[Gulliver]

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 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

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[markjo]

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

[Thork]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[markjo]

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?

[Thork]

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".

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

[markjo]

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.