[Why Not]

Back to Cavendish:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/puzzling-measurement-of-big-g-gravitational-constant-ignites-debate-slide-show/

Gravity, one of the constants of life, not to mention physics, is less than constant when it comes to being measured. Various experiments over the years have come up with perplexingly different values for the strength of the force of gravity, and the latest calculation just adds to the confusion.

The results of a painstaking 10-year experiment to calculate the value of “big G,” the universal gravitational constant, were published this month—and they’re incompatible with the official value of G, which itself comes from a weighted average of various other measurements that are mostly mutually incompatible and diverge by more than 10 times their estimated uncertainties.

The gravitational constant “is one of these things we should know,” says Terry Quinn at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sévres, France, who led the team behind the latest calculation. “It’s embarrassing to have a fundamental constant that we cannot measure how strong it is.”

In fact, the discrepancy is such a problem that Quinn is organizing a meeting in February at the Royal Society in London to come up with a game plan for resolving the impasse. The meeting’s title—“The Newtonian constant of gravitation, a constant too difficult to measure?”—reveals the general consternation.

Although gravity seems like one of the most salient of nature’s forces in our daily lives, it’s actually by far the weakest, making attempts to calculate its strength an uphill battle. “Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.”

This inherent difficulty has caused big G to become the only fundamental constant of physics for which the uncertainty of the standard value has risen over time as more and more measurements are made. “Though the measurements are very tough, because G is so much weaker than other laboratory forces, we still, as a community, ought to do better,” says University of Colorado at Boulder physicist James Faller, who conducted a 2010 experiment to calculate big G using pendulums.

...

“Either something is wrong with the experiments, or there is a flaw in our understanding of gravity,” says Mark Kasevich, a Stanford University physicist who conducted an unrelated measurement of big G in 2007 using atom interferometry. “Further work is required to clarify the situation.”

If the true value of big G turns out to be closer to the Quinn team’s measurement than the CODATA value, then calculations that depend on G will have to be revised. For example, the estimated masses of the solar system’s planets, including Earth, would change slightly. Such a revision, however, wouldn’t alter any fundamental laws of physics, and would have very little practical effect on anyone’s life, Quinn says. But getting to the bottom of the issue is more a matter of principle to the scientists. “It’s not a thing one likes to leave unresolved,” he adds. “We should be able to measure gravity.”

The last sentence implies that they cannot measure gravity or are having a lot of trouble doing so.

And here is some of what you cut from that quote:-

Through these dual experiments, Quinn’s team arrived at a value of 6.67545 X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2. That’s 241 parts per million above the standard value of 6.67384(80) X 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2, which was arrived at by a special task force of the International Council for Science’s Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) (pdf) in 2010 by calculating a weighted average of all the various experimental values. These values differ from one another by as much as 450 ppm of the constant, even though most of them have estimated uncertainties of only about 40 ppm. “Clearly, many of them or most of them are subject either to serious significant errors or grossly underestimated uncertainties,” Quinn says. Making matters even more complex is the fact that the new measurement is strikingly close to a calculation of big G made by Quinn and his colleagues more than 10 years ago, published in 2001, that used similar methods but a completely separate laboratory setup.

Whilst 450 ppm is not insignificant it also doesn't "imply that they cannot measure gravity" , only that they cannot measure gravity to better than 450 ppm.

[Tom Bishop]

He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.

Apparently your statement is false.

From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)

In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"
 
ALGORITHMS, EPHEMERIDES AND PARAMETERS

Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.

The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/19940510/text/ephemerides.html

The Saros Cycle just tells you when the next eclipse will occur. If you want to know when the sun and moon will be so that you can see it, you need another way of determining that.

If the Saros Cycle says that a Solar Eclipse will occur at 12pm Noon, then you can use a Solar Clock (which is no different than a regular clock) to tell you whether the sun will be visible in the sky or not. You can also use a "solar ephemerides" model like the NOAA Solar Calculator.

There are also Lunar clocks and models. If you want to know whether you will be able to see the moon on a Lunar Eclipse then you need to consult a Lunar clock or model. That's all it is.

I literally showed you a site where NASA said they were using Newtonian Mechanics to make predictions. I also pointed out that predictions were made using two separate computational theories in their catalogues. It is cited in their catalogues. You can keep denying but you look sillier every time.

That website should be filled with sections about how they solved the Three Body Problem, not about with sections about an ancient method that is no longer in use.

[Tom Bishop]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

Reading this thread on eclipse prediction I think there is agreement on these two things:

1. The day of an eclipse *can* be predicted using Saros cycles.
2. Saros cycles do not predict the exact locations on earth where an eclipse will be seen, this requires complicated calculations.

Am I correct?  Is there agreement on these two items?

The day and time of the eclipse can be predicted with the Saros Cycle.

At the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham shows that similar pattern-based methods can predict the time, magnitude and duration of the Lunar Eclipse (scroll to the bottom).

If you want to know whether the sun or moon will be seen in the sky at that time, so that you may be able to see it, you need another way of determining that; such as a solar or lunar clock or model.

With knowledge of the the Saros Cycle patterns, and the patterns of the sun and moon, it is possible to create such maps on where the Solar Eclipse may be seen. In the case of the Lunar Eclipse, the challenge is more trivial and applies to anyone who can see the moon.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

The sun and moon are over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

It shows that the round earth model can predict astronomic events with to the second timing and geographic accuracy.

The flat earth model can't do this. It can't even accurately portray the actual distance from Brisbane to Lima.


I've seen some flat earth models make brave attempts. Is there a flat earth model that can predict eclipses, solstices  and such with the accuracy of a globe model?

[Tom Bishop]

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

It shows that the round earth model can predict astronomic events with to the second timing and geographic accuracy.

The flat earth model can't do this. It can't even accurately portray the actual distance from Brisbane to Lima.

I've seen some flat earth models make brave attempts. Is there a flat earth model that can predict eclipses, solstices  and such with the accuracy of a globe model?

The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LEcatalog.html

This is the homepage of NASA's Lunar Eclipse predictions and the catalog of Lunar Eclipses that will occur in the future. Notice the words "Saros" all over those pages. Then go to the  "Eclipses and the Saros" page that is either at the bottom of the page or accessible through the "Resources" button at the bottom of the page.

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

It specifically describes that "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."

Some on this thread are arguing that this means nothing, and, although that website is littered with pages and pages describing the Soros Cycle, and mentions of Saros, that NASA put that in there for meaningless reasons rather than describing how they solved the famous Three Body Problem.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

I hadn't mentioned NASA, they aren't the only ones who publish astronomic calendars. I was referring to the round earth model more generally.

Even a simple orrery can make accurate predictions of eclipse timing. We have not seen this in a flat earth model.

The globe model predictions agree with the Saros cycle (and the Saros cycle agrees with the globe model.)



(correct me if I'm wrong but,)  I don't think we've yet seen a flat earth model that accurately predicts eclipses, solstices and midnight sun.

[Tom Bishop]

Whilst 450 ppm is not insignificant it also doesn't "imply that they cannot measure gravity" , only that they cannot measure gravity to better than 450 ppm.

The article provides a good comparison:

"Two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with a force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells,” says University of Washington physicist Jens Gundlach, who worked on a separate 2000 measurement of big G. “Measuring such small forces on kg-objects to 10-4 or 10-5 precision is just not easy. There are a many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects, and all of these have to be properly understood and taken into account.

It's an incredibly sensitive venture. Per the article, two one-kilogram masses that are one meter apart attract each other with the force equivalent to the weight of a few human cells. Gundlach says that there are many effects that could overwhelm gravitational effects.

Air viscosity, air particles, static drag, other forces, et cetera.

They may be measuring something, but that is far from saying that they know what it is, and based on the article, they are having a hard time measuring it.

In fact, based on all of the crazyness, some are now calling gravity "dark energy":

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24180-strength-of-gravity-shifts-and-this-time-its-serious/

An oscillating G could be evidence for a particular theory that relates dark energy to a fifth, hypothetical fundamental force, in addition to the four we know – gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces. This force might also cause the strength of gravity to oscillate, says Padilla. “This result is indeed very intriguing."

Come on, now "gravity" oscillates? They don't even know what they are measuring or what it is.

[Rama Set]

He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.

Apparently your statement is false.

From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)

In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"
 
ALGORITHMS, EPHEMERIDES AND PARAMETERS

Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.

The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpubs/19940510/text/ephemerides.html

The Saros Cycle just tells you when the next eclipse will occur. If you want to know when the sun and moon will be so that you can see it, you need another way of determining that.

Correct. That calculation undoubtedly requires the Earth to be round.

If the Saros Cycle says that a Solar Eclipse will occur at 12pm Noon, then you can use a Solar Clock (which is no different than a regular clock) to tell you whether the sun will be visible in the sky or not. You can also use a "solar ephemerides" model like the NOAA Solar Calculator.

There are also Lunar clocks and models. If you want to know whether you will be able to see the moon on a Lunar Eclipse then you need to consult a Lunar clock or model. That's all it is.

Or you can use the theories that NASA cites, which give the sun and moon coordinates in 3D

I literally showed you a site where NASA said they were using Newtonian Mechanics to make predictions. I also pointed out that predictions were made using two separate computational theories in their catalogues. It is cited in their catalogues. You can keep denying but you look sillier every time.

That website should be filled with sections about how they solved the Three Body Problem, not about with sections about an ancient method that is no longer in use.

Should be? Says who? What qualifies an armchair critic to say what should and should not appear on that site. They cite many things that are far more complicated and technical than Saros cycles so perhaps they understand that the vast majority of the site’s visitors, like you or I, would not get a ton of value from something like VSOP87. Regardless, you trying to impose some sort of imperative on NASA does not change the fact that they use math requiring the Earth to be round and orbiting the sun.

[stack]

The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.

As they say, “Location, location, location.”

Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?

[Pete Svarrior]

Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?

Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?

Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.

?


The Saros cycle was determined by observation. It's behavior is perfectly predicted and explained by a round earth model.

How is its behavior predicted by a flat earth model?

[Curious Squirrel]

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

It shows that the round earth model can predict astronomic events with to the second timing and geographic accuracy.

The flat earth model can't do this. It can't even accurately portray the actual distance from Brisbane to Lima.

I've seen some flat earth models make brave attempts. Is there a flat earth model that can predict eclipses, solstices  and such with the accuracy of a globe model?

The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/lunar.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LEcatalog.html

This is the homepage of NASA's Lunar Eclipse predictions and the catalog of Lunar Eclipses that will occur in the future. Notice the words "Saros" all over those pages. Then go to the  "Eclipses and the Saros" page that is either at the bottom of the page or accessible through the "Resources" button at the bottom of the page.

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

It specifically describes that "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."

Some on this thread are arguing that this means nothing, and, although that website is littered with pages and pages describing the Soros Cycle, and mentions of Saros, that NASA put that in there for meaningless reasons rather than describing how they solved the famous Three Body Problem.

So A) I'm not gonna get into it again, but as I mention nearly every time, there is some evidence that those who actually developed the Saros Cycle actually held to a round Earth belief (that is the astronomers of the Second Babylonian Era) and B) I'm not attempting whatsoever to argue that they have created a solution to the three body problem. I know others are, but I'm here strictly showing you the evidence that they do NOT rely solely upon the Saros Cycle for their predictions. I've now shown you in multiple locations where this is stated, no less than 4 times over the year I've been here. At this point I have to conclude you're deliberately ignoring the facts for some reason.

Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?

Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.

This might be a topic for another thread, but I would LOVE to see FE predict the location of the next major eclipse to the accuracy of NASA's predictions (I'll give you an error margin of a mile or two) without using anything beyond the Saros Cycle. Show your work, no utilization of anything but the information that can be gathered out of the Saros Cycle. Any FE proponent that might be up for this challenge? Prove your claim.

[Rounder]

I took from NASA’s website the data for all 19th, 20th, and 21st century eclipses and isolated the data for the Saros cycle of the August 2017 eclipse.  Here is that data:



Notice the 4th column, which gives the difference between consecutive eclipses in this Saros cycle.  If NASA were truly “using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle” then they would be calculating it by simply adding 8 years, 11 days, and 8 hours, and that column would all have the same number in it.  The reason it does not: the Saros cycle is a convenient way to CATEGORIZE eclipses and to ESTIMATE their timing.  To get timing accurate to the second, and a corresponding geographic accuracy, one must calculate by understanding the orbital ephemeris of the bodies involved.

[MCToon]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on.  This is just part of the differences.  Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular.  Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21.  Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22.  At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.

I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close.  If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?

[Tom Bishop]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on.  This is just part of the differences.  Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular.  Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21.  Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22.  At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.

I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close.  If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?

Hold on there, MCToon. If the shadow gets larger due to "striking the earth at an angle," because the earth is curving away, then should we not expect to see the shadow get larger East - West as well?

[Curious Squirrel]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on.  This is just part of the differences.  Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular.  Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21.  Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22.  At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.

I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close.  If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?

Hold on there, MCToon. If the shadow gets larger due to "striking the earth at an angle," because the earth is curving away, then should we not expect to see the shadow widen East - West as well?

It would 'widen' in the East-West direction rather than the North-South direction. So you would need an image to compare the size of the shadow on the Earth at various times of the eclipse rather than the one here that only shows the path it takes. It should be stretched somewhat 'wider' on either end of the path compared to the middle, as opposed to the path shown here stretching 'taller' as you move North or South from the equator.

[stack]

Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?

Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.

Wait, I’m confused. The JPL DE200 and LE200 solar and lunar ephemerides used as part of NASA’s eclipse prediction methodology are derived from FET?

[MCToon]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

The sun and moon are (in general respects) over the equator in the Flat Earth model. When you are casting shadows on parts that are further away, they tend to grow.

How does this show a Round Earth, specifically?

Farther away from the equator on the globe earth the shadow will be wider because it is striking the earth at an angle instead of straight on.  This is just part of the differences.  Additionally, the orbit of the moon is not perfectly regular.  Sometimes it's closer to the earth, this narrows shadows, see 2017, Aug 21.  Sometimes it's farther from the earth, increasing shadows, see 2009, June 22.  At similar latitudes the shadow size is different.

I understand your FE claim about casting larger shadows when farther from the equator, but I can't resolve how the moon and sun would work for eclipses if they are close.  If the sun and moon are about the same size and the sun is 3000 miles above the earth, how high is the moon to cast a narrow shadow?

Hold on there, MCToon. If the shadow gets larger due to "striking the earth at an angle," because the earth is curving away, then should we not expect to see the shadow get larger East - West as well?

You are absolutely correct, the east-west angle of incidence would have an effect.  This would depend on what exact time of day and the exact rotation of the earth when the shadow was cast.  Unfortunately, this map doesn't provide exacting start/stop times for each eclipse.  Could be an interesting thing to explore if someone were so inclined.

I'm still curious about the FE model for solar eclipses.  What would be the moon's elevation to cast an eclipse shadow.  If the sun and moon are the about same diameter I can't resolve where the moon would be in relation to the sun.  If the moon is really close to the sun it could maybe work but a huge area of the flat earth would be in shadow.  Am I thinking about this correctly?

[HorstFue]

For the rest of the world; notice also how the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a globe; thinnest shadow at equatorial regions, wider the further you go North or South ...

Could be, but also
...the width of the shadow varies according to latitude, just as expected on a Mercator Projection of a Globe. Areas appear bigger as they are in reality near top and bottom of the map.
Have a look at Greenland on this map...

[BillO]

The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.

I don't think so Tom.  The late Chaldeaen astronomers developed the Saros Cycle in and around 400-300 BC.  At this time the Hellenization of that area of the world was well underway.  The Chaldeaen academics would have been well aware of the spherical earth by then.

Besides, if you are actually on a spherical earth, but believe you are on a flat earth then your beliefs would have no bearing on the matter.  Your observations would still be the result of your reality rather than your beliefs.