[stack]

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

Nope.

From JPL DE Wikipedia page:
"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]

The observational data in the fits has been an evolving set, including: ranges (distances) to planets measured by radio signals from spacecraft,[8] direct radar-ranging of planets, two-dimensional position fixes (on the plane of the sky) by VLBI of spacecraft, transit and CCD telescopic observations of planets and small bodies, and laser-ranging of retroreflectors on the Moon, among others. DE102, for instance, was fit to 48,479 observations. "

If RE eclipse predictions are simply pattern based, which they have been endlessly shown to not be, but if you think they are, prove it. Take the Saros cycle data and Rowbotham's formulae and map out the eclipse predictions and pinpoint accurate locations on earth. Should be easy if it's all just pattern based.

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.

I can't see how this website demonstrates anything remotely akin to  superior knowledge regarding these matters when FE can't determine the location of an eclipse with even a smidge of the accuracy that RE can, if at all. As well, there is no FE map so sadly, you have provided no demonstration of literally anything that is observed by billions of people.

[Tom Bishop]

Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

[stack]

Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

Nope, wrong again. Apparently your education on the matter is insufficient. From the JPL DE:

"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]"

[Tom Bishop]

Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

Nope, wrong again. Apparently your education on the matter is insufficient. From the JPL DE:

"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]"

An incorrect Wikipedia article writer thinking that the n-body problems have been solved does not make them solved. You need to demonstrate your case. That same article also claims that the perturbation methods "solve the n-body problems".

Why do you think that the n-body problems have been solved in the face of 400 years of mathematical failure? What was the solution?

Why would a n-body simulator use pattern-based epicycles? JPL DE is clearly stated to be using perturbations/epicycles, even if some are ignorant to what they are.

Who solved the n-body problems? Can you point us to the Nobel Prize winner?

You will not be able to answer or show any of this. Because you are wrong. The N-Body problems have not been solved. The Three Body Problems have not been solved. You have been unable to demonstrate that it has been solved.

[stack]

Look into perturbations. JPL DE is based on perturbations. You are clearly uneducated on that matter, as to what they are and how they work, and why astronomy needs to be based on them rather than on Newton's laws.

The eclipses have not "endlessly shown" to be based on Round Earth Theory. Have you even looked at this thread? You have provided no evidence at all on that matter. I am the only one providing quotes, sources, evidence, while you just sit there being steamrolled on all matters of astronomy, thinking that your opinion counts for beans, unable to show or to demonstrate your case, and unable to contradict information presented to you, or defend yourself with even the strength of a kitten.

Nope, wrong again. Apparently your education on the matter is insufficient. From the JPL DE:

"The physics modeled included the mutual Newtonian gravitational accelerations and their relativistic corrections (a modified form of the Einstein-Infeld-Hoffmann equation), the accelerations caused by the tidal distortion of the Earth, the accelerations caused by the figure of the Earth and Moon, and a model of the lunar librations.[3]"

An incorrect Wikipedia article writer thinking that the n-body problems have been solved does not make them solved. You need to demonstrate your case. That same article also claims that the perturbation methods "solve the n-body problems".

Why do you think that the n-body problems have been solved in the face of 400 years of mathematical failure? What was the solution?

Why would a n-body simulator use pattern-based epicycles? JPL DE is clearly stated to be using perturbations/epicycles, even if some are ignorant to what they are.

Who solved the n-body problems? Can you point us to the Nobel Prize winner?

You will not be able to answer or show any of this. Because you are wrong. The N-Body problems have not been solved. The Three Body Problems have not been solved. You have been unable to demonstrate that it has been solved.

How is the wikipedia article all of a sudden incorrect when I cite it, but just fine when you do? Seems rather convenient.

I care not for the N-Body problem. The fact of the matter is that RE can predict with pinpoint accuracy eclipse event locations for any point on the planet. As exhaustively evidenced already these predictions work on a globe. FE cannot. That is an observable fact seated firmly in reality.

Again, if you believe it is all pattern based, prove it. Use your eclipse patterns and ENAG equations to show how FE can with the same pinpoint accuracy that RE does for any point on the planet. Go for it. Prove it's pattern based only - You need to demonstrate your case by showing how it can be done just based upon patterns. Have at it. I eagerly await your results.

[manicminer]

I must return to a quote from Tom earlier in this thread..

The round earth model is continuous farcical failure. There is NO model. The biggest problem in astronomy is the Three Body Problem. They can get the heliocentric orbits to work

Really? I thought there was a very definite round earth model in place. And I assume you mean they 'can't' get the heliocentric orbits to work.  That being the case can you explain how it is that astronomers can now predict the precise positions and movements of all solar system objects for any time in the future?  If I key in the predicted RA and Dec coordinates for any solar system object my telescope mount the telescope swings over to their position and puts them directly into my field of view day or night.  You can see bright stars and the bright planets in broad daylight in clear conditions through telescopes as you probably know.

If that isn't getting heliocentric orbits to work I don't know what is. There are several 'problems' in astronomy and science in general but that doesn't make astronomy a failure. That is what science is all about. Solving problems. I would suggest that there are a lot more unsolved 'problems' in flat Earth theory than there are in round Earth theory.

[BillO]

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. ”

You do know that Poor was shown to be wrong, don't you?

Every time you hitch your wagon to history's losers you cut your credibility further.

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

Really Tom?  Can you demonstrate HOW a cell phone works?  How about the computer you use?  Or, maybe the internet?  Not demonstrate that they do work, but demonstrate HOW they work.  Can you?

[Pete Svarrior]

Really Tom?  Can you demonstrate HOW a cell phone works?  How about the computer you use?  Or, maybe the internet?  Not demonstrate that they do work, but demonstrate HOW they work.  Can you?

Are you somehow confused by basic electronics? There are schools that can help you with that, you know.

[BillO]

Really Tom?  Can you demonstrate HOW a cell phone works?  How about the computer you use?  Or, maybe the internet?  Not demonstrate that they do work, but demonstrate HOW they work.  Can you?

Are you somehow confused by basic electronics? There are schools that can help you with that, you know.

Put your straw man away Pete, the question was for Tom, not me or you.  More to the point, it will require that you accept things that are not directly observable and can only be determined through using theory to predict indirect observations.  Would that not go against the FE interpretation of what a Zetetic is?

[TomInAustin]

How do explain that measured distances, which we use every day, show the earth is round. In detail the WGS84 model.

He explains it by denying it.   Remember, the distance from New Your to Paris is unknown.  Talk about farcical.

[TomInAustin]

Are you somehow confused by basic electronics? There are schools that can help you with that, you know.

There are also schools that can help you learn about geography.