[Tom Bishop]

Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. A eclipse will repeat 18 years from now.

You can also use a moon or sun calculator or make your own calculator to see if the body will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astronomy is based on patterns, not RET.

[iamcpc]

Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. The eclipse would be seen where it was seen 18 years ago.

You can also use a moon calculator or make your own calculator to see if the moon will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky for to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astonomy is based on patterns, not RET.

18 years ago there was not an eclipse that covered most of the United States visible from Wyoming. This model is not only able to predict when the eclipse will be but also the exact time and location (down to a few feet). When the locations are drawn on a spherical representation of the earth they are at least partially based on RET.

[Tom Bishop]

Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. The eclipse would be seen where it was seen 18 years ago.

You can also use a moon calculator or make your own calculator to see if the moon will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky for to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astonomy is based on patterns, not RET.

18 years ago there was not an eclipse that covered most of the United States visible from Wyoming. This model is not only able to predict when the eclipse will be but also the exact time and location (down to a few feet). When the locations are drawn on a spherical representation of the earth they are at least partially based on RET.

There is no spherical representation. What evidence has been posted for that? Only imagination. What evidence has been posted in this thread for the assertion that it is based on a spherical model? None.

The patterns of the sun and moon repeat themselves. The eclipses come in patterns. All of that is entirely predictable with patterns.

[ChrisTP]

Show me where the heliocentric orbits are in the three body family galleries are. Lets see something that looks like a star with a planet that has a moon.

I did in this very thread but you seemed to have ignored it entirely. Before you go calling it a "cartoon" which I know you probably will, I'll ask you once again to actually look at it, play with it, you can mess with the velocity, mass and directions of the bodies to see how they play out. They interact with each other using maths, it's a simulation of calculations in real time and not just a pre-set animation.

All chaotic movement leads to patterns eventually. Just look at the weather and how wind eventually leads to twisters and tornados. How all the chaotic movements of wind creates waves in the oceans can that lead to huge bodies of water moving all in one direction. Draining a large body of water through a hole leads to a very specific twisting, spinning formation as it all rotates around a point of attraction. If you throw a bunch of rocks out into a small vacuum together under the assumption gravity is real, you will eventually get clumps of rocks spinning together as they move along in empty space. Our solar system and all of the planets movements didn't just pop into existence perfectly static, planets were formed over time from chaos and eventually start to settle into an orbit. It's really not hard to even imagine. You might even consider the rings of rocks that orbit saturn a similar situation to the rocks and planets that orbit the sun. You can even see Saturn for yourself.

[ChrisTP]

Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. A eclipse will repeat 18 years from now.

The same website that says the earth is a spheroid? The website you refuse to believe anything else for unless you can use it for a flat earth argument? Come on now, this is literal cherry picking. Either don't believe NASA or do but stop cherrypicking when you feel it fits the agenda.

[stack]

Read NASA's website. It says it all there. It says that the eclipses repeat themselves every 18 years. The eclipse would be seen where it was seen 18 years ago.

You can also use a moon calculator or make your own calculator to see if the moon will be visible at that time. We know how long the moon is in the sky for to know if it will be in the sky 18 years from now. Astonomy is based on patterns, not RET.

18 years ago there was not an eclipse that covered most of the United States visible from Wyoming. This model is not only able to predict when the eclipse will be but also the exact time and location (down to a few feet). When the locations are drawn on a spherical representation of the earth they are at least partially based on RET.

There is no spherical representation. What evidence has been posted for that? Only imagination. What evidence has been posted in this thread for the assertion that it is based on a spherical model? None.

The patterns of the sun and moon repeat themselves. The eclipses come in patterns. All of that is entirely predictable with patterns.

Sure there is a spherical representation:



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

And strange that eclipse predicted locations are pinpoint accurate on the globe model/map. But the are not on a flat earth model/map. Perhaps because there is no flat earth model nor any flat earth map.

[inquisitive]

Tom has still not explained how he would measure the size and shape of the earth, but has time to move to another topic. Says it all.

[Tom Bishop]

Sure there is a spherical representation:



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

And strange that eclipse predicted locations are pinpoint accurate on the globe model/map. But the are not on a flat earth model/map. Perhaps because there is no flat earth model nor any flat earth map.

That looks more like the Flat Earth map to me.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

A solar eclipse occurs when an observer on Earth passes through the shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks the Sun. This happens when the Sun, Moon and observer are nearly aligned on a straight line when the Moon is close to the ecliptic. In a total eclipse, the disk of the Sun is fully obscured by the Moon. In partial and annular eclipses, only part of the Sun is obscured.

Solar Eclipse Comparison

Of interest is that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:



On the Flat Earth map the paths appear to be perfect arcs:



From  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm p.113

 “ Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

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. ”

Further Reference

Also see this interesting comparison:

[stack]

Sure there is a spherical representation:



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

And strange that eclipse predicted locations are pinpoint accurate on the globe model/map. But the are not on a flat earth model/map. Perhaps because there is no flat earth model nor any flat earth map.

That looks more like the Flat Earth map to me.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

A solar eclipse occurs when an observer on Earth passes through the shadow cast by the Moon which fully or partially blocks the Sun. This happens when the Sun, Moon and observer are nearly aligned on a straight line when the Moon is close to the ecliptic. In a total eclipse, the disk of the Sun is fully obscured by the Moon. In partial and annular eclipses, only part of the Sun is obscured.

Solar Eclipse Comparison

Of interest is that on the globe the paths of the Solar Eclipse look rather odd:



On the Flat Earth map the paths appear to be perfect arcs:



From  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/34834/34834-h/34834-h.htm p.113

 “ Fig. 36.—Central eclipses for the first two decades of the twentieth century. Oppolzer.

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. ”

Further Reference

Also see this interesting comparison:

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

[Tom Bishop]

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

[stack]

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

[Tom Bishop]

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map then? Strong evidence there.

[inquisitive]

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and circles on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.

Are distances correct on your model or map?

[stack]

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

[Tom Bishop]

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

[inquisitive]

As we all know and you have admitted there is no FE map. The Gleason map here is a globe projection. Don’t know where you’re trying to go with this.

You are not showing us something that could only happen on a globe, in fact you are showing us something that looks more like the traditional flat earth map. When you can show that the eclipses are based on a spherical earth, let us know. As it is, the spherical argument seems sadly lacking of evidence. Your three body problem doesn't work and the people who predict the eclipses admit that it is based on an ancient cycle that was derived by a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat.

No such thing as a flat earth map. You’ve said so yourself.

The monopole model remains the current Flat Earth model until something can replace it. It's in the logo. So it's just a coincidence that the solar eclipses turn into perfect arcs and ovals on the official FE map? Strong evidence there.

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

Which is not consistent with any current proof.

[stack]

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

I have, several times. ENAG doesn't change the fact that there is no flat earth map and that FE cannot predict precisely where an eclipse can be observed for any point on earth - Whereas RE can calculate and predict with pinpoint accuracy where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc.  No matter which way you twist in the wind, those are the facts.

[Tom Bishop]

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

I have, several times. ENAG doesn't change the fact that there is no flat earth map and that FE cannot predict precisely where an eclipse can be observed for any point on earth - Whereas RE can calculate and predict with pinpoint accuracy where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc.  No matter which way you twist in the wind, those are the facts.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse at the end of his eclipse chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

Rowbotham demonstrates that the matter is predictable with patterns. Where is the Round Earth model?

Where is the RE exhibited in the Saros Cycle or the moon calculators that tell you where you can see the moon from? I see words. No demonstration. Show us where RE is exhibited in the eclipse predictions.

[stack]

A logo not maketh a map. Sorry. Your monopole "model" is an AE Globe projection. Sorry again.

I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe and educating yourself on the flat earth model.

I have, several times. ENAG doesn't change the fact that there is no flat earth map and that FE cannot predict precisely where an eclipse can be observed for any point on earth - Whereas RE can calculate and predict with pinpoint accuracy where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc.  No matter which way you twist in the wind, those are the facts.

Read Earth Not a Globe. Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the time, magnitude, and duration of the lunar eclipse at the end of his eclipse chapter: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

None of what he states references exact location, as RE can and does.

He closes the chapter with:

"The formulæ above quoted are entirely superfluous, because they add nothing to our knowledge of the causes of eclipses, and would not enable us to predict anything which has not hundreds of times already occurred. Hence all the labour of calculation is truly effort thrown away, and may be altogether dispensed with by adopting the simple process referred to at page 153, and calling that which eclipses the moon the "lunar eclipsor," or the moon's satellite, instead of the "earth's shadow," just as the moon is the sun's eclipsor."

Rowbotham demonstrates that the matter is predictable with patterns. Where is the Round Earth model?

He demonstrates nothing regarding location.

Where is the RE exhibited in the Saros Cycle or the moon calculators that tell you where you can see the moon from? I see words. No demonstration. Show us where RE is exhibited in the eclipse predictions.

Right here, in the NASA link you keep referencing:

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

From Fred Espenak's site regarding one of many eclipses, for example:

"Predictions for the Partial Solar Eclipse of 2019 Jan 06 were generated using the JPL DE406 solar and lunar ephemerides."

What's a JPL DE? The (DE) models consist of computer representations of positions, velocities and accelerations of major Solar System bodies, tabulated at equally spaced intervals of time, covering a specified span of years.

Here are some of Fred's predictions he represents on a Globe:

[Tom Bishop]

The sun and moon positions in the eclipse predictions that tell you where you can see the sun or the moon from come from JPL DE. From JPL DE's Wikipedia page:

"Each ephemeris was produced by numerical integration of the equations of motion, starting from a set of initial conditions. Due to the precision of modern observational data, the analytical method of general perturbations could no longer be applied to a high enough accuracy to adequately reproduce the observations. The method of special perturbations was applied, using numerical integration to solve the n-body problem, in effect putting the entire Solar System into motion in the computer's memory, accounting for all relevant physical laws."

Obviously, the n-body problems of astronomy were not really solved.

The perturbation methods don't solve the n-body problems.

From our Wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Gravitation Vs. Relativity
by Charles Lane Poor, PhD

Motion of the Planets p.132

  “ The deviations from the “ideal” in the elements of a planet’s orbit are called “perturbations” or “variations”.... In calculating the perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier’s series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions. ”

Perturbations = Epicycles

Motion of the Planets p.138

  “ The Tide Predicting Machine of the Coast and Geodetic Survey at Washington is a note-worthy example of the application of the mechanical method [of prediction via epicycles]. The rise and fall of the tide at any port is a periodic phenomenon, and it may, therefore, be analyzed, or separated into a number of simple harmonic, or circular components. Each component tide will be simple, will have a definite period and a constant amplitude; and each such component may be represented mechanically by the arm of a crank, the length of which represents the amplitude; each crank arm being, in fact, the radius of one of the circles in our diagram.

Such a machine was invented by Sir William Thomson and was put in operation many years ago. The machine at present in use at Washington was designed by William Ferrel. It provides for nineteen components and directly gives the times and heights of high and low waters. In order to predict the tides for a given place and year, it is necessary to adjust the lengths of the crank arms, so that each shall be the same proportion of the known height of the corresponding partial tide, and to adjust the periods of their revolutions proportionally to the actual periods. Each arm must also be set at the proper angle to represent the phase of the component at the beginning of the year. When all these adjustments have been made, the machine is started and it takes only a few hours to run off the tides for a year, or for several years. This machine probably represents the highest possible development of the graphical or mechanical method. It is a concrete, definite mechanical adaptation of the epicyclic theory of Hipparchus.

But, because the Coast Survey represents and predicts the movements of tidal waters by a complicated mass of revolving cranks and moving chains, does any one imagine for a moment that the actual waters are made up of such a system of cranks? No more did Hipparchus believe that the bodies of the solar system were actually attached to the radial arms of his epicycles; his was a mere mathematical, or graphical device for representing irregular, complicated motions.

While the graphical, or mechanical method is limited to a few terms, the trigonometrical, or analytical method is unlimited. It is possible to pile epicycle upon epicycle, the number being limited only by the patience of the mathematician and computer. ”

Epicycles = Patterns

From the Wikipedia section on Special Perturbations (Archive):

  “ In methods of special perturbations, numerical datasets, representing values for the positions, velocities and accelerative forces on the bodies of interest, are made the basis of numerical integration of the differential equations of motion.[6] In effect, the positions and velocities are perturbed directly, and no attempt is made to calculate the curves of the orbits or the orbital elements.[2] Special perturbations can be applied to any problem in celestial mechanics, as it is not limited to cases where the perturbing forces are small.[4] Once applied only to comets and minor planets, special perturbation methods are now the basis of the most accurate machine-generated planetary ephemerides of the great astronomical almanacs.[2][7] ”

The prediction in astronomical almanacs also = patterns.

General Application

Perturbation methods are, in fact, prevalent in many areas of science. From Perturbations in Complex Molecular Systems | (Archive) we read the following:

  “ In general perturbation methods starts with a known exact solution of a problem and add “small” variation terms in order to approach to a solution for a related problem without known exact solution. Perturbation theory has been widely used in almost all areas of science. Bhor's quantum model, Heisenberg's matrix mechanincs, Feyman diagrams, and Poincare's chaos model or “butterfly effect” in complex systems are examples of perturbation theories. ”

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory (Archive) echoes the same:

  “ This general procedure is a widely used mathematical tool in advanced sciences and engineering: start with a simplified problem and gradually add corrections that make the formula that the corrected problem becomes a closer and closer match to the original formula. ”

It appears that you are showing us the pattern-based models of astronomy.

You are mistaken on these matters of astronomy and astronomical prediction. Our website clearly demonstrates superior knowledge of these matters, compared to the dogma and assumptions that you guys are giving us.

Sadly, despite this, you guys will be unable to recognize that you are providing inferior demonstration of knowledge.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.