1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: next eclipse on March 20th 2015

« on: April 03, 2015, 09:33:19 PM »

Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.

What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?

Enough to know where to stand and when to observe it. How accurate are globular models?

to the tenth of a second.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: next eclipse on March 20th 2015

« on: April 02, 2015, 07:43:54 PM »

Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.

What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: next eclipse on March 20th 2015

« on: April 02, 2015, 07:37:44 PM »

Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.

Who cares how eclipses work on an round earth (geocentric or heliocentric)?  This thread is about how FET explains and predicts eclipses.  Please stay on topic.

Sorry markjo, but this is not the topic. The topic is about a RET model used to predict the March 20th 2015 solar full eclipse path that actually worked. What do FEers have to say about that?

So far, I actually got no answer about that. But I think the general idea that FEers have is that this RET model wasn't really used, but instead it was predicted with the same level of accuracy using old data that are also based on a round earth, but whatever, FET is still true.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: March 31, 2015, 09:12:33 PM »

From what?

The GPS tracker.

No it's not.

Is it not? I thought that the altitude of satellites was much smaller in FET. How high are they?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: March 30, 2015, 10:50:15 AM »

From what?

The GPS tracker.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: March 30, 2015, 08:09:21 AM »

I addressed how that is explained on that map earlier in this thread when it was brought up. I don't even use that map as my main go-to flat earth map, anyway. I typically use the one where Antarctica is a continent.

Your so-called explanations were refuted.

And what is this map you prefer to use? could you show it?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: March 30, 2015, 08:07:16 AM »

So GPS work as advertized. Of course, the calculations for tracking positions in FET or RET should be quite different. RET-based tracking calculations wouldn't work at all if the earth was flat.

Should we conclude from that that GPS programs actually use FET-based calculations?

Distances on a flat Earth are identical to distances on a round one. You are assuming that the Earth is a perfect circle, which is wrong.

But distances to satellites are vastly different.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET

« on: March 30, 2015, 08:05:54 AM »

...

OK

...

I've long suspected that FEers were only trolls with a bad sense of humor and way too much time to waste. This ridiculous answer is good evidence of that! I at least hope that I entertained you well by taking all my posts so seriously.

I guess my previous requests for you to refrain from breaking the rules were ineffective.

Please refrain from posting personal insults and/or off-topic posting in the upper fora. This kind of behaviour will not be tolerated here with the exception of Angry Ranting and Complete Nonsense, which you may peruse should you choose to try and insult us some more. Please familiarise yourself with the rules of this forum to avoid further incidents.

Consider this post a warning. After no less than one more warning, more severe action may be taken against you.

Sorry, I really thought Tom made some kind of joke. I deleted my post.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the sun round?

« on: March 29, 2015, 09:42:30 PM »

Well, according to your standards, 10% error is not that bad. After all, you're completely happy with a 100% wrong theory of the earth.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET

« on: March 29, 2015, 09:20:15 PM »

I up this post and ask again: to FEers, in your opinion, what is the strongest observation that refutes RET?

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS

« on: March 29, 2015, 09:15:06 PM »

So GPS work as advertized. Of course, the calculations for tracking positions in FET or RET should be quite different. RET-based tracking calculations wouldn't work at all if the earth was flat.

Should we conclude from that that GPS programs actually use FET-based calculations?

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: March 29, 2015, 07:44:05 PM »

I just posted an illustration showing that a change in angle increases in deviation with distance. What are you having trouble understanding?

How it relates to the spot of the sun changing shape from this (northern summer solstice):

to that (northern winter solstice):

It doesn't, because, contrary to your fantasies, such a change never occurs.

Of course, it doesn't since the earth is round and day/light and seasons cycles are explained by the rotation of the earth on its axis and around the sun.

But in FET, in order to account for the daylight time during the year, the sun spot necessarily has to go from the yellow shape to the red one. Yet, I've seen so far no explanation for such a drastic change.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: March 29, 2015, 08:19:56 AM »

I just posted an illustration showing that a change in angle increases in deviation with distance. What are you having trouble understanding?

How it relates to the spot of the sun changing shape from this (northern summer solstice):

to that (northern winter solstice):

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: March 29, 2015, 08:09:56 AM »

So what I'm reading here is that you completely discounted every answer you've been given because you didn't like them and/or refused to do more research about them

Nope, I discounted them because they were wrong, as I explained each time, sometimes with a high level of detail. But if you disagree, please show me that my justifications for rejecting their responses were wrong.

Thork's theory of celestial gears is actually quite well defined, even if you don't like it. Personally, I prefer the Aetheric whirlwind theory. You can read about both of them in the Wiki. But please don't be so condescending about it.

Again, that part about the sun changing speed and why was quickly abandoned as it was not very relevant for the issue I wanted to discuss. This is typical of the discussions in this forum: FEers always miss the point by trying to subtly (or not so in some cases) redefining the question so that it's easier for them to argue.
And also, I don't know what to think about Thork's theory of celestial gears as he didn't even bother to provide a link to describe it (and the wiki contains maybe one or two sentences about it). Thork, and probably other FEers, seem to think that someone who makes a claim doesn't have to argue for it; he just states it, and it becomes true. And whenever anyone asks him to provide arguments and sources, he accuses them of being lazy. That's not how discussions work. If I was claiming that Russell's teapot does exist, you would be right to ask me for arguments and evidence. And if I told you to do your research yourself (you super lazy bastard), then you would be right to consider me an idiot.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: next eclipse on March 20th 2015

« on: March 29, 2015, 07:55:04 AM »

When you demand an explanation because you can't figure out how to use Google, it'd be nice if you actually read the links provided that answer your questions.

The astronomical position calculated from an ephemeris is given in the spherical polar coordinate system of right ascension and declination. Some of the astronomical phenomena of interest to astronomers are eclipses, apparent retrograde motion/planetary stations, planetary ingresses, sidereal time, positions for the mean and true nodes of the moon, the phases of the Moon, and the positions of minor celestial bodies such as Chiron.

And done the way its always been done in historical Ephemeris
http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/History/Pages/1851-1860.html

and some more from 1252!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonsine_tables

Thanks for those sources, it's interesting. You just proved that, indeed, eclipses are based on heliocentric and RE models, and that solar eclipses are caused by the moon passing in front of the sun.

But that was not the original question, which keeps getting avoided each time. As a reminder, the question was: how do RET-based calculations for predicting the exact path of the total eclipse (using NASA JPL DE405) actually work (considering RET is allegedly false)?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: next eclipse on March 20th 2015

« on: March 28, 2015, 11:20:32 PM »

Could you please also provide the sources that say Columbus predicted a solar eclipse? (and explain how this prediction is accurate enough to know the exact path where the full eclipse is visible?)

Christopher Columbus, in an effort to induce the natives of Jamaica to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus.[2]

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

The linked text reads "lunar eclipse" and my question is about solar eclipse. Now, English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure those are different...

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: March 28, 2015, 07:59:17 PM »

So the effect would increase over distance.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how your explanation with the angle is related to the effect increasing over distance. Could you go into more details? perhaps with a graph or something?

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: March 28, 2015, 07:00:39 PM »

If a line deviates from its position, into a new angle, the divergence from its original position will grow with distance. Consider the following illustration:



The distance between segments A and C is different at 1cm away from point B, than it is at 2 inches away from point B. The distance between A and C grew with distance.

So?

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The length of the day on a flat earth

« on: March 28, 2015, 01:40:48 PM »

Why wouldn't light rays, deflected at an angle, continue to deviate and cause the effect to increase over distance?

Because physics.

Refraction occurs at the interface between two media, as in the example of the straw in the glass of water you showed in an earlier post. In the air above, no refraction occurs, in the water below, no refraction occurs. Refraction is only happening at the interface between the two.

If you had two massive clumps of air, one is cold, say 0°C, the other warm, say 30°C. Light would refract when going from the warm air to the cold air (or vice-versa), with a refractive index of x, but within each clump, there's no refraction. Now, imagine that each clump is further divided into two smaller clumps so you now have three interfaces: 0°C --> 10°C --> 20°C --> 30°C. Light would refract three times as it goes from one clump to another. OK, but the refractive index is also divided by three, x/3, so the total amount of refraction doesn't change. Continue to divide into smaller portions so that you get a continuum of temperature, but you also have smaller and smaller refractive indices between each portion. The refraction is thus not cumulative.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: next eclipse on March 20th 2015

« on: March 28, 2015, 01:24:16 PM »

I am not interested in those fables. Apologize and don't post any Round Earth rubbish for three months! Also, send Thork and I all of your bitcoins as penance.

At least, Rama Set provided links to show his sources.

Could you please also provide the sources that say Columbus predicted a solar eclipse? (and explain how this prediction is accurate enough to know the exact path where the full eclipse is visible?)