[Ozymandias74]

One of the hallmarks of any theory is the ability to not only explain what we can see, but to make predictions about what cannot be seen or measured yet.   Any scientist will tell you that any theory that explains what you can see but does not make any predictions is worthless as a theory or model.  Einstein's Theory of relativity predicted black holes and gravitational waves in the early 1900s and it was 50 years before black holes were discovered.   Gravitational waves were just discovered in the last 2-3 years (although they were indirectly proven to exist back in the 1970s based on binary pulsars).  It predicted many other things that were later confirmed.  I will allow that maybe the results have been faked for the last 100 years, after all no one has really 'seen' a black hole or a gravitational wave for themselves, we just have scientists word they have been proven to exist.

However something everyone can see and experience for themselves is a lunar or solar eclipse.   Current RE models are able to predict lunar and solar eclipses 1000s of years into the future.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html shows the next 5-10 years of lunar and solar eclipses.  There are other resources online that have much longer timelines.
I would like to see a FE model with the predicted dates of lunar or solar eclipses.  I assume that orbital mechanics of Flat earth theory and Round earth theory have to be different  Obviously some scientist has worked out the eclipses based on celestial mechanics and planetary motions, so my question is there anyone that follows the FE model that can work out a schedule of lunar and solar eclipses based on the FE view of orbital mechanics and planetary motions.  If FE theory can predict lunar and solar eclipses based on a separate set of celestial and orbital mechanics different from RE theory, that would be very interesting.

[iamcpc]

However something everyone can see and experience for themselves is a lunar or solar eclipse.   Current RE models are able to predict lunar and solar eclipses 1000s of years into the future.
https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html shows the next 5-10 years of lunar and solar eclipses.  There are other resources online that have much longer timelines.
I would like to see a FE model with the predicted dates of lunar or solar eclipses.

You just presented one:

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html

The earth represented as a flat plane. Whereas it's not that popular of a model it is a model none the less.

One thing you have to understand is that there are many flat earth models. The one that is discussed 90% of the time is the flat disk model. That model does good explaining many phenomenon and observations and very poorly at explaining other phenomenon and observations.

The map you have shown is one of a flat planar shape vs a flat disk shape. That model does good explaining many phenomenon and observations and very poorly at explaining other phenomenon and observations.


These are variations of a flat planar shape in which the plane is like a loop or infinitely repeating.
http://suncalc.net/

Personally I don't care for the disk model. Even though it is able to answer some questions well, based on my traveling experience, I prefer other models which better explain my personal real life experiences.

[manicminer]

Personally I don't care for the disk model. Even though it is able to answer some questions well, based on my traveling experience, I prefer other models which better explain my personal real life experiences.

Can you describe any of your personal real life experiences that the conventional spherical Earth model cannot explain satisfactorily?

[iamcpc]

Personally I don't care for the disk model. Even though it is able to answer some questions well, based on my traveling experience, I prefer other models which better explain my personal real life experiences.

Can you describe any of your personal real life experiences that the conventional spherical Earth model cannot explain satisfactorily?

The best thing I can do is advise not come here looking for failures in the spherical earth model.  There is only one and it's been thoroughly researched. Whereas there are a lot of models and different answers/explanations for observations within those specific models.

It's best to come here with an open mind and look for evidence that, on some level, does one of two things:

1. Provides an alternative to the claim that ______ observation proves the earth is round.
2. Provides evidence of observations which can weaken any aspect of the round earth model.


If you would like I can give you some. It's important to understand that there is evidence which casts some doubt on existing systems. RE people, because of conformation bias, will say that this evidence proves the earth is round. FE people, because of conformation bias, will say this evidence proves the earth is flat.

[Tom Bishop]

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

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

[inquisitive]

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

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

How do you explain that measured distances, the path of the sun and satellite operation all confirm a round earth.  How would you determine the shape of the earth if you had the resourses?  Where is the WGS84 model inaccurate?

[Curious Squirrel]

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

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.

[Tom Bishop]

What "one thing"? RET can't be modeled and doesn't work.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

https://wiki.tfes.org/Tides

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

https://wiki.tfes.org/Torsion_Balance_Experiments

More on the way.

Most impressive is the Three Body Problem. A sun with a planet that has a moon cannot even be simulated. There is no predictive astronomical model at all, only cartoons.

[JCM]

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

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

Here we go again with the 3 body mathematics problem that round Earth apparently won’t work without despite the world knowing the Earth was a sphere a thousand years before a 3 body math problem existed.  Tom knows that current mathematical solutions work out to a few million years for the 3 body solution with near 100% accuracy.  After that the accuracy starts to become less than 99% because of unforeseen gravitational events that far into the future start adding up.   That is hardly reason to throw out all of round Earth when literally everything in flat Earth theory requires magic with zero explanation scientifically.

Flat Earth Theory cannot even explain why everyone on Earth sees the same phase of the moon just shifted or how to explain the star trails and their rotational axi (2). It has no explanation for the setting sun and mountain shadows on the clouds at sunset that stand up to scrutiny. It has no explanation that fits sextant measurements using Polaris and Octans in the hemispheres.  It has no explanations for the movements of the near Sun and Moon or how they match what we see or how they can cause eclipses.  But let’s throw out all of round Earth theory because mathematically the 3 body problem is near 100% accurate for only 3 million years.... 

[Tom Bishop]

The millions of years of stability analysis as an n-body simulation was debunked the last time we had this discussion.

i already provided you with a nine-body simulation.  this is literally a simulation of the solar system carried out by directly calculating newton's laws and letting the system evolve. 
A three million year integration of the earth's orbit

https://i.imgur.com/AY2HS7B.png

Read the first two sentences of that abstract:

Abstract

We have integrated the equations of motion of the nine planets and the Earth's spin axis for 3.05 million years into the past. The equations include the dominant relativistic corrections and the corrections for the quadropole movement of the Earth-Moon system

Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory says:

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

If your formula doesn't work, just keep adding corrections until it does. Science!

[manicminer]

It is fascinating reading your replies Tom. I bow down to you. Because I could never make things up as well or as convincingly as you can or indeed try and convince myself and other people that something is true when it isn't like you can.

I don't think the Earth is round, I know it is.  This has been shown to be true before the FES was even thought of. The satellite images that have been taken by a lot of different privately and publicly owned organisations show it is spherical. Various experiments and investigations have been carried out which now provide the true physical characteristics to a very high level of accuracy.

I know that you Zetetic people and the FE movement as a whole don't accept such evidence but that is only because it contradicts what you want to believe in.   

[AATW]

The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

If all the years of research have failed to produce a perfect model then that doesn't demonstrate anything other than it's complicated.
There are over half a million asteroids in the asteroid belt, the solar system IS complicated. I suspect a perfect model will always be beyond us.
But our models are good enough to launch Voyager craft to rendezvous with the outer planets, your FE model isn't even good enough to explain how the sun and moon orbit.

If models are imperfect then that model must be wrong then. But that doesn't mean that everything about it is wrong.
This is like the old claim that bumblebees can't fly. Well, they clearly can fly so models showing they can't must be wrong.
But that doesn't mean that bumblebees are a hoax.

[ChrisTP]

Tom, regarding the 3 body thing~ Here's an interactive simulation where you can even choose to-scale sun, earth and moon orbits and you can even move the objects yourself and see how it plays out, but when you hit play, they begin their orbits at the correct velocity and direction to sustain the orbits. I'm not saying it's 100% accurate to the exact orbit of the earth and moon but the fact that it's orbiting with 3 bodies surely disproves what you're saying.

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

You can even drag the moon toward the sun to see that it too can be affected, meaning all 3 bodies are affecting each other.

[WellRoundedIndividual]

They are not corrections due to the original equation and calculation being wrong, Tom.  Relativistic corrections are corrections that are based on frame of reference. Like the mass of an electron having an interaction with the speed at which it travels.  They are interdependent, and therefore a relativistic correction is needed when considering either the mass or the velocity at different frames of reference.  Its really not that hard to understand.  A scientist is not simply throwing in random numbers to make the end result of the calculation come out to what is predicted, and then reverse engineering the equation to fit that result. 

[inquisitive]

What "one thing"? RET can't be modeled and doesn't work.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

https://wiki.tfes.org/Tides

https://wiki.tfes.org/Cavendish_Experiment

https://wiki.tfes.org/Torsion_Balance_Experiments

More on the way.

Most impressive is the Three Body Problem. A sun with a planet that has a moon cannot even be simulated. There is no predictive astronomical model at all, only cartoons.

How would you determine the shape of the earth?

[iamcpc]

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

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.

Tom,

I'm the first to admit that you have presented lots of evidence. Much of it does very well and presenting alternate explanations for RE conformation bias. You are going to get through to a lot more round eathers if you just phrase things a little differently. Instead of saying _____________ proves the earth must be flat. You could say _____________ is something that the round earth model really struggles with.

I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is flat.
I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is round.

I do believe that, if the earth is flat, it's not the flat disk model. It very well might not be an infinite plane model. It might be some combination of those things.

[inquisitive]

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

The OP has been duped into believing that there is a model. There is none. The Newtonian solar system is actually physically impossible, as demonstrated by hundreds of years of research on the matter by humanity's greatest mathematicians.

Welcome to a great example of what iamcpc was saying. Tom latches onto one thing (there is no analytical solution to the Three Body Problem) and uses that to sweepingly declare there is no RE model.

Are there some things that seem problematic for the RE model? Yes.
Are there things that seem problematic for the FE model? Yes.

I personally feel the problems set forth for the FE model are the more serious and damning at this point in time. But feel free to hang around, browse some old threads, do some experiments on your own, and come to your own conclusions. That's honestly the core of what TFES is attempting to promote, and imo it's not a bad thing. The problem imo comes when they don't hold their own experiments to the same standard as RE experiments. But I'm just as sure they don't see it the same way.

Tom,

I'm the first to admit that you have presented lots of evidence. Much of it does very well and presenting alternate explanations for RE conformation bias. You are going to get through to a lot more round eathers if you just phrase things a little differently. Instead of saying _____________ proves the earth must be flat. You could say _____________ is something that the round earth model really struggles with.

I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is flat.
I have yet to see one piece of evidence which, to me at least from an objective standpoint, proves 100% that the earth is round.

I do believe that, if the earth is flat, it's not the flat disk model. It very well might not be an infinite plane model. It might be some combination of those things.

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

[stack]

The millions of years of stability analysis as an n-body simulation was debunked the last time we had this discussion.

i already provided you with a nine-body simulation.  this is literally a simulation of the solar system carried out by directly calculating newton's laws and letting the system evolve. 
A three million year integration of the earth's orbit

https://i.imgur.com/AY2HS7B.png

Read the first two sentences of that abstract:

Abstract

We have integrated the equations of motion of the nine planets and the Earth's spin axis for 3.05 million years into the past. The equations include the dominant relativistic corrections and the corrections for the quadropole movement of the Earth-Moon system

Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

The Wikipedia article on Perturbation Theory says:

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

If your formula doesn't work, just keep adding corrections until it does. Science!

From the same discussion you reference above, I think Shafto said it best:

This has gone way off the rails.

The N-body problem is a red herring.

The issue I raised in the opening post of this topic is the TFES Wiki's (Tom's) claim that eclipse predictions are based on patterns. That's wrong, and whether or not the N-Body problem eludes solution doesn't matter. Cycles are time-based. There is nothing about a Saros cycle that can provide the parameters needed to calculate Besselian elements of a solar eclipse.

You can't get this from a cycle:


You can't produce this based on a mere cycle:


This is the predicted solar eclipse for July 2, 2019. It's part of Saros cycle 127. But that's not the basis for predicting the detailed characteristics of the eclipse: the where, the how much, the duration, etc. For that, you need the Besselian elements, which are based on the relative position and motion of the earth/moon/sun and spherical geometry of the earth. It doesn't matter if the ephemeris providing  earth/moon/sun location and motion are divinely granted or calculated based on a perfect solution to the 3-body problem of these 3 bodies, with or without perturbation by other solar system or galactic bodies. It doesn't matter. That's a distraction. Either intentional or misguided.

The ability to calculate where on earth the eclipse will be seen, the degree of totality, the coverage of the umbra and penumbra, precisely when it will begin and end, etc. doesn't hinge on solving the n-body problem.  There is no flat earth model analog for how Fred Espenak performs his calculations by using an ephemeris of a rotating globe earth, orbited by a globe moon, orbiting a spherical sun. It's based on spherical geometry and absolutely requires input of position and motion of the 3-bodies. It's not "patterns" at all.

Tom has managed to derail this and get everyone debating aspects how the ephemerides are produced, under the illogical reasoning that if a million-year stable n-body solution can't be calculated using Newtonian mechanics, that the entire edifice collapses and all that remains is "patterns."

When eclipse #58 in Saros Cycle 127 begins, it will occur and have the characteristics predicted. That prediction won't be just a table look up of a pattern. It will be calculated based on the shape of the earth, the shape of the moon's shadow on the convex surface of the globe earth, based on position and motion of the 3-body earth-moon-sun system taken from an ephemeris, the utility or accuracy of which doesn't require a solution to the n-body problem.

So, back to the OP's question: "My question is there anyone that follows the FE model that can work out a schedule of lunar and solar eclipses based on the FE view of orbital mechanics and planetary motions?  If FE theory can predict lunar and solar eclipses based on a separate set of celestial and orbital mechanics different from RE theory, that would be very interesting."

[manicminer]

In all of my experience, and that goes back quite a few years now, predictions for solar and lunar eclipses made using conventional and proven scientific methods - as described by the OP -  have always been very accurate. Necessarily so because in the case of total solar eclipses astronomers and other interested individuals book up expensive trips, often a few years in advance, just so that they can witness for themselves the spectacle of the total solar eclipse.

So on that basis, do we really need anything else?  If one theory does the job then surely that says something about it doesn't it?

[garygreen]

Why would we need "relativistic corrections" if this is, as you assert, a full simulation of gravity?

"why would we need to account for gravity if this is a full simulation of gravity?"  are you serious?  relativity is a theory of gravity, dummy.

the simulation calculates the motion of each object based on newton's equation for the force of gravity.  corrections are applied based on relativity, a more accurate theory of gravity.

why not just calculate everything from the equations of general relativity, you say?  because they're computationally expensive.  solving newton's equations is straightforward and computationally simple.