The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Sceptom on January 15, 2015, 07:00:50 PM
-
Hi,
I've searched the FAQ about eclipses but didn't see anything. I've found a brief mention of eclipses in another forum thread, but it's not complete and doesn't answer my question.
In reality-based science, moon eclipses are explained because the earth blocks light coming from the sun to the moon.
In FE theory, I've read that 1. the moon is self illuminated and 2. eclipses are caused by another object coming between us on earth and the moon.
Obviously, I couldn't have been the same explanation than in reality-based science, because that would require the sun to go to the other side of the flat earth, which is not what FE theory says.
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?
-
Hi,
I've searched the FAQ about eclipses but didn't see anything. I've found a brief mention of eclipses in another forum thread, but it's not complete and doesn't answer my question.
In reality-based science, moon eclipses are explained because the earth blocks light coming from the sun to the moon.
In FE theory, I've read that 1. the moon is self illuminated and 2. eclipses are caused by another object coming between us on earth and the moon.
Obviously, I couldn't have been the same explanation than in reality-based science, because that would require the sun to go to the other side of the flat earth, which is not what FE theory says.
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?
Because they happen pretty regularly. The moon phases are also more or less regular. Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
-
Besides, Round Earthers end up not having full moons.
And my calendar definitely has full moons on it. Real full moons. Not almost full moons or any other apology Markjo might come up with.
-
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?
Because they happen pretty regularly. The moon phases are also more or less regular. Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
Well, that maybe so but it's still better than no explanation at all...
And you actually completely evaded the question. The fact that lunar eclipses happen pretty regularly does not mean that you'd be able to predict exactly the date and time of the eclipse, and whether it would be a total or partial eclipse. I mean, can you?
Based on FE theory, can you predict the date, time and partial/total lunar eclipses for the next millenium?
-
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?
Because they happen pretty regularly. The moon phases are also more or less regular. Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
Well, that maybe so but it's still better than no explanation at all...
And you actually completely evaded the question. The fact that lunar eclipses happen pretty regularly does not mean that you'd be able to predict exactly the date and time of the eclipse, and whether it would be a total or partial eclipse. I mean, can you?
Based on FE theory, can you predict the date, time and partial/total lunar eclipses for the next millenium?
Do you know what 'regularly' means? Of course you can predict them, but this does not directly imply anything about earth's shape.
Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one. Have you? If not, how are you so certain your idea is the right one?"
-
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?
Because they happen pretty regularly. The moon phases are also more or less regular. Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
Well, that maybe so but it's still better than no explanation at all...
And you actually completely evaded the question. The fact that lunar eclipses happen pretty regularly does not mean that you'd be able to predict exactly the date and time of the eclipse, and whether it would be a total or partial eclipse. I mean, can you?
Based on FE theory, can you predict the date, time and partial/total lunar eclipses for the next millenium?
Do you know what 'regularly' means? Of course you can predict them, but this does not directly imply anything about earth's shape.
Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one. Have you? If not, how are you so certain your idea is the right one?"
The better theory is the one that makes more and better predictions. FET does not predict eclipses. RET does. RET is better.
-
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
-
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Nope. I've already referred you to several texts on the matter. Try looking at a simple Amazon search and then head to your local library. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171 (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171)
-
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Nope. I've already referred you to several texts on the matter. Try looking at a simple Amazon search and then head to your local library. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171 (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171)
Show me that the lunar eclipse has been predicted with a geometric model of the solar system. Many of those mathematical astronomy books are simply talking about the maths behind the Saros Cycle and other cycles that predict things based on patterns in the sky. NASA uses the Saros Cycle on their website to predict the eclipse, a method created by ancient Flat Earth scientists. How embarrassing for them.
-
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Nope. I've already referred you to several texts on the matter. Try looking at a simple Amazon search and then head to your local library. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171 (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171)
Show me that the lunar eclipse has been predicted with a geometric model of the solar system. NASA uses the Saros Cycle on their website to predict the eclipse, a method created by ancient Flat Earth scientists. How embarrassing for them.
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I'm talking about a geometric model of the solar system which operates on celestial mechanics. The Saros Cycle operates by looking at the time period when past eclipses have taken place in the past and then finding the pattern. Equations can be made to predict when it will occur, the duration, and even the totality, all from looking at patterns and trends of past events. In order for the prediction of a Lunar Eclipse to validate the Round Earth model, it would need to be predicted with celestial mechanics, rather than the pattern method.
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I'm talking about a geometric model of the solar system which operates on celestial mechanics. The Saros Cycle operates by looking at the time period when past eclipses have taken place in the past and then finding the pattern. Equations can be made to predict when it will occur, the duration, and even the totality, all from looking at patterns and trends of past events. In order for the prediction of a Lunar Eclipse to validate the Round Earth model, it would need to be predicted with celestial mechanics, rather than the pattern method.
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed. If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth. They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid. "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed. If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth. They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid. "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
Since RET predicts the shape of earth's shadow and how it will cross the moon from hundreds of locations across the globe, I challenge your to show your predictions for the next lunar eclipse if the earth were a trapezoid. Then we'll just check which theory does a better job of predicting. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf)
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed. If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
Google is irrelevant. Gulliver provided information which indeed shows calculations for predicting lunar eclipses based on the "geometric model" of the solar system.
If you think this argument doesn't stand, please provide a refutation. Ad hominem fallacies or mocking only discredits your position. And i'm quoting you (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2244.msg56829#msg56829): "In lieu of sufficient rebuttal, he sayeth, "LOL.""
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth. They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid. "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
The Saros method has limited accuracy (although a pretty good one) and couldn't predict eclipses to the hour or minute. This is only possible with calculations based on the "geometric model".
It is true that the ability to predict eclipses to the minute based on RET is not an absolute proof that RET is true. There is no such thing as an absolute proof to anything. I certainly wouldn't say however that it "has absolutely zero to do with" RET. It's an argument in favor of RET.
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed. If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?
Only if you change your name to "I Research Nothing", seems fair.
-
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Please bear in mind that Tom thinks The Saros Cycle is used in exactly the same way as the Babylonians did. This is false as there has been a tremendous amount of precision introduced with the refinement of astronomical epoches. This has made the delta-t calculations much more precise than the Babylonians could have dreamed of.
NASA can also transform the coordinates of a lunar exlipse such that they can be predicted from any locale on Earth. These coordinate transformations would only work if the Earth is round.
-
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Please bear in mind that Tom thinks The Saros Cycle is used in exactly the same way as the Babylonians did. This is false as there has been a tremendous amount of precision introduced with the refinement of astronomical epoches. This has made the delta-t calculations much more precise than the Babylonians could have dreamed of.
NASA can also transform the coordinates of a lunar exlipse such that they can be predicted from any locale on Earth. These coordinate transformations would only work if the Earth is round.
The lunar eclipse occurs at the same point in time for everybody, wherever the moon is visible, since it is a shadow on its surface. Your assumption of special maths which show different eclipse times at different locations is of your own imagination. It happens at the same time for everybody. It's only the solar eclipse that occurs at different times for different people.
But even if the saros cycle has been refined for accuracy over the years and more patterns have been picked out for different variables of the eclipse, it is still a pattern based prediction, not one based on celestial mechanics. The use of the Saros Cycle or its variants is still irrelevant and not evidence for RET.
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed. If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth. They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid. "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
Since RET predicts the shape of earth's shadow and how it will cross the moon from hundreds of locations across the globe, I challenge your to show your predictions for the next lunar eclipse if the earth were a trapezoid. Then we'll just check which theory does a better job of predicting. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf)
Why do you keep calling methods created by ancient flat earth scientists a RET method which predicts the lunar eclipse?
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed. If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
Google is irrelevant. Gulliver provided information which indeed shows calculations for predicting lunar eclipses based on the "geometric model" of the solar system.
If you think this argument doesn't stand, please provide a refutation. Ad hominem fallacies or mocking only discredits your position. And i'm quoting you (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2244.msg56829#msg56829): "In lieu of sufficient rebuttal, he sayeth, "LOL.""
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth. They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid. "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
The Saros method has limited accuracy (although a pretty good one) and couldn't predict eclipses to the hour or minute. This is only possible with calculations based on the "geometric model".
It is true that the ability to predict eclipses to the minute based on RET is not an absolute proof that RET is true. There is no such thing as an absolute proof to anything. I certainly wouldn't say however that it "has absolutely zero to do with" RET. It's an argument in favor of RET.
Show us where a geometric model has predicted the eclipse. The only method talked about on NASA's website is the ancient Flat Earth one.
-
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html) and
I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed. If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth. They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid. "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
Since RET predicts the shape of earth's shadow and how it will cross the moon from hundreds of locations across the globe, I challenge your to show your predictions for the next lunar eclipse if the earth were a trapezoid. Then we'll just check which theory does a better job of predicting. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf)
Why do you keep calling methods created by ancient flat earth scientists a RET method which predicts the lunar eclipse?
The NASA website does a great job of explaining the modern method. The books I referenced provide the modern mathematics.What don't you understand? Which of the books have you referenced so far? Is there a particular page you're confused by?
-
The NASA website does a great job of explaining the modern method. The books I referenced provide the modern mathematics.What don't you understand? Which of the books have you referenced so far? Is there a particular page you're confused by?
The Saros Cycle is neither modern or an RET method of predicting the eclipse. The books you posted are mostly about ancient astronomy and pattern-based prediction.
Show us where a lunar eclipse has been predicted using celestial mechanics.
-
Why do you keep calling methods created by ancient flat earth scientists a RET method which predicts the lunar eclipse?
Probably because RE scientists have since expanded and improved Saros to work with modern RE cosmology.
Show us where a geometric model has predicted the eclipse. The only method talked about on NASA's website is the ancient Flat Earth one.
Where did NASA say that Saros Cycles are the only method they use to predict eclipses?
Show us where a lunar eclipse has been predicted using celestial mechanics.
Are you familiar with MATLAB?
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/39344-a-matlab-script-for-predicting-lunar-eclipses
-
Show us where a lunar eclipse has been predicted using celestial mechanics.
Are you familiar with MATLAB?
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/39344-a-matlab-script-for-predicting-lunar-eclipses
That works on approximations as you know, Markjo.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6094
RET cannot explain the motion and terms it as 'chaotic' ... ie it can't be modelled with RET. RET has failed to find the true mathematics behind it and hence an accurate model is not possible. So try again.
-
The NASA website does a great job of explaining the modern method. The books I referenced provide the modern mathematics.What don't you understand? Which of the books have you referenced so far? Is there a particular page you're confused by?
The Saros Cycle is neither modern or an RET method of predicting the eclipse.
Well the modern Satos cycle uses ephemerides that depend on the Earth being round so there is that. It also requires that 40 different Saros are underway at different parts of the globe, which is something the ancients never had to contend with.
The books you posted are mostly about ancient astronomy and pattern-based prediction.
Any geometric model is a pattern-based prediction. I am finding this term confusing.
Show us where a lunar eclipse has been predicted using celestial mechanics.
Elements of celestial mechanics are used in the Saros Series as well as in NOVAS.
-
Show us where a lunar eclipse has been predicted using celestial mechanics.
Are you familiar with MATLAB?
http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/39344-a-matlab-script-for-predicting-lunar-eclipses
That works on approximations as you know, Markjo.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6094
RET cannot explain the motion and terms it as 'chaotic' ... ie it can't be modelled with RET. RET has failed to find the true mathematics behind it and hence an accurate model is not possible. So try again.
Thork, I think that you are using words that you might not quite understand. First of all, are you saying that models are not, pretty much by definition, approximations? Are you also saying that approximations can not be accurate? You do realize that "accurate" is not an absolute term, don't you?
-
Do you know what chaos theory is markjo? It means a small error becomes a massive one in a very short time. In other words, RET eclipses are not predictable and the model for them is a load of horse manure. It breaks down irreparably and is of no use.
You are saying "here is a model, it doesn't work but the earth must be round because we have a model that is useless".
I am saying, "you need to find another angle. You lost this debate".
-
Well the modern Satos cycle uses ephemerides that depend on the Earth being round so there is that.
Explain.
It also requires that 40 different Saros are underway at different parts of the globe, which is something the ancients never had to contend with.
Why would 40 different Saros Cycles be needed to predict the lunar eclipse for different parts of the world? The lunar eclipse occurs for everyone at once, at the same point in time, to whomever can see the moon.
Elements of celestial mechanics are used in the Saros Series as well as in NOVAS.
Show us. I've already gone through NOVAS with you on the other forum to show you that it's using known eclipse tables, not celestial mechanics.
-
Well the modern Satos cycle uses ephemerides that depend on the Earth being round so there is that.
Explain.
It also requires that 40 different Saros are underway at different parts of the globe, which is something the ancients never had to contend with.
Why would 40 different Saros Cycles be needed to predict the lunar eclipse for different parts of the world? The lunar eclipse occurs for everyone at once, at the same point in time, to whomever can see the moon.
Elements of celestial mechanics are used in the Saros Series as well as in NOVAS.
It looks like you did not read the NASA page on eclipses as closely as you should have.
Show us. I've already gone through NOVAS with you on the other forum to show you that it's using known eclipse tables, not celestial mechanics.
And Alpha2Omega showed that your interpretation was obtuse and not explicitly true. You re-asserting a claim does not make it suddenly true again.
-
Do you know what chaos theory is markjo? It means a small error becomes a massive one in a very short time. In other words, RET eclipses are not predictable and the model for them is a load of horse manure. It breaks down irreparably and is of no use.
Since when is the earth-moon-sun system a chaotic system? The fact that civilizations base their calendars on the motions of the sun and/or moon suggest that it's pretty much the opposite of a chaotic system.
You are saying "here is a model, it doesn't work but the earth must be round because we have a model that is useless".
No, I'm pretty sure that isn't what I'm saying.
I am saying, "you need to find another angle. You lost this debate".
You say lots of things that aren't true. (http://www.tintdude.com/forum/style_emoticons/default/yawn.gif)