: "saros" site:https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/
13,700 results.
Google search term: "three body" site:https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/
One result--
"The distance of apogee does not vary by much month to month although the value of perigee can change quite a bit. Minimum vs. maximum apogee is a 0.6% spread and minimum vs. maximum perigee is a 3.9% spread. If Newton couldn't solve the three-body problem I certainly can't"
-
RE is using ancient pattern-based methods to predict the eclipse, not a round earth or solar system model. Go over to NASA's eclipse website and count how many times the Saros Cycle is mentioned, and then count how many times the Three Body Problem is mentioned.
This is unquestionably incorrect and total denial from you to say so. A member of the NASA eclipse prediction team has directly refuted these tired canards. Please, all readers, ignore it.
He didn't didn't deny using the Saros Cycle.
Did you perform the count as I suggested?
It's not relevant, so if you don't know you can just say so. You obviously didn't read my OP. Read it carefully and you'll see "from the FE perspective". Don't go tossing the Saros Cycle in there as if it has any relevance to a flat earth, because it doesn't....unless you're willing to admit the the Earth comes between the sun and the moon....and that the Earth isn't flat.
I'd love to see your explanation of the last question on my OP. Indulge me.
-
Don't go tossing the Saros Cycle in there as if it has any relevance to a flat earth, because it doesn't....unless you're willing to admit the the Earth comes between the sun and the moon....and that the Earth isn't flat.
I would suggest looking at what the Saros Cycle is.
From NASA's eclipse website: "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
-
Don't go tossing the Saros Cycle in there as if it has any relevance to a flat earth, because it doesn't....unless you're willing to admit the the Earth comes between the sun and the moon....and that the Earth isn't flat.
I would suggest looking at what the Saros Cycle is.
Yup. Still doesn't change anything. So, you can't explain why the blood moon will be visible in its entirety at the same time from all of North America, South America, some western countries in Africa, Ireland, Norway, and parts of Russia.
Here's a really rough coverage of where the blood moon will be full (bad photoshop skills). Where will the sun and the moon be at that time?
(https://i.imgur.com/O4EMnWa.png)
-
The lunar eclipse is a shadow on the moon and will be visible to anyone who can see the moon.
-
Don't go tossing the Saros Cycle in there as if it has any relevance to a flat earth, because it doesn't....unless you're willing to admit the the Earth comes between the sun and the moon....and that the Earth isn't flat.
I would suggest looking at what the Saros Cycle is.
From NASA's eclipse website: "The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
Tom, would you care to explain how Saros can predict the precise geometry of an eclipse?
-
You can use a moon calculator to figure out who can see the moon at the time in question, or you can figure it out for yourself that China can see the moon when you can't.
-
The lunar eclipse is a shadow on the moon and will be visible to anyone who can see the moon.
What's the source of the shadow?
-
You can use a moon calculator to figure out who can see the moon at the time in question, or you can figure it out for yourself that China can see the moon when you can't.
Isn't Saros supposed to be able to tell you who can see the eclipse and when? How about the timing and visibility of the different stages of the eclipse?
-
Isn't Saros supposed to be able to tell you who can see the eclipse and when? How about the timing and visibility of the different stages of the eclipse?
Saros just tells you when the eclipse will occur. You will need another method if you want to know if the moon is visible to you at that time. The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon.
The different attributes of the eclipse can be broken out with further pattern analysis. Look at the end of the Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm) for pattern-based equations for the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse.
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
-
Isn't Saros supposed to be able to tell you who can see the eclipse and when? How about the timing and visibility of the different stages of the eclipse?
Saros just tells you when the eclipse will occur. You will need another method if you want to know if the moon is visible to you at that time. The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon.
The different attributes of the eclipse can be broken out with further pattern analysis. Look at the end of the Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm) for pattern-based equations for the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse.
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
This is very interesting, Tom. And this "probably a satellite" would do what exactly to cause this shadow to completely obscure the moon to ALL of the observers in two continents? What would you expect its size to be? Or its orbit around the sun?
-
Isn't Saros supposed to be able to tell you who can see the eclipse and when? How about the timing and visibility of the different stages of the eclipse?
Saros just tells you when the eclipse will occur. You will need another method if you want to know if the moon is visible to you at that time. The Lunar Eclipse is visible to anyone who can see the moon.
Ah, so Saros is not the be-all-end-all of eclipse prediction? Good to know.
The different attributes of the eclipse can be broken out with further pattern analysis. Look at the end of the Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm) for pattern-based equations for the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse.
Do you mean the round earth equations that Rowbotham presented?
"TO FIND THE TIME, MAGNITUDE, AND DURATION OF A LUNAR ECLIPSE.
"Let A, B, R, (in the following diagram) be a section of the
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/15500.jpg)
earth's shadow at the distance of the moon; S, n, the path described by its centre, S, on the ecliptic; M, n, the relative orbit of the moon; M, n, S, n, being considered straight lines. Draw S, o, perpendicular to S, n, and S, m, to M, n; then o, and m, are in the places, with respect to S, of the moon in opposition, and at the middle of the eclipse.
-
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.
-
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.
Is Rowbotham's notion of a 'lunar eclipsor' based solely upon his belief that the earth is flat/sun & moon rotating above the disk and therefore it can't cast the shadow? Or is there some other observation(s) that confirmed for him this lunar eclipsor exists?
-
A number of modern astronomical sources, the BAA handbook included provides eclipse timings accurate to minutes. This applies to any eclipse visible over the course of many years to come. Not so much in the case of a lunar eclipse but in the case of a total solar eclipse, totality lasts only minutes and so you need a very accurate prediction about exactly when this is going to occur and where.
Given that these predictions are always exactly right, why would you need to use any other methods of prediction for eclipses other than the information provided? For example I know that on 21st January from my location the beginning of the eclipse will start (penumbral phase) at 2.36am with totality lasting from 4.41am through to 5.43am with the eclipse ending finally at 7.48am. So that is a period of just over 5 hours.
I don't understand the problem. The information is out there and readily available.
-
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
How does the sun have a satellite if gravity doesn't exist?
-
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.
But, but, but, there isn’t even a FE map to make a prediction on to. How can any of this work without a map? And wait, is Rowbotham using Euclidean geometry? When did he prove that it works? Doesn’t Euclid, in your view, require the existence of infinities? Let us know which way it actually is, so that one of your other contrarian arguments can be refuted.
-
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
The Sun has many satellites Tom. We call them planets, asteroids, comets and dwarf planets. AKA the Solar System.
-
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.
Interesting. I would have thought that knowing the sizes and relative distances of the sun, moon and "lunar eclipsor" would be pretty important in calculating the size of the shadow and thereby the duration of the eclipse.
-
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
How does the sun have a satellite if gravity doesn't exist?
Apparently celestial gravitation does exist, but terrestrial gravitation doesn't exist. And before you ask why celestial objects can have gravity but the flat earth can't, just remember that the flat earth is not a celestial object and therefore does not need to obey the same rules as celestial objects.
-
The only thing that seems to be consistent about FET is how inconsistent it is. Not a great start when it comes to explaining something that has been around for as long as the Earth has (how long is that exactly in FET) and been working the same way for most if not all of that time.
Never ceases to amaze me the exotic ways in which they try to explain straightforward observations.
-
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
How does the sun have a satellite if gravity doesn't exist?
Apparently celestial gravitation does exist, but terrestrial gravitation doesn't exist. And before you ask why celestial objects can have gravity but the flat earth can't, just remember that the flat earth is not a celestial object and therefore does not need to obey the same rules as celestial objects.
Yes, I did look at the Wiki page about that. It says
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation
So it's one of the FE fudges used to try and explain certain things, I guess it could be used to explain how objects orbit one another.
-
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.
On a round Earth the Earth is between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse, therefore the the lunar eclipsor is visible on the entire visible surface of the moon. You're right, Tom. It fits perfectly.
You still haven't explained what causes earth's shadow, the lunar eclipsor, to appear on the moon. Are you suggesting that there is a celestial body - let's call it "Sun" - directly under the flat earth - I'll call it Earth for short - casting a shadow of said disk (or disc) on the moon?
-
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.
On a round Earth the Earth is between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse, therefore the the lunar eclipsor is visible on the entire visible surface of the moon. You're right, Tom. It fits perfectly.
You still haven't explained what causes earth's shadow, the lunar eclipsor, to appear on the moon. Are you suggesting that there is a celestial body - let's call it "Sun" - directly under the flat earth - I'll call it Earth for short - casting a shadow of said disk (or disc) on the moon?
Frankly, a shadow object magically appearing just in time to cause eclipses makes more sense then the Moon chasing the Sun in narrowing and widening circles speeding up for six months then slowing down back and forth back and forth. For the moon to cause a solar eclipse it would have to pass just underneath it, why wouldn’t we get all kinds of different views of such an event? We would be incredibly lucky they never collided since they are so close to us... Really, the shadow objects with invisible properties the rest of the time are more likely then the near Sun/Moon chasing each other as far as I am concerned.
-
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 (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros134.html). 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?
-
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 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!
-
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.
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
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 (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros134.html). 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
-
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 (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros134.html). 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.
-
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.
-
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.
In that case FE hypothesis, as well as in many other aspects of its beliefs is wrong.
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh? What do you mean? ???
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh? What do you mean? ???
The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
-
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.
-
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.
The automated tools will usually return gobeldy-gook equations. One would need to interpret it by hand to create better ones.
Per those equations only being applicable to that series it is from, that may be a valid method that is performed.
-
The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
Do you have any evidence we can examine regarding this claim?
-
On the subject of the Solar Eclipse, I find the following to be interesting:
On the globe the paths look rather odd:
http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html
(http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome_files/FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png)
On the Flat Earth map the paths seem to be perfect arcs:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm (p. 113)
(https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/images/i137.jpg)
Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.
Text: 71. Future eclipses.—An eclipse map of a different kind is shown in Fig. 36, which represents the shadow paths of[Pg 114] all the central eclipses of the sun, visible during the period 1900-1918 A. D., in those parts of the earth north of the south temperate zone. Each continuous black line shows the path of the shadow in a total eclipse, from its beginning, at sunrise, at the western end of the line to its end, sunset, at the eastern end, the little circle near the middle of the line showing the place at which the eclipse was total at noon. The broken lines represent similar data for the annular eclipses. This map is one of a series prepared by the Austrian astronomer, Oppolzer, showing the path of every such eclipse from the year 1200[Pg 115] B. C. to 2160 A. D., a period of more than three thousand years.
Then there's this meme thing:
(https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/img_4863.jpg?w=1800&h=1800)
-
On the subject of the Solar Eclipse, I find the following to be interesting:
On the globe the paths look rather odd:
http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome.html
(http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/Welcome_files/FiftyYearsOfEclipses.png)
I'll take a wild guess at this, but I welcome a RE expert to chime in and correct my guesses if wrong. The orange line in the arcs show the path of the total solar eclipse, and the yellow border around it would be the partial eclipse. As the moon orbits the earth on a different inclination than the earth orbits the sun, the path would not be a perfect arc for the period of the eclipse because the inclinations of the orbits of the moon/earth and earth/sun are different.
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh? What do you mean? ???
The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions. Please elaborate.
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh? What do you mean? ???
The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions. Please elaborate.
The daylight sky blots out the celestial bodies near the sun during the day, preventing us from seeing any stars or other celestial bodies near the sun. However, there is no sky between the sun and the moon.
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh? What do you mean? ???
The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions. Please elaborate.
The daylight sky blots out the celestial bodies near the sun during the day, preventing us from seeing any stars or other celestial bodies near the sun. However, there is no sky between the sun and the moon.
How do we know there's no sky between the moon and the sun on a flat earth?
-
How do we know there's no sky between the moon and the sun on a flat earth?
Because there is evidence that the atmosphere decreases in pressure with altitude.
-
How do we know there's no sky between the moon and the sun on a flat earth?
Because there is evidence that the atmosphere decreases in pressure with altitude.
But zetetically, according FET, we've never been that high up, or even close to get a reading that atmospheric pressure has, in fact, decreased to the point where it's not longer sky. This seems to fall more in the FET bucket that the answer is unknown.
-
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.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon? If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh? What do you mean? ???
The atmolayer is on the surface of the earth, not in space between the sun and the moon.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers either of my questions. Please elaborate.
The daylight sky blots out the celestial bodies near the sun during the day, preventing us from seeing any stars or other celestial bodies near the sun. However, there is no sky between the sun and the moon.
Which brings us back to my question: since it can't be seen, what empirical evidence do you have that the shadow object exists and orbits near the sun?
-
On the Flat Earth map the paths seem to be perfect arcs:
What flat earth map? You keep saying there isn't one.
-
Lets just be clear about the difference between the term sky and the term atmosphere as some here seem to be unclear about that difference.
The sky is everything we see above our heads. That means everything which is above the horizon. The horizon marks the boundary between the sky and the ground.
The atmosphere (or atmoplane, atmolayer if you prefer to call it that) is a layer or several layers of air that exists from the ground level up to about 100,000ft or so. When we look into the sky we are looking through these layers of air which are transparent. The sky is NOT the same as the atmosphere as some here seem to think.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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... 17... 78001... is a pattern.
-
I would assume Tom that since lunar eclipses have been happening for a very long time and for the same reasons then each event is going to be very similar. That qualifies as a form of pattern to me. How that relates to FE theory I'm not sure.
-
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.
-
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.
Can you show us the solution to the Three Body Problem that this is based on?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Can you show us the solution to the Three Body Problem that this is based on?
Straw-man fallacy - you're attacking someone who is not part of the conversation. We cannot show you the solution to the Three Body Problem that this is based on, because we are not privy to that information. I can however provide you with many case solutions to 3-Body Problems and well as a method to mostly solve the Sun-Earth-Moon problem, it's only failure being the inability to provide perfect values into the infinite future.
Known solutions to 3-Body Problems:
In 1767, Leonhard Euler found three families of periodic solutions in which the three masses are collinear at each instant.
In 1772, Lagrange found a family of solutions in which the three masses form an equilateral triangle at each instant.
In work summarized in 1892–1899, Henri Poincaré established the existence of an infinite number of periodic solutions to the restricted three-body problem.
In 1911, William Duncan MacMillan found one special solution and in 1961, Sitnikov improved this solution, to the Sitnikov problem.
In 1967 Victor Szebehely and coworkers established eventual escape for the Pythagorean three-body problem using numerical integration, while at the same time finding a nearby periodic solution.
In the 1970s, Michel Hénon and Roger A. Broucke each found a set of solutions that form part of the same family of solutions: the Broucke–Henon–Hadjidemetriou family.
In 1993, a solution with three equal masses moving around a figure-eight shape was discovered by physicist Cris Moore.
In 2013, physicists Milovan Šuvakov and Veljko Dmitrašinović at the Institute of Physics in Belgrade discovered 13 new families of solutions for the equal-mass zero-angular-momentum three-body problem.
The general case of the three-body problem does not have a known solution and is addressed by numerical analysis approximations.
In many cases such a system can be factorized, considering the movement of the complex system (planet and satellite) around a star as a single particle; then, considering the movement of the satellite around the planet, neglecting the movement around the star. In this case, the problem is simplified to two instances of the two-body problem. The effect of the star on the movement of the satellite around the planet can then be considered as a perturbation. The general statement for this three-body problem is as follows.
At an instant in time, for vector positions xi and masses mi, three coupled second-order differential equations:
x ¨ 1 = − G m 2( x 1 − x 2/ | x 1 − x 2 | 3 )− G m 3( x 1 − x 3/ | x 1 − x 3 | 3)
x ¨ 2 = − G m 3 (x 2 − x 3 /| x 2 − x 3 | 3 )− G m 1 (x 2 − x 1 /| x 2 − x 1 | 3)
x ¨ 3 = − G m 1 (x 3 − x 1 /| x 3 − x 1 | 3 )− G m 2 (x 3 − x 2 /| x 3 − x 2 | 3)
The time evolution of the system is believed to be chaotic. The use of computers, however, makes solutions of arbitrarily high accuracy over a finite time span possible using numerical methods for integration of the trajectories.
[reference: Wikipedia]
-
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
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-small.JPG)
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.
-
With respect to all this fascinating stuff about patterns and Saros Cycles etc and their ability to predict lunar eclipses or not, how does this influence any support for or against the shape and form of the Earth? Patterns exists all over the place in nature. Both on Earth and beyond it. Sunspots appear and disappear in regular cycles and patterns. The Butterfly diagram for example.
-
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
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-small.JPG)
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'm not sure what this has to do with showing the solution to the Three Body Problem you keep asking about. Maybe nothing. I don't know.
Yeah, I see 'patterns'-ish, but not something as seemingly simple, anecdotally, that you can just keep going X over and Y down. Seems way more complicated than that.
From the same source there seem to be calculations involved here, not just 'patterns'. You can look at Luca Quaglia's CSV file here: http://eclipsewise.com/solar/SEhelp/SEpanorama.html
"Saros-Inex panorama has been produced by Luca Quaglia and John Tilley in the form of a Microsoft Excel file. It shows 61775 solar eclipses from -11000 to +15000 organised by Saros and Inex Series. The Saros go down the columns and the Inex across the rows. This panorama is based on that of Prof G. van den Bergh in his classic work Periodicity and Variation of Solar (and Lunar) Eclipses.
The calculation of eclipse dates and Besselian elements was done by Luca Quaglia, using the core of the numerical integrator Solex, which was kindly supplied by Professor Aldo Vitagliano, and was used as the basis of Luca's own integrator."
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEpanorama.html
-
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
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-small.JPG)
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.
An apparent pattern can't just be continued by guessing that it's 2 across and 4 down (or whatever). That's guessing a trend. Over time inaccuracies will be apparent.
Patterns are everywhere. Like in space. Galaxies containing suns, planets orbiting those suns, moons orbiting those planets, all spheroid.
-
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
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-small.JPG)
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.
-
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
(https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/image/SEpanoramaGvdB-small.JPG)
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.
Look at the scale of that image. One step horizontally is 29 years... Where does it say when, where, how long? Blow that “pattern” up with exact times to the minute for past history and that image looks much less useful for predicting. The exact location on the planet that the total and partial solar eclipses are viewable to the minute...
You haven’t shown how that is possible with a pattern or shown how the ancients could predict when and where these events (particularly solar eclipses) occur considering in one region of the world they would miss the majority of the solar eclipses. How would they make a pattern able to predict anything while missing the majority of the data?
-
Mathematical solution to the restricted 3 body problem of the Saros period.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-11172009000100003
To summarize, this is the mathematical solution to the pattern of Saros cycle, using the measured values of inclination to the ecliptic, sidereal year & month, synodic, draconic & anomalistic month (Table 1) and Astronomical constants (Table 2) with a result within .02% accuracy.
This is both a solution to the pattern of the Saros cycle which it self is a visual representation of a 3 body problem. So yes there is a pattern and yes there is a restricted 3 body problem solution to describe it.
-
Mathematical solution to the restricted 3 body problem of the Saros period.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-11172009000100003
To summarize, this is the mathematical solution to the pattern of Saros cycle, using the measured values of inclination to the ecliptic, sidereal year & month, synodic, draconic & anomalistic month (Table 1) and Astronomical constants (Table 2) with a result within .02% accuracy.
This is both a solution to the pattern of the Saros cycle which it self is a visual representation of a 3 body problem. So yes there is a pattern and yes there is a restricted 3 body problem solution to describe it.
There is not a Three Body Problem solution for the Sun-Earth-Moon system. Feel free to point out the figures for the mass of the earth, the mass of the moon, the mass of the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, or the distance from the earth to the moon in that article. The Three Body Problem solutions only work if the masses of the objects are the same.
That paper is using dimensional analysis of some abstraction of circles going around circles to find the "synodic, the draconic, and the anomalistic months," not even the timing of the saros cycle.
Further, feel free to point out those types of equations on NASA's eclipse website: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html
-
Mathematical solution to the restricted 3 body problem of the Saros period.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-11172009000100003
To summarize, this is the mathematical solution to the pattern of Saros cycle, using the measured values of inclination to the ecliptic, sidereal year & month, synodic, draconic & anomalistic month (Table 1) and Astronomical constants (Table 2) with a result within .02% accuracy.
This is both a solution to the pattern of the Saros cycle which it self is a visual representation of a 3 body problem. So yes there is a pattern and yes there is a restricted 3 body problem solution to describe it.
There is not a Three Body Problem solution for the Sun-Earth-Moon system. Feel free to point out the figures for the mass of the earth, the mass of the moon, the mass of the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, or the distance from the earth to the moon in that article. The Three Body Problem solutions only work if the masses of the objects are the same.
That paper is using dimensional analysis of some abstraction of circles going around circles to find the "synodic, the draconic, and the anomalistic months," not even the timing of the saros cycle.
Further, feel free to point out those types of equations on NASA's eclipse website: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html
Not sure about Three Body equations and I'm not sure why we always get hung up on that when talking about eclipses. But referencing the link you provided, if you dig deeper, they explain how the data are derived. Via Fred Espenak 'Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035’
"The Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035 is composed of four major sections and two appendices. Section 1 is a catalog which lists the general characteristics of every solar eclipse from 1901 through 2100. Section 2 presents a detailed set of cylindrical projection world maps which show the umbral paths of every solar eclipse from 1901 through 2100. Section 3 gives geodetic path coordinates and local circumstances on the center line for every central eclipse from 1986 through 2035. Finally, section 4 consists of a series of orthographic projection maps which show the regions of visibility of both partial and central phases for every solar eclipse from 1986 through 2035. Appendix A provides some general background on solar eclipses and covers eclipse geometry, eclipse frequency and recurrence, modern eclipse prediction, geometry of the umbral shadow and time determination. Appendix B is a listing of a very simple Fortran program which can be used to predict the occurrence and general characteristics of solar eclipses. It makes use of many approximations while maintaining a reasonable level of accuracy and reliability. The program is based on algorithms devised by Meeus [1982] and the ample comments should make the program self- explanatory.”
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/RP1178.html
If you look at Meeus’ ‘Astronomical Algorithms’, Espenak's reference, it’s chock full of calculations, not patterns, per se.
-
Mathematical solution to the restricted 3 body problem of the Saros period.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-11172009000100003
To summarize, this is the mathematical solution to the pattern of Saros cycle, using the measured values of inclination to the ecliptic, sidereal year & month, synodic, draconic & anomalistic month (Table 1) and Astronomical constants (Table 2) with a result within .02% accuracy.
This is both a solution to the pattern of the Saros cycle which it self is a visual representation of a 3 body problem. So yes there is a pattern and yes there is a restricted 3 body problem solution to describe it.
There is not a Three Body Problem solution for the Sun-Earth-Moon system. Feel free to point out the figures for the mass of the earth, the mass of the moon, the mass of the sun, the distance from the earth to the sun, or the distance from the earth to the moon in that article. The Three Body Problem solutions only work if the masses of the objects are the same.
That paper is using dimensional analysis of some abstraction of circles going around circles to find the "synodic, the draconic, and the anomalistic months," not even the timing of the saros cycle.
Further, feel free to point out those types of equations on NASA's eclipse website: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html
Not sure about Three Body equations and I'm not sure why we always get hung up on that when talking about eclipses.
Because no logical flat earth explanation for lunar eclipses has been provided as of yet, and Tom insists on changing the subject to the 3 body problem right from the very beginning of the thread. Are there any other flat earthers that care to chime in about the thread's original questions? The Saros cycle and 3BP are clearly straw man arguments in this context.
-
The Saros Cycle and the issue of the Three Body Problem are pretty pertinent:
You have no model. You guys are stealing your methods for astronomical prediction from ancient civilizations who believed in a Flat Earth and who had no geometic model of their cosmos. It's all pattern-based.
-
The Saros Cycle and the issue of the Three Body Problem are pretty pertinent:
You have no model. You guys are stealing your methods for astronomical prediction from ancient civilizations who believed in a Flat Earth and who had no geometic model of their cosmos. It's all pattern-based.
My original question:
According to https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/lunar/2019-january-21, at the moment of the peak of the eclipse, the entire blood moon will be visible at the same moment from all of North America, South America, some western countries in Africa, Ireland, Norway, and parts of Russia.
How is this possible on a flat earth for all of these places to observe this event at the same time in its entirety?
The lunar eclipse is a shadow on the moon and will be visible to anyone who can see the moon.
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
And you left it at that. So Tom, what is this satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area that is producing a shadow on the moon? These were your words, so back them up with evidence.
-
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.
The Three Body Problem provides evidence that the Sun-Earth-Moon system as suggested by astronomy can't actually work. Therefore that cannot be the explanation.
-
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.
The Three Body Problem provides evidence that the Sun-Earth-Moon system as suggested by astronomy can't actually work. Therefore that cannot be the explanation.
You're correct that there must be something between the path of the moon and the sun. In the round earth, it's the earth that's between the moon and the sun. Because we see and know the path the moon takes around the earth, and the path the earth takes around the sun.
So, let me try to do this slowly.....just to get it right. Correct me if I'm wrong...
A) Since the eclipse will be visible at night, the sun will be on the day time side of the flat earth...
B) The moon will be visible, so logically it must be closer than the sun and observable by the night time side of the world...
C) The object you say is casting the shadow is between the sun and the moon and is in the daylight area...
Q1) How is this shadow cast in such a way as to appear on the surface of the moon opposite the sun only to be seen by those on the night side of the earth?
Q2) Has this satellite of the sun been observed to exist by your zetetic methods, or is it an assumption with no evidence?
-
Of course if there's a body that's blocking the sun's rays from hitting the moon and it's not the earth then it would be completely lit by the sun and would be visible from the earth, as it has to be above it somewhere between the sun and moon. Yes, you could see it during the daylight hours. I've often seen the moon during daylight hours when the sun was up.
Additionally, that body would have to be lit by the sun's rays at other times that the moon is not in eclipse. If it's not, then where did it go?
Since no one has ever reported seeing a body like that in thousands of years, you can assume that there isn't one up there.
Hence, it's a crash & burn for that theory. Any other ideas?
-
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.
-
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIyw6xuEJxk
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/0qYkb4e.png)
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.
-
The selenehelion is already explained as possible due to atmospheric refraction. A topic on which you agree occurs.
-
The selenehelion is already explained as possible due to atmospheric refraction. A topic on which you agree occurs.
Can you draw a diagram for us?
These sources say that Astronomical Refraction isn't all that much:
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~hopkins/ECS/fall_13/ECSf13supl03.html
In the morning, this ray bending causes the sun to appear above the horizon although the sun is actually below the horizon by approximately one half of a degree of arc.
http://www.heywhatsthat.com/cosmicfaq.html
How accurate are planetary positions?
The horizon line does not include the effects of astronomical refraction, which raises stars along the horizon by about one half of a degree
https://aty.sdsu.edu/explain/atmos_refr/astr_refr.html
Astronomical refraction
To give some rough numbers: the astronomical refraction is about a minute of arc in the part of the sky midway between zenith and astronomical horizon, but is typically over 30 minutes of arc (half a degree) at the horizon. (This is the basis for the common claim that “when you see the Sun just touching the horizon, it has already set.”) However, in the Novaya Zemlya effect, commonly observed at high latitudes, but occasionally seen even as close to the equator as San Diego, the horizontal refraction can exceed two degrees.
-
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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIyw6xuEJxk
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/0qYkb4e.png)
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/JifWFiv.png)
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.
-
Although the term "slight" is used in reference to a slight bending of the light of the sun, and the quantitative amount of atmospheric refraction is small, itself, the actual observed effect is quite large. Henceforth, the following rest of the paragraph that you did not quote:
"At sunrise, the top rim of the apparent sun has been above the local horizon 4 minutes before the center of the actual sun would have reached the horizon without an atmosphere. Likewise at sunset, the sun appears to remain above the horizon for an additional 4 minutes, when in fact the solar disc has already disappeared."
-
Please show us your model.
If you want to have the “selenelion” conversation, we can. There’s refraction, orbits/rotation, viewer’s location, etc. But the OP is:
- "From the FE perspective, do you believe it's possible to make such a prediction with this accuracy when the cause of such an event is a mysterious black sun?"
- "How is this possible on a flat earth for all of these places to observe this event at the same time in its entirety?”
So the OP is asking, please show us your model.
You claim RE’s is just patterns. But it’s clearly not. We can predict through patterns AND computation (lot’s of computations) exactly where, when and for how long totality will occur.
Here’s a long but really thorough explanation from Wolfram as to the 1000’s of years of observations, patterns and computations that have gone into to the modern ephemerides we rely on for these extremely precise predictions that we have today. All of which have culminated into a globe earth model of eclipse predictions for any point on the planet.
https://blog.stephenwolfram.com/2017/08/when-exactly-will-the-eclipse-happen-a-multimillenium-tale-of-computation/
So the question remains, since Globe earth uses patterns and computations for it’s precise predictions, if FE just uses patterns only, can FE predict exactly where, when and for how long totality will occur for any point on the flat earth? If so, please demonstrate - Show us your model.