The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Opeo on March 18, 2018, 04:59:52 AM
-
@Junker: Sorry if this doesn't go in this forum, but this is something that's been frustrating me and I believe has been really detrimental to the quality of debate on this site.
I've been posting here for a month, and at first I was really excited about this forum. At the offset it seemed like one of the few places on the internet where people were actually looking at the evidence and attempting to test hypotheses scientifically on this subject rather than just scream past each other like on Twitter and Facebook.
However, there seems to be a pretty alarming trend here that's hurting discourse, and that's that while every single thread has its fair share of heliocentrists arguing their case, many FE believers seem to completely avoid certain topics of debate.
If it were just random threads it would be one thing, but it appears to always be threads where Rowbotham/ENAG/other standard FE beliefs don't appear to have any explanation for the counter-argument brought up.
The best example are the two recent threads asking about the discrepancy between the FE model's predicted daylight-hours for the Southern Hemisphere versus actually observed hours:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8995.0
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9178.0
The first got only a couple responses from FE believers with no follow up, while the second didn't even get a single FE response.
Why are certain topics not being discussed? Shouldn't an apparent weak spot in the FE model be the most interesting new topic to debate and hash out? If someone showed me a large inconsistency in my worldview, my first priority would be to closely examine it and experiment until I figured out the problem or changed my view to something that works, but here many FE believers seem to be avoiding these topics. Is there a reason these aren't being discussed?
-
@Junker: Sorry if this doesn't go in this forum, but this is something that's been frustrating me and I believe has been really detrimental to the quality of debate on this site.
Why are certain topics not being discussed? Shouldn't an apparent weak spot in the FE model be the most interesting new topic to debate and hash out? If someone showed me a large inconsistency in my worldview, my first priority would be to closely examine it and experiment until I figured out the problem or changed my view to something that works, but here many FE believers seem to be avoiding these topics. Is there a reason these aren't being discussed?
I couldn't help but reply to this post as I have been harbouring exactly the same question for some time now. Unfortunately, I feel that I already know the answer because of the non responses I've gotten to several topics. We all know that there are a vast number of problems with the theory overall, but I have in the past isolated a few which seemed a bit more obvious and totally unresolvable to me (maybe I'm just not thinking sufficiently far "out of the box") so I posed them on this forum, never getting a reply.
The only reasonable conclusion I could draw was that they appear equally unresolvable to any FEer who might have read them, so they choose to ignore them. Attitudes such as this will inevitably result in Flat Earth Theory remaining in exactly the same position it is at present, with no advancement whatever. To be brutally honest, I hold out little hope for any advancement in the theory at any rate, unless it can be taken it a totally different direction. What direction, I haven't a clue. The present theory is fraught with inconsistencies and "problems", but these have never really bothered FEers. They are quite adept at ignoring them, hoping they will go away, possibly to be resolved by a saviour, a Knight in Shining Armour.
-
The thing is, there can’t be any advancement in FE Theory because it is patently wrong. It doesn’t in any way match observations or empirical evidence - something they claim to value highly.
As has been said, gaping holes in their model are either explained away using all kinds of crazy reasoning (The ISS is a balloon, perspective causes sunsets, buildings are occluded not by the curve of the earth but by waves, no one knows the distance from New York to Paris and so on) or, more often, they are just ignored.
The conclusion has to be that at some level they know their model doesn’t work so either:
1) They live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, their identity is so wrapped up in the FES that they cannot admit to themselves that they are wrong
2) They don’t really believe it either and are just in it for the lolz.
If I had to guess I’d say Tom is in the first of those categories and Pete is in the second.
There is a third category for people who believe in a flat earth for (flawed in my opinion) religious reasons. They believe that’s what scripture says so they believe it and trust that over all the science.
-
The thing is, there can’t be any advancement in FE Theory because it is patently wrong. It doesn’t in any way match observations or empirical evidence - something they claim to value highly.
As has been said, gaping holes in their model are either explained away using all kinds of crazy reasoning (The ISS is a balloon, perspective causes sunsets, buildings are occluded not by the curve of the earth but by waves, no one knows the distance from New York to Paris and so on) or, more often, they are just ignored.
The conclusion has to be that at some level they know their model doesn’t work so either:
1) They live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, their identity is so wrapped up in the FES that they cannot admit to themselves that they are wrong
2) They don’t really believe it either and are just in it for the lolz.
If I had to guess I’d say Tom is in the first of those categories and Pete is in the second.
There is a third category for people who believe in a flat earth for (flawed in my opinion) religious reasons. They believe that’s what scripture says so they believe it and trust that over all the science.
Yep I think you have it nailed...............I have asked in a previous thread "calling all flat earthers" for believers to identify there primary reason for belief in the theory....no response. I think almost all are in category 2 otherwise they would step forward.
-
Well look at the topics you highlighted in the OP. Both spotlight sun.
We've all had that debate to death. We're bored of it. We know where the conversation goes, we know your objections, we have a wiki with the info and hundreds and hundreds of threads about it.
We aren't an automated bot service that can just do this conversation again and again for every single person that visits the site. If you want to know, search the forum, read those threads, and then once you are further along in your understanding of FET, come back to us. Maybe we can talk about vines wrapping around trees anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere or monkeys exhibiting flat earth assumptions or sun dogs only appearing towards the poles. But spot light sun or gravity again ... yeah, you will find it hard to get someone to go through all that for the 300th time.
-
If I spend 5 hours in a thread to bring you up to speed on a subject, you guys will just make another thread on the same topic the next week.
So why is our time better spent debating with you than improving the wiki, making a youtube video, or writing a book?
-
Well look at the topics you highlighted in the OP. Both spotlight sun.
We've all had that debate to death. We're bored of it. We know where the conversation goes, we know your objections, we have a wiki with the info and hundreds and hundreds of threads about it.
We aren't an automated bot service that can just do this conversation again and again for every single person that visits the site. If you want to know, search the forum, read those threads, and then once you are further along in your understanding of FET, come back to us. Maybe we can talk about vines wrapping around trees anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere or monkeys exhibiting flat earth assumptions or sun dogs only appearing towards the poles. But spot light sun or gravity again ... yeah, you will find it hard to get someone to go through all that for the 300th time.
Genuinely, thanks for the response.
However, I have to disagree on that explanation because despite it being a common question, I've never see the an FE explanation for it anywhere I've looked. There's nowhere on the wiki that explains it and I've searched some older threads and not seen it — there doesn't seem to be a counter argument anywhere.
The closest thing I've seen is this chapter from the great Rowbotham himself: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za26.htm. However, he doesn't explain any of the evidence, he just compares day lengths across wildly different latitudes and then flat out rejects the possibility that days and nights are the same length for equivalent latitudes north and south of the equator, but seasonally swapped. This is an attempt at an explanation at least, and shows he thought through the logical consequences of his model, but is now so patently absurd today where someone at 34° N can phone up someone at 34° S and verify that their seasonal daylight times are a perfect match. We're now well past the point where anyone who's not being intellectually dishonest can doubt the reported sunrise and sunset times across the world, so clearly a new FE explanation is needed.
If this has been answered before, I'd truly be curious to see it, but I haven't found it anywhere. Would you mind even just linking to an explanation?
If I spend 5 hours in a thread to bring you up to speed on a subject, you guys will just make another thread on the same topic the next week.
So why is our time better spent debating with you than improving the wiki, making a youtube video, or writing a book?
Even just a link to the wiki page explaining this phenomenon would be great! I promise, at least speaking for myself, that I scoured the wiki for an explanation before making my thread and couldn't find it anywhere.
-
If I spend 5 hours in a thread to bring you up to speed on a subject, you guys will just make another thread on the same topic the next week.
So why is our time better spent debating with you than improving the wiki, making a youtube video, or writing a book?
I heartily agree with you on this. The problem seems to be you don't do that second part. When was the last time the FES made a YouTube video? How about the last time you wrote a book? How often do you update the wiki to reflect information discussed on these fora? In my opinion, ideally these fora should serve as a location to learn where you need to strengthen your hypothesis, so that you can then go and do so! If you get asked the same question(s) over and over, maybe that's a clue you need to improve information on the wiki. Or create a video discussing the topic. Or write an updated book on the information rather than relying entirely on claims made decades ago.
-
That's fine, Tom, but as others have noted you DON'T seem to spend any time updating the Wiki.
Yes, you do get a bunch of people signing up and saying things like
"If the earth is flat why aren't the other planets flat?"
That is a silly question because the answer is right there in your Wiki. Silly answer, obviously, but at least you have one.
But a lot of other questions which you're asked - you might well think you have answers but those certainly aren't in the Wiki so why not answer them?
Your answer could then become a Wiki page so you don't have to keep repeating it.
-
Well look at the topics you highlighted in the OP. Both spotlight sun.
We've all had that debate to death. We're bored of it. We know where the conversation goes, we know your objections, we have a wiki with the info and hundreds and hundreds of threads about it.
We aren't an automated bot service that can just do this conversation again and again for every single person that visits the site. If you want to know, search the forum, read those threads, and then once you are further along in your understanding of FET, come back to us. Maybe we can talk about vines wrapping around trees anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere or monkeys exhibiting flat earth assumptions or sun dogs only appearing towards the poles. But spot light sun or gravity again ... yeah, you will find it hard to get someone to go through all that for the 300th time.
OK, good, so two believers Tom and Baby Thork. Would you care to share with us that which was primarily instrumental in your decision to accept FE theory
-
If I spend 5 hours in a thread to bring you up to speed on a subject, you guys will just make another thread on the same topic the next week.
So why is our time better spent debating with you than improving the wiki, making a youtube video, or writing a book?
Mostly because improving the wiki, making a youtube video, or writing a book are each a waste of time, even yours. The best thing you could do with the wiki would be to delete each page, one by one. At least then it wouldn't have any errors or misconceptions, which is about all it has at present.
-
OK, good, so two believers Tom and Baby Thork. Would you care to share with us that which was primarily instrumental in your decision to accept FE theory
I discovered the site over 10 years ago. I read it for a bit and thought ... mmm. Proving that the world is round seems a bit easy. Why don't I prove its flat instead? Got to be more fun.
Anyhoo, that means learning FET, making the arguments and finding flaws in RET. After a while, FET became easier to make a case for than RET, even in my own head, and the rest is history. I'd accidentally red-pilled myself.
-
OK, good, so two believers Tom and Baby Thork. Would you care to share with us that which was primarily instrumental in your decision to accept FE theory
I discovered the site over 10 years ago. I read it for a bit and thought ... mmm. Proving that the world is round seems a bit easy. Why don't I prove its flat instead? Got to be more fun.
Anyhoo, that means learning FET, making the arguments and finding flaws in RET. After a while, FET became easier to make a case for than RET, even in my own head, and the rest is history. I'd accidentally red-pilled myself.
So still no response to my point here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9253.msg144528#msg144528 ? The constant evasion on this topic really doesn't look good for the FE hypothesis. One might even start to think there are glaring logical holes that none of the supporters can explain so instead they just deflect and ignore.
-
I took a look through the threads you linked in your first post where you assert that there is a lack of participation and found the following quote:
He states that the FE Map is as shown on the UN Logo - actually there is no agreed map although that is admittedly the one commonly shown.
It looks like the thread was answered to me. It is using a false premise by assuming that the earth is a Northern Azimuth projection.
I'm pretty sure we have said that the commonly used map and model is just a visualized example numerous time, enough times that even Round Earthers are parroting that information back to you. This is also expressed in the Wiki that states that there are multiple possible models, and across the literature. The problem isn't that no one is participating. The problem is that you aren't listening.
-
I took a look through the threads you linked in your first post where you assert that there is a lack of participation and found the following quote:
He states that the FE Map is as shown on the UN Logo - actually there is no agreed map although that is admittedly the one commonly shown.
It looks like the thread was answered to me. It is using a false premise by assuming that the earth is a Northern Azimuth projection.
I'm pretty sure we have said that the commonly used map and model is just a visualized example numerous time, enough times that even Round Earthers are parroting that information back to you. This is also expressed in the Wiki that states that there are multiple possible models, and across the literature. The problem isn't that no one is participating. The problem is that you aren't listening.
When will you be explaining how you would propose to actually produce a correct map of the earth?
-
I took a look through the threads you linked in your first post where you assert that there is a lack of participation and found the following quote:
He states that the FE Map is as shown on the UN Logo - actually there is no agreed map although that is admittedly the one commonly shown.
It looks like the thread was answered to me. It is using a false premise by assuming that the earth is a Northern Azimuth projection.
I'm pretty sure we have said that the commonly used map and model is just a visualized example numerous time, enough times that even Round Earthers are parroting that information back to you. This is also expressed in the Wiki that states that there are multiple possible models, and across the literature. The problem isn't that no one is participating. The problem is that you aren't listening.
I am very aware that there is some disagreement with in the FE community on what the map looks like. My point has always been to argue against the most common model, which by the way is the one that's used to explain seasons by both the wiki (https://wiki.tfes.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions#How_do_you_explain_day.2Fnight_cycles_and_seasons.3F) and Rowbotham. I never claimed "if the spotlight model shown on the seasons page of the FE wiki is wrong, then all possible FE models are wrong," it was "if the spotlight model shown on the wiki is wrong, then FE supporters should update it." Hence why I specified "'spotlight' model" in the title of my first topic.
If you already know that model is wrong because it can't explain something as simple as the seasons, why is it all over the wiki? Why is it so frequently posted here? Why is it in the logo of the Flat Earth Society itself? It's not that this is "just a visualized example," it's clearly and objectively incorrect. This also isn't a matter like a Mercator projection, where concessions and distortions have to be accepted since it's impossible to draw and entire 3D object on a 2D plane. If the Earth is flat and a piece of paper is flat, the paper should be able to show a map perfectly so there's literally no reason to put up with an outdated, incorrect model. It's OK to update the wiki to just say you don't know what the map looks like instead of peddling models you know are wrong, if that's going to be your defense whenever someone points out issues.
It's pretty intellectually dishonest as it stands, since the wiki uses that model to describe many things, but whenever someone brings up problems and inconsistencies with the explanations their critiques are suddenly not valid because you already knew the model was wrong. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
Why is it in the logo of the Flat Earth Society itself? It's not that this is "just a visualized example," it's clearly and objectively incorrect.
This old chestnut again.
Do these guys sell half eaten apples?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8a/Apple_Logo.svg/136px-Apple_Logo.svg.png)
Is this a company run by a woman who sells sea shells on the sea shore?
(http://images.all-free-download.com/images/graphiclarge/shell_logo_30645.jpg)
Is this cereal for zoos?
(https://images.kglobalservices.com/www.kelloggs.com.au/en_au/product/product_435527/prod_img-417184_kelloggs-frosties.png)
We have a logo. Its a very rough representation of a flat earth. McDonald's don't even have a burger in their logo. They have a golden 'm'. It has nothing to do with their product at all. Most logos are like that. Ours is no different. You see it, you think of flat earth ... job done. Have you been writing angry letters to the people below because of their crappy representation of earth?
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57569badf85082c8788a914b/t/5a3135df8165f57be15cb772/1513353109362/Friends+of+the+Earth+Logo)
Let it go. It's just a logo.
-
Why is it in the logo of the Flat Earth Society itself? It's not that this is "just a visualized example," it's clearly and objectively incorrect.
This old chestnut again.
I'm being trolled right now, right? No one could possibly in good faith read that post and think the central point that needed a response was me complaining about the logo.
The longer these constant deflections and straw men and deliberate misrepresentations go on, the more I'm being persuaded that every FES member is just in on the joke and this whole thing is a bit. I just don't want to think people could be so close-minded that they'd fabricate complete non-sequitors just to derail conversations they don't like.
I'll spell out my real question this time for you: if the azimuth projection map doesn't work, then why is it still in the ostensibly educational wiki?
-
Because we're too lazy to change it.
Are you happy now? >o<
-
Because we're too lazy to change it.
Are you happy now? >o<
Do you really not see it as a problem that there are such gaping holes in your "theory"?
You have no idea what a flat earth looks like - in the real world the globe has long since been mapped.
You don't even know if there is one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored, there is a research base at the South Pole which you can pay to visit.
The fact is there is no flat earth map which can match observations. The one in the Wiki doesn't. Either there's one pole in which case there is no way the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic circle can be explained and you're calling every single Antarctic explorer a liar. Or there's 2 in which case your entire model of the sun's movement falls down.
The reason for this is that the premise it is based on - a flat earth - is wrong. It's weird that you never consider this. Instead you start with the premise of a flat earth because of...reasons. You then try and fit everything around that but it doesn't fit. You are trying to fit a too big carpet in a room, soon as you flatten one corner down another one pops up.
-
Do you really not see it as a problem that there are such gaping holes in your "theory"?
You have no idea what a flat earth looks like - in the real world the globe has long since been mapped.
You don't even know if there is one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored, there is a research base at the South Pole which you can pay to visit.
The fact is there is no flat earth map which can match observations. The one in the Wiki doesn't. Either there's one pole in which case there is no way the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic circle can be explained and you're calling every single Antarctic explorer a liar. Or there's 2 in which case your entire model of the sun's movement falls down.
The reason for this is that the premise it is based on - a flat earth - is wrong. It's weird that you never consider this. Instead you start with the premise of a flat earth because of...reasons. You then try and fit everything around that but it doesn't fit. You are trying to fit a too big carpet in a room, soon as you flatten one corner down another one pops up.
There are holes in every theory, including RET. Not that you ever remember any of those. They just get ignored and on you go.
I personally have a very clear idea of what I think the earth looks like. The problem with updating the wiki to reflect this is that not all the flat earthers agree with me.
Some think we have a polar azimuthal layout.
Some think we have two poles.
Some think the earth is infinite.
Some like the Dymaxion map.
I subscribe more to the "Constant-Scale Natural Boundary Map of Earth". Splat Earth Theory.
As the name suggests it is constant scale so no scaling issues, it matches natural boundaries of known antarctic features, it works for ocean currents, compasses, maps ... its a good fit.
But that's just me. But rather than just have to take on round earthers, I also have to convince all the flat earthers. I need to spend lots of time explaining why I think an infinite earth is a stupid idea. Then I have to try to debunk two poles. etc etc etc. I have no appetite for a unified theory. I honestly don't care what other people believe. Its up to them. I put forward my case. Take the bits you like. Bin the rest. But I don't want a shouting match over the contents of the wiki. It has the basic theories in there. It does its job. It isn't there to be a peer reviewed submission to the authorities any more than any other wiki type page is. Its an introduction to FET, and it does its job.
Here's an EASA page about how rockets work. It tells you very little. Its just an intro. Our wiki is like that.
https://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMVVIXJD1E_Liftoff_0.html
-
There are holes in every theory, including RET. Not that you ever remember any of those. They just get ignored and on you go.
Are there? Are you sure these are holes or are they things you just don't understand? What holes are these?
Some think we have a polar azimuthal layout.
Some think we have two poles.
Some think the earth is infinite.
Some like the Dymaxion map.
But, again, do you really not see this as a problem? Obviously not all debates are over in science, we don't have everything figured out. But the options you list there are SO different from each other. I'm sure all of them solve some problems but have other massive problems. One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
To help you out on one point though: The infinite earth is a stupid idea if you combine it with UA, because you need a force to create acceleration and if the earth is an infinite plane then it must be of infinite mass so no amount of force is going to accelerate it
But I don't want a shouting match over the contents of the wiki. It has the basic theories in there. It does its job. It isn't there to be a peer reviewed submission to the authorities any more than any other wiki type page is. Its an introduction to FET, and it does its job.
Fine, but as discussed there is so much that model can't explain when compared with actual observations.
You claim to be empiricists, what empirical experiments are you doing to try and verify or improve your model?
-
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
-
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
Clearly you are interested in finding the shape of the earth, otherwise you would have a proposal on how to do it.
All the data is in timeanddate.com to calculate the shape of the earth, there is also satellite alignment data. You could use it for your calculations.
-
There are holes in every theory, including RET.
Incorrect
I personally have a very clear idea of what I think the earth looks like.
And how do you know you're not wrong?
Some think we have a polar azimuthal layout.
Some think we have two poles.
Some think the earth is infinite.
Some like the Dymaxion map.
Like AllAroundTheWorld said:
But, again, do you really not see this as a problem? Obviously not all debates are over in science, we don't have everything figured out. But the options you list there are SO different from each other. I'm sure all of them solve some problems but have other massive problems. One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
To help you out on one point though: The infinite earth is a stupid idea if you combine it with UA, because you need a force to create acceleration and if the earth is an infinite plane then it must be of infinite mass so no amount of force is going to accelerate it
As the name suggests it is constant scale so no scaling issues
Impossible. Where's your evidence?
it matches natural boundaries of known antarctic features, it works for ocean currents, compasses, maps ... its a good fit.
Evidence?
Here's an EASA page about how rockets work. It tells you very little. Its just an intro. Our wiki is like that.
https://www.esa.int/esaKIDSen/SEMVVIXJD1E_Liftoff_0.html
Because that site is meant for little kids who don't know super big technical terms. Why not use this pdf from NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/153415main_Rockets_How_Rockets_Work.pdf
Or NASA's article on what rockets are?: https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-rocket-k4.html
Why not NASA's video on how they launch rockets?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0IQNxf7Qgs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0IQNxf7Qgs)
What about their beginner's guide to rockets?: https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/
-
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
We do provide records, you ignore it. We could also ask the same of you.
-
Do you really not see it as a problem that there are such gaping holes in your "theory"?
You have no idea what a flat earth looks like - in the real world the globe has long since been mapped.
You don't even know if there is one pole or two - in the real world both have been explored, there is a research base at the South Pole which you can pay to visit.
The fact is there is no flat earth map which can match observations. The one in the Wiki doesn't. Either there's one pole in which case there is no way the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic circle can be explained and you're calling every single Antarctic explorer a liar. Or there's 2 in which case your entire model of the sun's movement falls down.
The reason for this is that the premise it is based on - a flat earth - is wrong. It's weird that you never consider this. Instead you start with the premise of a flat earth because of...reasons. You then try and fit everything around that but it doesn't fit. You are trying to fit a too big carpet in a room, soon as you flatten one corner down another one pops up.
There are holes in every theory, including RET. Not that you ever remember any of those. They just get ignored and on you go.
I know it would be very convenient if there were, but there really aren't, at least not in the same way. The things FE believers frequently bring up as holes (e.g. the atmosphere should escape Earth's gravity, the ocean shouldn't look flat if the Earth is really spinning, I can't see the curve from this skyscraper/mountaintop/plane) don't actually contradict mainstream science. For example, if you plug in the data into Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation and classical mechanics, you'll quickly see it only predicts objects on a spinning equator will be 0.3% lighter due to centrifugal force, but not flying off into space. If you measure each molecule in the upper atmosphere, you'll see none of them ever reach escape velocity and so classical mechanics doesn't predict they'll escape.
I'm not saying this automatically makes all FE hypotheses wrong and Newtonian mechanics right, just that mainstream physics are all consistent with each other. You will be extremely hard pressed to find physicist that disagrees with any of the basic premises of modern science, or that a model globe accurately represents the Earth. Where they sometimes disagree is on new areas of study where there hasn't been a lot of experimentation yet, or on the cutting edge of science like string theory and dark matter and all that, where our tools aren't sophisticated enough to draw real data and so all hypotheses are totally theoretical and untestable.
On the other hand, FE hypotheses generally do contradict each other fundamentally, on things that should be easily testable, like building a simple map of a known and inhabited area which cartographers have been able to do for 9,000 years.
I largely agree with the rest of your post, but I wanted to point that out.
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298
-
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
Clearly you are interested in finding the shape of the earth, otherwise you would have a proposal on how to do it.
All the data is in timeanddate.com to calculate the shape of the earth, there is also satellite alignment data. You could use it for your calculations.
Actually timeanddate.com is just an online calculator, not a collection of observations or reports.
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
We do provide records, you ignore it. We could also ask the same of you.
What reports would those be; your links to online calculators and chants of "prove me wrong"? Those records?
-
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298
Your sources say "according to this source, it will happen", not "it did happen". Do you understand the difference between a prediction and an observation?
Also, long southern days do not discount a bi-polar Flat Earth model or other types of models.
-
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298
Your sources say "according to this source, it will happen", not "it did happen". Do you understand the difference between a prediction and an observation?
When it comes to sunrise and sunset, I think we can trust a major newspaper wouldn't have gotten it multiple hours wrong in 2016. Someone would have noticed in a city of 5 million people that the paper reported the sun would set at 9:45 on a Summer evening and it ended up setting at 6.
Also, long southern days do not discount a bi-polar Flat Earth model or other types of models.
And once again, I know. My point has been to show that the most common FE model is nonsensical (which it sounds like is a conclusion everyone posting here is coming to). I never claimed that this means all FE models are wrong (and in fact have said the opposite multiple times).
-
Here you go Tom, here's a post I went in depth on that topic with multiple primary sources: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9082.msg143298#msg143298
Your sources say "according to this source, it will happen", not "it did happen". Do you understand the difference between a prediction and an observation?
I could ask the same of you. One of the major holes I see in FET is the absolute lack of any ability to predict when and where solar eclipses will occur. Meanwhile, on the RE side, we can accurately predict solar eclipses, their paths of totality, and even what the eclipse will look like based on the moon's features.
Has FET ever been able to do the same? Or anything similar? Seriously I'm looking for any prediction made by FET that has ever been proven accurate.
-
Actually timeanddate.com is just an online calculator, not a collection of observations or reports.
I would suggest that the basis for its calculations is the myriad of observations and reports that have been made by thousands of astronomers over hundreds of years, continuing to this day...
-
I could ask the same of you. One of the major holes I see in FET is the absolute lack of any ability to predict when and where solar eclipses will occur. Meanwhile, on the RE side, we can accurately predict solar eclipses, their paths of totality, and even what the eclipse will look like based on the moon's features.
Has FET ever been able to do the same? Or anything similar? Seriously I'm looking for any prediction made by FET that has ever been proven accurate.
Yes, FET can predict elipses. They happen with regular timing. Like clockwork. Round earth or flat. It is called the Saros cycle. If an eclipse happens somewhere, I can guarantee you'll get another in roughly the same path across earth, 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours later, albeit shifted 120 degrees West due to that pesky 8 hours. Why the hell does the earth need to be a ball for me to do maths like that? This was discovered by the Babylonians and later used by Ancient Greeks. Do you think they had super computers doing fancy ball mechanics, or do you think addition might have worked just fine for them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_%28astronomy%29
This is a good example of round earthers not understanding how something works, noting that it does work, attributing that to being because the earth is a ball, and not having a clue why. You can forget predicting eclipses ... FET has that nailed. We can add. We have a clockwork universe with celestial gearing, eclipse timing is no issue.
So I just plugged a 'major hole' for you. Your not understanding the basic mechanics of the universe, isn't evidence that I don't.
-
noting first that 'a good example of round earthers not understanding how something works...' etc is a classic generalization fallacy,
Why the hell does the earth need to be a ball for me to do maths like that?
this quote is super ironic in the context of this other quote:
Your not understanding the basic mechanics of the universe, isn't evidence that I don't.
yeah
Tom likes to point out that measuring a repeating pattern isn't the same as making predictions. The prediction that matters is not when or where it will occur, given that it's so regular, but what causes the eclipse to occur in the first place. This is where flat Earth belief fails.
-
I could ask the same of you. One of the major holes I see in FET is the absolute lack of any ability to predict when and where solar eclipses will occur. Meanwhile, on the RE side, we can accurately predict solar eclipses, their paths of totality, and even what the eclipse will look like based on the moon's features.
Has FET ever been able to do the same? Or anything similar? Seriously I'm looking for any prediction made by FET that has ever been proven accurate.
Yes, FET can predict elipses. They happen with regular timing. Like clockwork. Round earth or flat. It is called the Saros cycle. If an eclipse happens somewhere, I can guarantee you'll get another in roughly the same path across earth, 18 years, 11 days, 8 hours later, albeit shifted 120 degrees West due to that pesky 8 hours. Why the hell does the earth need to be a ball for me to do maths like that? This was discovered by the Babylonians and later used by Ancient Greeks. Do you think they had super computers doing fancy ball mechanics, or do you think addition might have worked just fine for them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_%28astronomy%29
This is a good example of round earthers not understanding how something works, noting that it does work, attributing that to being because the earth is a ball, and not having a clue why. You can forget predicting eclipses ... FET has that nailed. We can add. We have a clockwork universe with celestial gearing, eclipse timing is no issue.
So I just plugged a 'major hole' for you. Your not understanding the basic mechanics of the universe, isn't evidence that I don't.
I believe 'accurately' is a major point here. The Saros Cycle is only accurate to a point. If I'm not mistaken, to the day. Not the hour, not the minute, as we had accurately predicted using RE calculations for the recent US eclipse. Can the Saros Cycle also accurately predict the path of totality, from the width of it to the length? Again, from my understanding it doesn't get much more accurate than to within an error of a few dozen miles. Far less accurate than we were given using the RE model. So no, it's nowhere near the mark of 'accurate' when compared to the tool that actually was.
-
yo that's good thinking, I revise the claim that predicting the cause is most important. I did not consider the accuracy of the prediction which is also illuminating
-
Personally I see no evidence that the educated FE supporters truly believe in FE. Their tendency to lack the will to engage with those that oppose their views on a range of points by hiding behind the claim that they shouldn't have to waste their time convincing non believers is a tell.
They practically admit that convincing all but the most susceptible of FET is a lost cause and excuse it by claiming we are brainwashed sheep.
-
One model may explain seasons but can't explain the 24 hour sun in Antarctica. Another model may explain the 24 hour sun but can't explain seasons. All the models have holes in you could drive a truck through. They're trying to explain something which can't be explained because the earth isn't flat.
Seeing as you guys have trouble providing records showing that the sun behaves as if the earth were a globe, I don't see why we would need to conform to your hypothesis.
No, you just shout "fake!" when the evidence is provided which is a lazy way of proving yourselves "right" about something.
Here's a video of 24 hour sun at the south pole:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g
-
I believe 'accurately' is a major point here. The Saros Cycle is only accurate to a point. If I'm not mistaken, to the day. Not the hour, not the minute, as we had accurately predicted using RE calculations for the recent US eclipse. Can the Saros Cycle also accurately predict the path of totality, from the width of it to the length? Again, from my understanding it doesn't get much more accurate than to within an error of a few dozen miles. Far less accurate than we were given using the RE model. So no, it's nowhere near the mark of 'accurate' when compared to the tool that actually was.
NASA uses the Saros cycle.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
It uses the same tables that have always been used. They just do it to a few more decimal points these days because we have computers and more accurate clocks. We predict eclipses based on period, not some ball mechanics formula that you have all failed to produce. I mean you keep saying we use RET to predict eclipses. Prove it. Show me this globular formula. There isn't one. In fact, it is so hard to do with balls in space, it actually has a name. The three body problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
As for how accurate, in 1504 Christopher Columbus used the Saros cycle to accurately predict an eclipse. He told natives if they didn't keep giving him and his men food and nice gifts, he'd block out the sun as it would anger God. The natives then observed the sun being blocked out, soiled their grass skirts and loaded his ships with everything he needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse
Columbus used Saros cycle 105. You can see from the table we can ping it to the second! Accuracy is no issue here. Note you get totality info, duration, precise size of shadow, everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Saros_105
I'd say even then it was so accurate, that you could use the tables to predict an eclipse anywhere on earth to within a few minutes. And that's what NASA does ... the exact same way. The way its been done for 3000 years. This isn't RET. Its a clockwork phenomenon, that is as predictable as the sun rising and setting. Below is a page from the almanac Columbus used. Pretty similar looking tables to wikis offerings today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zacuto#/media/File:AlmanachPerpetuum.jpg
PS: your recent US eclipse was Saros cycle 145. It will next appear in 2035, but only be fully visible from the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But in 2053 on September 12, it'll be right over Saudi Arabia. You guys will get it back (remember it moves 120 degrees west each time because of the 8 hours (one third)) in 2071, but it'll only be a partial for you then unless you wander a bit south to Panama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Saros_145
PPS: Notice how when you pick something even remotely interesting, you get a proper reply. Something a bit less obvious and done to death than spotlight suns or gravity.
-
The three body problem has little relevance here, and, despite your clichéd approach, has several well understood solutions.
Satellite mapping is used to improve accuracy of predictions: https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html (https://www.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html)
Insofar as RET is even a thing, satellites are probably part of it. As are WGS84, and lunar rovers.
-
I believe 'accurately' is a major point here. The Saros Cycle is only accurate to a point. If I'm not mistaken, to the day. Not the hour, not the minute, as we had accurately predicted using RE calculations for the recent US eclipse. Can the Saros Cycle also accurately predict the path of totality, from the width of it to the length? Again, from my understanding it doesn't get much more accurate than to within an error of a few dozen miles. Far less accurate than we were given using the RE model. So no, it's nowhere near the mark of 'accurate' when compared to the tool that actually was.
NASA uses the Saros cycle.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html
It uses the same tables that have always been used. They just do it to a few more decimal points these days because we have computers and more accurate clocks. We predict eclipses based on period, not some ball mechanics formula that you have all failed to produce. I mean you keep saying we use RET to predict eclipses. Prove it. Show me this globular formula. There isn't one. In fact, it is so hard to do with balls in space, it actually has a name. The three body problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
As for how accurate, in 1504 Christopher Columbus used the Saros cycle to accurately predict an eclipse. He told natives if they didn't keep giving him and his men food and nice gifts, he'd block out the sun as it would anger God. The natives then observed the sun being blocked out, soiled their grass skirts and loaded his ships with everything he needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse
Columbus used Saros cycle 105. You can see from the table we can ping it to the second! Accuracy is no issue here. Note you get totality info, duration, precise size of shadow, everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Saros_105
I'd say even then it was so accurate, that you could use the tables to predict an eclipse anywhere on earth to within a few minutes. And that's what NASA does ... the exact same way. The way its been done for 3000 years. This isn't RET. Its a clockwork phenomenon, that is as predictable as the sun rising and setting. Below is a page from the almanac Columbus used. Pretty similar looking tables to wikis offerings today.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Zacuto#/media/File:AlmanachPerpetuum.jpg
PS: your recent US eclipse was Saros cycle 145. It will next appear in 2035, but only be fully visible from the middle of the Pacific Ocean. But in 2053 on September 12, it'll be right over Saudi Arabia. You guys will get it back (remember it moves 120 degrees west each time because of the 8 hours (one third)) in 2071, but it'll only be a partial for you then unless you wander a bit south to Panama.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Saros_145
PPS: Notice how when you pick something even remotely interesting, you get a proper reply. Something a bit less obvious and done to death than spotlight suns or gravity.
No, NASA talks about the Saros Cycle, and keeps them updated. This has been discussed elsewhere in the forum ad nauseum. The eclipse predictions are based upon the work of Fred Espenak who did not rely upon the Saros Cycles to formulate them. The site you linked to about the 105 cycle even credits his works (as they are requested to do) and as such cannot be shown to otherwise be that accurate. I laid out in detail how we know they are not relying on strictly the Saros Cycle (if they're even using it at all) in this post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8014.msg134973#msg134973) the last time this came up.
As for Christopher Colombus, did I not just say it was accurate to a day? And to within a few dozen miles? Plenty of opportunity in there for that. You don't need the type of accuracy provided by modern day calculations to use an eclipse in that manner. You just need luck.
-
Yeah, no.
NASA uses Saros to predict eclipses.
NASA has mapped every eclipse that will occur for the next 1,000 years
NASA knows this because the space agency keeps a five millennium catalog of all the eclipses (both solar and lunar) that have occurred or will occur since 1999 B.C. to the year A.D. 3000.
They even know the exact time, down to the fraction of a second, that the eclipses will occur. Here are the stats for that 2837 eclipse over Mexico.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lT7zBok5LB0W2PrqbOSt8wCuZBA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6407077/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-29%20at%2010.44.22%20AM.png)
NASA is able to make eclipse predictions because it has all of the variables: the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the orbit of the moon around the Earth, and the daily rotation of the Earth.
But these calculations aren't all that simple. For one, the moon's orbit around the Earth is constantly changing (there are actually several ways to measure the length of a lunar month, which complicates matters). Still, it boils down to this: Any given eclipse will repeat on an "eight years, 11 days, eight hours" cycle, or what's known as the Saros cycle. And though the eclipses repeat, they don't repeat in the exact same locations.
"Because the Saros period is not equal to a whole number of days, its biggest drawback is that subsequent eclipses are visible from different parts of the globe," NASA explains.
Nasa keeps the catalogues. It then works forward. It does not observe the current location of sun moon and earth and then do the calculations. It bases them on historic occurrences of the past and uses addition. Can FET do that? Sure. No three-body ball mechanics required. You can't 'debunk' FET just because we can predict an eclipse. We've been doing that for 5 millennia and advancements in clocks is the key to better predictions now than of the past. Not whirly ball magic maths.
And no. Columbus was incredibly accurate to within a few minutes.
Columbus, of course, had a copy of the almanac with him when he was stranded on Jamaica. And he soon discovered from studying its tables that on the evening of Thursday, Feb. 29, 1504, a total lunar eclipse would occur, beginning around the time of moonrise.
His biggest problem was back in 1504 it was hard to accurately gauge your longitude because clocks weren't so great. Moonrise is predicted to the minute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_rewards
The poor c*** was using an hourglass to tell the time.
The Science Of Christopher Columbus
TELLING TIME
The passage of time was noted by a sandglass that had to be turned every half hour. At night, the constellations move 15 degrees every hour, giving a reliable way to calculate the passage of time. The time of day could be determined at least three times a day: sunrise, noon and sunset. Columbus probably had tables that told him the times of sunrise and sunset for each day of the year and would have been able to determine noon by the position of the sun. During the day, the position of the sun relative to the bow, mast and stern of the ships also would give the approximate time.
If astronomers then had atomic clocks and he had a precise location ... he'd have pinged it to the second as we do now.
-
Yeah, no.
NASA uses Saros to predict eclipses.
NASA has mapped every eclipse that will occur for the next 1,000 years
NASA knows this because the space agency keeps a five millennium catalog of all the eclipses (both solar and lunar) that have occurred or will occur since 1999 B.C. to the year A.D. 3000.
They even know the exact time, down to the fraction of a second, that the eclipses will occur. Here are the stats for that 2837 eclipse over Mexico.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lT7zBok5LB0W2PrqbOSt8wCuZBA=/800x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6407077/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-29%20at%2010.44.22%20AM.png)
NASA is able to make eclipse predictions because it has all of the variables: the orbit of the Earth around the sun, the orbit of the moon around the Earth, and the daily rotation of the Earth.
But these calculations aren't all that simple. For one, the moon's orbit around the Earth is constantly changing (there are actually several ways to measure the length of a lunar month, which complicates matters). Still, it boils down to this: Any given eclipse will repeat on an "eight years, 11 days, eight hours" cycle, or what's known as the Saros cycle. And though the eclipses repeat, they don't repeat in the exact same locations.
"Because the Saros period is not equal to a whole number of days, its biggest drawback is that subsequent eclipses are visible from different parts of the globe," NASA explains.
Nasa keeps the catalogues. It then works forward. It does not observe the current location of sun moon and earth and then do the calculations. It bases them on historic occurrences of the past and uses addition. Can FET do that? Sure. No three-body ball mechanics required. You can't 'debunk' FET just because we can predict an eclipse. We've been doing that for 5 millennia and advancements in clocks is the key to better predictions now than of the past. Not whirly ball magic maths.
And no. Columbus was incredibly accurate to within a few minutes.
Columbus, of course, had a copy of the almanac with him when he was stranded on Jamaica. And he soon discovered from studying its tables that on the evening of Thursday, Feb. 29, 1504, a total lunar eclipse would occur, beginning around the time of moonrise.
His biggest problem was back in 1504 it was hard to accurately gauge your longitude because clocks weren't so great. Moonrise is predicted to the minute.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_rewards
The poor c*** was using an hourglass to tell the time.
The Science Of Christopher Columbus
TELLING TIME
The passage of time was noted by a sandglass that had to be turned every half hour. At night, the constellations move 15 degrees every hour, giving a reliable way to calculate the passage of time. The time of day could be determined at least three times a day: sunrise, noon and sunset. Columbus probably had tables that told him the times of sunrise and sunset for each day of the year and would have been able to determine noon by the position of the sun. During the day, the position of the sun relative to the bow, mast and stern of the ships also would give the approximate time.
If astronomers then had atomic clocks and he had a precise location ... he'd have pinged it to the second as we do now.
I'm aware of the Saros cycle. I am also aware that it is not nearly as accurate as the improvements we have made. The Saros cycle cannot account for things like elevation changes. It cannot account for the bumpy surface of the moon.
This one may have been linked to already: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.space.com/37128-how-to-predict-eclipse-2017-path.html
And for what it's worth, I was at the edge of totality more than a mile up in elevation. The prediction was completely accurate, including the "diamond ring" effect.
Anyway, solar eclipse predictions are only an example. Let's jump straight to the big boy: Einstein's theory of relativity and gravitational waves.
Can FET claim an accurate prediction for anything in theoretical physics?
Side note: What sort of empirical evidence do you have that Columbus was accurate down to the minute? Weird how selective you guys can be when it comes to empiricism.
-
No, it can't
Thork has built a strawman out of the falsely-believed-to-be-unsolvable three body problem, such spooky math. Who cares, that's dumb. We've had multiple clarifications of how NASA predicts eclipses, and how they do not use the same techniques as Columbus did, not just because Columbus did not have a computer and a nice clock but because he did not have satellite mapping and lunar rovers.
see also: math (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/rotation.html), more math (https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/368/when-did-it-become-possible-to-predict-the-time-and-place-of-solar-eclipses), even more math (http://www.afhalifax.ca/bete/DALEMBERTIMAGES/lune/gutzwiller-moon-earth-sin%20rmp.70.589.pdf), you get the idea (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/reference/explain.html)
This illustrates the original topic quite well: Some Flat Earth believers decline to engage in debate when it becomes obviously untenable. You don't spend 10+ years arguing the same shit online without developing a tactical sense of what battles you can and can't win. See PizzaWarrior's twitter (https://twitter.com/FlatEarthOrg). He'll dodge questions and point people to the wiki, and be snide about people assuming things about flat Earth belief. These are wins for a believer.
Thork didn't know this one can't be won. He's not as careful as others who don't get involved unless they're 100% confident they won't lose.
We guests get involved in everything, because we are all 100% confident we won't lose in the end. Sometimes this confidence gets pointed out, a la 'you're not arguing in good faith' or 'you haven't acknowledged the possibility you are wrong.' Well, no shit (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=758&ei=WKUCWtrCOIfCmwHOyrCQCQ&btnG=Search&q=earth+from+space&oq=earth+from+space&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2851.4163.0.4201.19.17.0.0.0.0.150.1311.6j7.13.0....0...1.1.64.img..6.13.1309.0...0.oSGlaVo7ZN8).
so yeah, don't take it serious, and don't let it get personal
-
What on earth are you going on about?
You haven't disproved you can't use Saros to predict eclipses accurately. And you won't be able to. There is a regular pattern to them occurring. If you can add, you can work them out.
NASA admit they keep 5000 years worth of data and use that and I provided a horses mouth quote for you.
At no point have I ever seen NASA say, "we monitored all the places the celestial bodies were in and as that as our datum, simulated movement to predict eclipses" because that never happened. There is no arbitrary datum point. The datums come from the historical archives.
Somehow you think RET won this debate? I showed how to predict eclipses without earth needing to be a ball. I showed NASA using it. I showed Columbus using it. I showed that the assumption that RET had a better answer was false, the three body problem is too complicated to run out 1000 years of predictions.
And if you are still in doubt, here is an article telling you WE STILL HAVEN'T SOLVED THE RET THREE BODY PROBLEM, and that we have 1223 ways of trying, none of them work and we end up just observing and using the ruddy tables to confirm which ones turned out right!
For more than 300 years, mathematicians have puzzled over the three-body problem – the question of how three objects orbit one another according to Newton’s laws. Now, there are 1223 new solutions to the conundrum, more than doubling the current number of possibilities.
No single equation can predict how three bodies will move in relation to one another and whether their orbits will repeat or devolve into chaos. Mathematicians must test each specific scenario to see if the objects will stay bound in orbit or be flung away.
The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.
You are a liar. You are lying about the declarations of NASA. I have shown you NASA themselves saying they use table data. I've shown the three body problem still extrapolates into chaos even today and they CAN'T predict eclipses way off in the future with RET. This is a massive RET fail, and you are now resorting to lying to brush it under the carpet.
-
From the encyclopedia Britannica.
Three-body problem, in astronomy, the problem of determining the motion of three celestial bodies moving under no influence other than that of their mutual gravitation. No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies) is possible.
RET failed. It cannot use its ball-magic-maths to demonstrate accurately the movement of three globular bodies, and have that accurately predict what we actually observe. This isn't just a free pass for FET. It is absolutely damning for RET. Your maths doesn't work! You can't use it. You don't use it. There is no accurate RET maths used instead of periodic tabular info from historical records and extrapolation of that data. You just assumed and you know what happens when you assume?
image removed -junker
-
What on earth are you going on about?
You haven't disproved you can't use Saros to predict eclipses accurately. And you won't be able to. There is a regular pattern to them occurring. If you can add, you can work them out.
NASA admit they keep 5000 years worth of data and use that and I provided a horses mouth quote for you.
At no point have I ever seen NASA say, "we monitored all the places the celestial bodies were in and as that as our datum, simulated movement to predict eclipses" because that never happened. There is no arbitrary datum point. The datums come from the historical archives.
Somehow you think RET won this debate? I showed how to predict eclipses without earth needing to be a ball. I showed NASA using it. I showed Columbus using it. I showed that the assumption that RET had a better answer was false, the three body problem is too complicated to run out 1000 years of predictions.
And if you are still in doubt, here is an article telling you WE STILL HAVEN'T SOLVED THE RET THREE BODY PROBLEM, and that we have 1223 ways of trying, none of them work and we end up just observing and using the ruddy tables to confirm which ones turned out right!
For more than 300 years, mathematicians have puzzled over the three-body problem – the question of how three objects orbit one another according to Newton’s laws. Now, there are 1223 new solutions to the conundrum, more than doubling the current number of possibilities.
No single equation can predict how three bodies will move in relation to one another and whether their orbits will repeat or devolve into chaos. Mathematicians must test each specific scenario to see if the objects will stay bound in orbit or be flung away.
The new solutions were found when researchers at Shanghai Jiaotong University in China tested 16 million different orbits using a supercomputer.
You are a liar. You are lying about the declarations of NASA. I have shown you NASA themselves saying they use table data. I've shown the three body problem still extrapolates into chaos even today and they CAN'T predict eclipses way off in the future with RET. This is a massive RET fail, and you are now resorting to lying to brush it under the carpet.
The Saros tables are used. They are not the only things that are used, as they are not accurate enough on their own. They cannot account for factors such as elevation or the shape of the moon.
Those factors actually have a very large impact on where an eclipse's path of totality will lie.
-
So we're to Thork just sticking his fingers in his ears and proclaiming he's correct? Is that what this is? Despite even his own sources saying they're not relying on the Saros Cycle for the eclipse predictions, showing exactly where NASA says it's using things other than the Saros Cycles, and showing the math being used for this specific three-body problem? Love it.
Yes, you are correct there is no general solution to the three-body problem. But not having a general solution does not mean there can't be solutions for specific scenarios. Or that you can't use an approximation to still get exceedingly close.
On Colombus briefly after some reading: This story is all over the place in regards to how accurate it actually is. It appears Colombus might not have even written about it himself. The eclipse no doubt happened, but it's just as possible that he took credit for it after it started or similar, and later accounts fluffed up what he did. For now I'm inclined to leave it as neither a here nor there, as the history of eclipse prediction seems to corroborate that there was no way he was as accurate as you are trying to give him credit for.
-
So we're to Thork just sticking his fingers in his ears and proclaiming he's correct? Is that what this is?
don't forget naming me liar and putting a picture of a donkey in the thread, that was pretty neat
The math doesn't work, we don't use it, can't use it, etc., then he links to an article about people using it. I think we're done here
-
From the encyclopedia Britannica.
Three-body problem, in astronomy, the problem of determining the motion of three celestial bodies moving under no influence other than that of their mutual gravitation. No general solution of this problem (or the more general problem involving more than three bodies) is possible.
RET failed. It cannot use its ball-magic-maths to demonstrate accurately the movement of three globular bodies, and have that accurately predict what we actually observe. This isn't just a free pass for FET. It is absolutely damning for RET. Your maths doesn't work! You can't use it. You don't use it. There is no accurate RET maths used instead of periodic tabular info from historical records and extrapolation of that data. You just assumed and you know what happens when you assume?
There's something particularly apropos about taking a snowclone phrase that was already used to death by people who aren't clever enough to make original jokes, and then posting it in a meme. It's like the creator knew that memes were the lowest common denominator form of communication that are made to be "funny" through recognition and ad nauseum repetition instead of wit, so he cut out the middle man and just slapped on something that had already been repeated about a billion too many times.
Anyway, you're wrong, and your lack of scientific and mathematical literacy is showing. Three-body problems aren't unsolvable, it's not like there's some law of the universe that says "you can model two objects perfectly, but as soon as you add a third the laws of nature break down." The problem is that the interactions aren't possible through standard calculus. The problems are complex enough that you can't write a simple algebraic equation to solve them, but that's a far cry from mainstream mathematics not being equipped to solve them. The first (admittedly pretty inefficient) method of accurately solving three-body problems was devised in 1906 by Karl Sundman, and since then additional methods and supercomputers has made solving those problems trivial today. It's with these advanced models that NASA can get far more accuracy than Saros could ever hope to get.
Last thing, your Columbus example doesn't really work because it's a lunar eclipse rather than a solar one. Solar eclipses are incredibly geographically constrained and last 2 minutes at most, lunar eclipses last hours and are visible to anywhere on Earth that can see the Moon. It's really not impressive, nor that indicative of accuracy, that he predicted there would be an on-going lunar eclipse when the Moon rose that evening.
-
Tons of assertions, not a single source. You'll note I give you dozens of referenced quotes and sources. From you ... nothing but hot air and bluster.
Three body is unsolvable - as quoted and referenced above. And it is unsolvable because the answer always descends towards chaos theory. And that means you can be way off in no time. Hence predicting 1000 years from now ... you use the more accurate Saros tables - also referenced.
I'm not the one with my fingers in my ears, here.
The charge was that eclipse prediction is only possible with RET maths. That has been thoroughly debunked. There has been whinging about the accuracy (again without a single source as to saros table tolerances or accuracy, nor any material to show quantifiably how much better unsolvable three body mathematics is - it isn't) and the usual you must be wrong because the earth is round rhetoric. But nothing here to trouble even the most on the fence believer. It only shoves RET further away from being the answer when the model breaks down mathematically.
-
The solution to the Three Body Problem would allow us to solve problems in physics and astronomy involving the motion of three or more bodies.
There are people who claim to have solved the Three Body Problem, by creating a model of moving bodies and running iterations showing that they are able to "predict" where the bodies will be in that model, but these numeric solutions do not really provide a method for solving problems analytically. Just because you can throw some balls around in a basic gravity simulator and predict where those balls will be based on that simple model, it does not mean that you have found a solution that will allow us to model the earth, moon and sun system in the real world far into the future.
The later task, creating an analytical solution for predicting the position of bodies in an existing system of which you might not know all properties and attributes, is much more difficult, which is why an analytical solution to the Three Body Problem has remained unsolved in classical physics for over 500 years. There is not a Three Body Problem solution that been applied to the world to predict anything.
Physicists are unable to predict the motion of three bodies in a system, and it is a rather embarassing stain on classical physics. This is why NASA uses the Saros cycle to predict the Lunar Eclipse on their website, which is based on patterns of previous eclipses, rather than any geometric method. No solution exists.
-
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/56295652/dont-assume-or-youll-make-an-ass-out-of-you-and-me.jpg
Don't do that. Removing the embedded image from your post. Warned.
-
Tons of assertions, not a single source. You'll note I give you dozens of referenced quotes and sources. From you ... nothing but hot air and bluster.
Three body is unsolvable - as quoted and referenced above. And it is unsolvable because the answer always descends towards chaos theory. And that means you can be way off in no time. Hence predicting 1000 years from now ... you use the more accurate Saros tables - also referenced.
I'm not the one with my fingers in my ears, here.
The charge was that eclipse prediction is only possible with RET maths. That has been thoroughly debunked. There has been whinging about the accuracy (again without a single source as to saros table tolerances or accuracy, nor any material to show quantifiably how much better unsolvable three body mathematics is - it isn't) and the usual you must be wrong because the earth is round rhetoric. But nothing here to trouble even the most on the fence believer. It only shoves RET further away from being the answer when the model breaks down mathematically.
You've been given multiple sources on some things. Just what are you complaining about now? I even showed you precisely on the NASA website where it says eclipses are predicted using [items that aren't the Saros Cycle]. The ancients predicted lunar eclipses and such quite well (unsurprising when they're visible for half the world), but solar eclipses were not possible to predict properly until more recently. https://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11846.html
Solar eclipses only became truly accurate in their predictions centuries after the Saros Cycles were created. https://www.popsci.com/people-have-been-able-to-predict-eclipses-for-really-long-time-heres-how
You were linked earlier to no less than 3 ways we've attacked the three-body problem, so continuing to pretend it's 100% unsolvable is just splitting hairs at this point. I can go digging in the last thread this covered if you like more information on that front too, as I see Tom has forgotten the information presented there as well.
-
The ancients predicted lunar eclipses and such quite well (unsurprising when they're visible for half the world), but solar eclipses were not possible to predict properly until more recently.
How more recently? Is 2500 years ago more recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Thales
Solar eclipses only became truly accurate in their predictions centuries after the Saros Cycles were created. https://www.popsci.com/people-have-been-able-to-predict-eclipses-for-really-long-time-heres-how
You just blew up your own argument.
You were linked earlier to no less than 3 ways we've attacked the three-body problem, so continuing to pretend it's 100% unsolvable is just splitting hairs at this point. I can go digging in the last thread this covered if you like more information on that front too, as I see Tom has forgotten the information presented there as well.
Sure, RET has attacked the 3-body problem. It hasn't solved it. In other words the round earth model was the hypothesis. It doesn't give the right results when modeled. The model descends into chaos and the results get more and more wild as you go further into the future. That's what chaos theory is. That's not proof the theory works. It is proof that the model actually doesn't work as presented right now. Maybe they should have put earth in the center of the solar system with the sun and moon on top for better results?
-
The ancients predicted lunar eclipses and such quite well (unsurprising when they're visible for half the world), but solar eclipses were not possible to predict properly until more recently.
How more recently? Is 2500 years ago more recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Thales
Solar eclipses only became truly accurate in their predictions centuries after the Saros Cycles were created. https://www.popsci.com/people-have-been-able-to-predict-eclipses-for-really-long-time-heres-how
You just blew up your own argument.
You were linked earlier to no less than 3 ways we've attacked the three-body problem, so continuing to pretend it's 100% unsolvable is just splitting hairs at this point. I can go digging in the last thread this covered if you like more information on that front too, as I see Tom has forgotten the information presented there as well.
Sure, RET has attacked the 3-body problem. It hasn't solved it. In other words the round earth model was the hypothesis. It doesn't give the right results when modeled. The model descends into chaos and the results get more and more wild as you go further into the future. That's what chaos theory is. That's not proof the theory works. It is proof that the model actually doesn't work as presented right now. Maybe they should have put earth in the center of the solar system with the sun and moon on top for better results?
Here's the disconnect here. You're claiming mainstream science hasn't solved the three-body problem, which is categorically false and has been for over 100 years. Your evidence for this is not being able to predict solar eclipses indefinitely into the future, which is true. The further into the future you go, the less accurate these predictions get. The reason for this though isn't a failure to solve the three-body problem, it's that the Earth, Moon, and Sun only act as a three-body problem in the short term when other influences are negligible. In the long run it gets closer and closer to being an ∞-body problem because you have things like Jupiter's gravity and tidal forces slowing down the moon that have virtually no effect over 1,000 years but are noticeable over tens or hundreds of thousands of years.
However, I don't really see how this is an argument against RET, since in the short-term three-body models are magnitudes more accurate that Saros cycles, and I certainly can't see how this is an argument for the flat Earth hypothesis since it's not like using FE believers have been more accurate in their predictions based on the FE model.
-
The ancients predicted lunar eclipses and such quite well (unsurprising when they're visible for half the world), but solar eclipses were not possible to predict properly until more recently.
How more recently? Is 2500 years ago more recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_of_Thales
Solar eclipses only became truly accurate in their predictions centuries after the Saros Cycles were created. https://www.popsci.com/people-have-been-able-to-predict-eclipses-for-really-long-time-heres-how
You just blew up your own argument.
You were linked earlier to no less than 3 ways we've attacked the three-body problem, so continuing to pretend it's 100% unsolvable is just splitting hairs at this point. I can go digging in the last thread this covered if you like more information on that front too, as I see Tom has forgotten the information presented there as well.
Sure, RET has attacked the 3-body problem. It hasn't solved it. In other words the round earth model was the hypothesis. It doesn't give the right results when modeled. The model descends into chaos and the results get more and more wild as you go further into the future. That's what chaos theory is. That's not proof the theory works. It is proof that the model actually doesn't work as presented right now. Maybe they should have put earth in the center of the solar system with the sun and moon on top for better results?
I love that your rebuttal is an event that historians aren't even sure actually happened. Just like the Columbus eclipse story from earlier, which as well wasn't particularly relevant to a discussion of solar eclipses.
If you believe that article in any way invalidates my earlier statement, you haven't understood my argument or statements.
Here's a brief, easy to digest description of 'solving' the three-body problem. https://www.wired.com/2016/06/way-solve-three-body-problem/
Here's a far more in depth discussion on the specifics of the moon-Earth-Sun three-body problem. http://www.afhalifax.ca/bete/DALEMBERTIMAGES/lune/gutzwiller-moon-earth-sin%20rmp.70.589.pdf
-
We are at an impasse.
You say the three body problem has been solved, despite every source I have see saying it hasn't been.
You say I can't use Saros tables to accurately predict eclipses, despite my showing you can.
That's kind of the end of the thread, huh? In the end I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.
-
We are at an impasse.
You say the three body problem has been solved, despite every source I have see saying it hasn't been.
You say I can't use Saros tables to accurately predict eclipses, despite my showing you can.
That's kind of the end of the thread, huh? In the end I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.
You haven't even tried to debate the accuracy of the Saros tables for elevated positions.
-
We are at an impasse.
You say the three body problem has been solved, despite every source I have see saying it hasn't been.
You say I can't use Saros tables to accurately predict eclipses, despite my showing you can.
That's kind of the end of the thread, huh? In the end I guess it comes down to what you want to believe.
I've linked you sources showing the three body problem being solved, one specifically for the Sun-Earth-moon trio. There is no GENERAL algebraic solution to the problem. THAT'S what is meant by it can't be 'solved' because each three-body set needs it's own unique set of equations.
You've shown one source talking about Saros table, and that source at the bottom, cites the source I pointed out doesn't use the Saros Cycle for it's more accurate predictions. Just because the Saros tables have that information, doesn't mean they were developed using just the Saros cycle.
You seeing what you want in a source is our issue, not the lack of sources saying what I've claimed.
-
This is a good illustration of another tactic FE engage in. This thread started by saying they don’t engage in certain debates - I’ve seen a bunch of threads where they’ve just walked away from a debate when they run out of argument.
But this is another thing they do - divert the discussion down a rabbit hole: how accurate is GPS in one thread, can the 3 body problem be solved in this one. Debates which aren’t really relevant to the actual shape of the earth.
-
from the Wired article, referring to a numerical solution:
But the most important note—BOOM, we just solved the three-body problem and wasn't even that difficult.
from abstract of this paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1508.02312.pdf):
We describe the general and restricted (circular and elliptic) three-body problems, different analytical and numerical methods of finding solutions, methods for performing stability analysis, search for periodic orbits and resonances, and application of the results to some interesting astronomical and space dynamical settings.
If you think that because there isn't a closed-form solution to the general three body problem, it can't be solved and it's a stain on classical physics or whatever, you are wrong. If you think that every source says it can't be solved, you are not reading them. If you think that the supposed unsolvability of the three body problem means the Saros system is the only way to predict eclipses, you are willfully misconstruing the information shared in this thread. If you think Ptolemy's and Columbus's predictions are equally accurate to NASA's computer simulations, you are wrong.
This isn't a 'well believe what you want' impasse, this is flat Earth belief at its purest. A believer made an assertion that turned out to be wrong, but conceding the point means admitting that flat Earth belief is wrong. Distract, divert, avoid; do not concede at any cost, or flat Earth is debunked.
well it's debunked in the first place, but that's how this place works
-
Physicists are unable to predict the motion of three bodies in a system, and it is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics.
Why is it embarrassing?
Some problems ar simply harder to solve than others.
Trisecting an angle is another, an apparently simple task.
And it’s a bit rich coming from someone who believes a theory which is so poorly understood that you can’t even collectively decide whether there is one pole or two and has no agreed map.
-
eclipse tables do not derive from saros cycles. here's espenak's 50 year canon of solar eclipses: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19870014944. on page a-5 of the appendix begins a section titled "modern eclipse prediction." he explains at the end of this section that details of the actual calculations can be found in the explanatory supplement to the astronomical almanac (https://archive.org/details/131123ExplanatorySupplementAstronomicalAlmanac). those calculations can be found starting on page 450.
this paper details both the history of eclipse prediction, and the equations of motion, in great detail: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316255061/Gutzwiller-Moon-Earth-Sin-Rmp-70-589
once you've determined when an eclipse will occur, local conditions (size of the umbra/penumbra, duration, location on the globe, etc.) are calculated using besselian elements (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/beselm.html).
nasa also publishes a work called the "five millennium canon of solar eclipses." this work relied on a table of lunar positions (ephemeris) called epl-2000: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/ve82-predictions.html
this is the 1982 paper published with that ephemeris: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A%26A...124...50C
here's a program in c that constructs a lunar ephemeris using the epl-2000 method: https://github.com/variar/elp2000-82b
here's a python program that uses ephemerides to do all kinds of stuff, including eclipse prediction. the documentation describes functions that output the angular separation between two astronomical objects and can be minimized to find eclipse times/locations/whatever: http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/index.html
-
eclipse tables do not derive from saros cycles. here's espenak's 50 year canon of solar eclipses: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19870014944. on page a-5 of the appendix begins a section titled "modern eclipse prediction." he explains at the end of this section that details of the actual calculations can be found in the explanatory supplement to the astronomical almanac (https://archive.org/details/131123ExplanatorySupplementAstronomicalAlmanac). those calculations can be found starting on page 450.
this paper details both the history of eclipse prediction, and the equations of motion, in great detail: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316255061/Gutzwiller-Moon-Earth-Sin-Rmp-70-589
once you've determined when an eclipse will occur, local conditions (size of the umbra/penumbra, duration, location on the globe, etc.) are calculated using besselian elements (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/beselm.html).
nasa also publishes a work called the "five millennium canon of solar eclipses." this work relied on a table of lunar positions (ephemeris) called epl-2000: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/ve82-predictions.html
this is the 1982 paper published with that ephemeris: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A%26A...124...50C
here's a program in c that constructs a lunar ephemeris using the epl-2000 method: https://github.com/variar/elp2000-82b
here's a python program that uses ephemerides to do all kinds of stuff, including eclipse prediction. the documentation describes functions that output the angular separation between two astronomical objects and can be minimized to find eclipse times/locations/whatever: http://rhodesmill.org/pyephem/index.html
I have a feeling we won't be hearing from Thork anytime soon.
Anyway, thanks for those links -- that's actually fascinating stuff.
-
NASA does use the Saros Cycle for its Lunar Eclipse and Solar Eclipse predictions, which is an ancient pattern-based method for finding the time of the eclipse. They are not using a geometric model.
Go to NASA's Eclipse Website (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) -> Resources -> Eclipses and the Saros (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html)
That is the only method given on that entire website. They do not describe "motion laws" and "gravitational theory". They describe a method used by an ancient society of people who believed that the earth was flat.
It is mentioned on the NASA site that the Solar Eclipse may also be predicted with Besselian Elements (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/beselm.html), but we can see from this description of the method on stackexchange (https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/231/what-is-the-formula-to-predict-lunar-and-solar-eclipses-accurately) (at the bottom) that it is just another pattern-based method.
-
nasa also publishes a work called the "five millennium canon of solar eclipses." this work relied on a table of lunar positions (ephemeris) called epl-2000: https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEpath/ve82-predictions.html
elp-2000, which tells us lunar positions, is also based on patterns. The moon has done the same thing for thousands of years. Don't you think it is possible to create an equation or pattern to tell us what it will do this year?
The timing of the eclipse is achieved with the Soros, a pattern model, as described on NASA's Eclipse website. The location of the moon during the eclipse is determined by pattern models such as elp-2000. The Saros Cycle is just a pattern which tells us when the Lunar Eclipse will occur, not necessarily where the moon will be at that time to see it.
-
NASA does use the Saros Cycle for its Lunar Eclipse and Solar Eclipse predictions, which is an ancient pattern-based method for finding the time of the eclipse. They are not using a geometric model.
all of the material i posted describes the geometric model and the equations of motion. whether you believe it to be right or wrong, i don't understand why you don't dive into the literature to see what the actual arguments are before going through the efforts of making these posts. the material is free and online. if you are going to make an attack you should address the actual source material.
Go to NASA's Eclipse Website (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) -> Resources -> Eclipses and the Saros (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html)
That is the only method given on that entire website.
you must not have read the words on that website: "All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy. Some of the information presented on this web site is based on data originally published in Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035, Fifty Year Canon of Lunar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035, [etc]..."
my last post contains the relevant works by espenak. he didn't use saros cycles. he made a table of solar and lunar positions using a computer and some equations of motion derived by hill/brown/some other nerds.
-
For anyone interested in the original topic of this thread, which was about one certain FE model and the FE community's apparent lack of desire to improve it, I made a follow up thread over here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9273.0) since we basically came to the conclusion "the north-azimuthal projection doesn't work" in this one.
For solar eclipse talk, by all means continue in this thread.