[Dual1ty]

Why are you asking me? I would say gravity or magnetism because both your models of those things are wrong, just like your models of Earth and the "Solar System" are wrong.

I’m asking because you’ve rejected my suggestion. If you’re prepared to reject something then it suggests that you disagree with it. That’s fine, but only if you can propose some other mechanism, and unfortunately vague statements like ‘gravity’ or ‘magnetism’ aren’t credible explanations.

It’s ok not to understand stuff. But it sounds very much like you are rejecting what I am saying because it does not conform to your idea of what the world is like. That isn’t a good way to approach things.

You're doing some heavy psychological projection right there...

If you asked how tides or eclipses work I would equally tell you I don't know the answer. I could give you an OPINION, but that's about it. The problem with you globe believers is that you think that because some flat-earther can't give you a detailed answer to how a specific thing in the Universe works, that must mean that the Earth is a globe, that the Sun is 93 million miles away... all that crap you believe in.

[SteelyBob]

[
You're doing some heavy psychological projection right there...

If you asked how tides or eclipses work I would equally tell you I don't know the answer. I could give you an OPINION, but that's about it. The problem with you globe believers is that you think that because some flat-earther can't give you a detailed answer to how a specific thing in the Universe works, that must mean that the Earth is a globe, that the Sun is 93 million miles away... all that crap you believe in.

Well, nobody understands everything, and again, it’s absolutely fine to not understand something. However, if you don’t understand something very well at all, then it’s very odd to confidently declare that something somebody is saying is wrong. So if you don’t understand the tides, for example, how can you confidently declare that the normal model for how they work is wrong? The normal model, I should add, which makes complete sense, and is observably consistent with the movements of the sun and moon. Likewise, why is the sun being a particular distance away ‘crap’? If you don’t understand it all, how can you judge what a non-crap distance might be?

[Dual1ty]

[
You're doing some heavy psychological projection right there...

If you asked how tides or eclipses work I would equally tell you I don't know the answer. I could give you an OPINION, but that's about it. The problem with you globe believers is that you think that because some flat-earther can't give you a detailed answer to how a specific thing in the Universe works, that must mean that the Earth is a globe, that the Sun is 93 million miles away... all that crap you believe in.

Well, nobody understands everything, and again, it’s absolutely fine to not understand something. However, if you don’t understand something very well at all, then it’s very odd to confidently declare that something somebody is saying is wrong. So if you don’t understand the tides, for example, how can you confidently declare that the normal model for how they work is wrong? The normal model, I should add, which makes complete sense, and is observably consistent with the movements of the sun and moon. Likewise, why is the sun being a particular distance away ‘crap’? If you don’t understand it all, how can you judge what a non-crap distance might be?

My friend, you are preceded by 150 years of the PHLOGISTON "making sense" to people; and now another 150 years of the VIRION "making sense" to people. That is your legacy as a consensus dweller. The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.

[stack]

The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.

So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.

I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.

[Dual1ty]

The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.

So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.

I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.

You wish.

He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?

[stack]

The heliocentric model doesn't even work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had hundreds of years to make it work.

So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.

I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.

You wish.

He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?

Yes, I suppose humans don't usually look at where and when the predictability of an eclipse totality will occur. A truly novel approach. Perhaps people just randomly show up somewhere snd get lucky...




And I'm guessing you have verified this random guy's findings as well. Especially comparing it to your flat earth map...Oh wait, that's right, there's no such thing as a flat earth map. I wonder how you lot get yourselves and your stuff from point A to point B without getting lost. I guess it's just by happenstance.

[Pete Svarrior]

So your position is that a random guy on the web messing around with autocad and some eclipse data has single-handedly debunked centuries of heliocentric geometry in about 90 minutes, ergo, the earth is flat? And nary a Nobel to show for it? I guess I forgot that everything on the internet is true and should be taken unquestionably as such. Compelling argument.

I suppose equally compelling, the flat earth model doesn't even have a usable, relevant map, let alone work GEOMETRICALLY, even though you've had thousands of years to make it work.

Yes, I suppose humans don't usually look at where and when the predictability of an eclipse totality will occur. A truly novel approach. Perhaps people just randomly show up somewhere snd get lucky...

And I'm guessing you have verified this random guy's findings as well. Especially comparing it to your flat earth map...Oh wait, that's right, there's no such thing as a flat earth map. I wonder how you lot get yourselves and your stuff from point A to point B without getting lost. I guess it's just by happenstance.

Stack, take your crap where it belongs, unless you're requesting another vacation. This is the nicest I'll ever be to you on this subject.

[SteelyBob]

[
You wish.

He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?

I’m not really clear what you think he proved or disproved with that video. The eclipse that he modelled, on 9 March 2016, was accurately predicted using ephemeris data, and occurred exactly at the times and places predicted, witnessed by millions of people. That his autocad model is slightly out from the prediction says more about his model than it does about the ephemeris. It’s hard to say where the error is exactly - I didn’t go through the whole thing in detail - i wonder if it might be the approximation he’s used for the elliptical orbits, but it’s hard to figure out.

I’m also not really clear why you would reject a model that is capable of predicting the location and timing of every eclipse, in favour of one that has no predictive power in that regard whatsoever.

[Dual1ty]

[
You wish.

He's looking at something that people don't usually look at - that's why it was easy for him to prove it wrong in 90 minutes from the comfort of his home. Of course, there are hundreds of things that prove it wrong, starting with the fact that there is no measurable curvature anywhere on Earth. How about that GEOMETRY?

I’m not really clear what you think he proved or disproved with that video. The eclipse that he modelled, on 9 March 2016, was accurately predicted using ephemeris data, and occurred exactly at the times and places predicted, witnessed by millions of people. That his autocad model is slightly out from the prediction says more about his model than it does about the ephemeris. It’s hard to say where the error is exactly - I didn’t go through the whole thing in detail - i wonder if it might be the approximation he’s used for the elliptical orbits, but it’s hard to figure out.

I’m also not really clear why you would reject a model that is capable of predicting the location and timing of every eclipse, in favour of one that has no predictive power in that regard whatsoever.

It's not his model - it's NASA's model. Take a looksie at just how "slight" of an error the NASA data regarding astronomical positions produces:



It's a big joke.

[SteelyBob]

[
It's not his model - it's NASA's model. Take a looksie at just how "slight" of an error the NASA data regarding astronomical positions produces:



It's a big joke.

No, it’s his model. He has built a model of the earth, moon and sun in autocad / 3ds and has used some data from the JPL horizons tool to populate his model. They are not the same thing. I don’t have the time to wade through all of his stuff, unfortunately, but a brief skim shows several moments where his model will differ by some amount from the ephemeris. His treatment of the elliptical orbits is one example - I dare say there may be others. How significant that will be is hard to tell.

What I do know for sure is that the eclipse he is referring to was watched by millions of people, and occurred exactly as predicted. I also note that your man has disabled comments on his video, which makes critique somewhat tricky.

[Dual1ty]

[
It's not his model - it's NASA's model. Take a looksie at just how "slight" of an error the NASA data regarding astronomical positions produces:



It's a big joke.

No, it’s his model. He has built a model of the earth, moon and sun in autocad / 3ds and has used some data from the JPL horizons tool to populate his model. They are not the same thing. I don’t have the time to wade through all of his stuff, unfortunately, but a brief skim shows several moments where his model will differ by some amount from the ephemeris. His treatment of the elliptical orbits is one example - I dare say there may be others. How significant that will be is hard to tell.

What I do know for sure is that the eclipse he is referring to was watched by millions of people, and occurred exactly as predicted. I also note that your man has disabled comments on his video, which makes critique somewhat tricky.

"Some data" LOL.

Obviously they're using a different model based on real-world observations to predict how the eclipse is going to happen - they're not deriving that from the geometrical model according to NASA's astronomical data, which is what the guy in the video is doing to the T. I have to explain this to you this because obviously you didn't watch the videos - you said as much yourself. Big cognitive dissonance kicking in preventing the globe believer from paying attention as per usual.

[SteelyBob]

"Some data" LOL.

Obviously they're using a different model based on real-world observations to predict how the eclipse is going to happen - they're not deriving that from the geometrical model according to NASA's astronomical data, which is what the guy in the video is doing to the T. I have to explain this to you this because obviously you didn't watch the videos - you said as much yourself. Big cognitive dissonance kicking in preventing the globe believer from paying attention as per usual.

Why does 'some data' trigger an 'LOL'?

So, NASA know their data is flawed, and actually use 'real world observations' (of what?) to predict the eclipse, but don't bother to retrospectively upgrade their ephemeris data. They just leave it uncorrected. I see.

I pointed out a possible flaw - his use of ellipses - do you have any thoughts on that? I didn't dig any deeper because a) that's enough of a problem and b) you've presented us with nearly 3 hours of video. If you want me to go deeper into it you could at least extend me the courtesy of addressing the point I've made.

[Dual1ty]

Why does 'some data' trigger an 'LOL'?

Because you said "He has built a model of the earth, moon and sun in autocad / 3ds and has used some data from the JPL horizons tool to populate his model.".

You're not realizing that the data IS the model. He uses nothing but NASA's data to build it. He's literally copying and pasting the values from the NASA website, you can see it for yourself. That debunks any notion that he's building his own model.

So, NASA know their data is flawed, and actually use 'real world observations' (of what?) to predict the eclipse, but don't bother to retrospectively upgrade their ephemeris data. They just leave it uncorrected. I see.

What makes you think that they know? Most people at NASA have no idea what's going on in general. You really think that the guys predicting the eclipses are deriving that from the geometrical model? Where's your proof of that? Even if you find some text that claims that, that's not proof. Not to mention that the videos debunk that notion too.

I pointed out a possible flaw - his use of ellipses - do you have any thoughts on that? I didn't dig any deeper because a) that's enough of a problem and b) you've presented us with nearly 3 hours of video. If you want me to go deeper into it you could at least extend me the courtesy of addressing the point I've made.

Sure, I can if it makes you happy, but I don't know what you mean by that "flaw". I watched those videos years ago. You would have to explain it in detail for me to address it, and/or give me a timestamp.

But the main issue is that you're not watching the videos and you're trying to make arguments to defend the model instead.

[SteelyBob]

Sure, I can if it makes you happy, but I don't know what you mean by that "flaw". I watched those videos years ago. You would have to explain it in detail for me to address it, and/or give me a timestamp.

But the main issue is that you're not watching the videos and you're trying to make arguments to defend the model instead.

A couple of problems that I can see right away.

If you look in the first of his videos that you posted, around the 7 minute mark, you'll see that he is doing something of a 'pick and mix'. He is taking the distances from the ephemeris data on the horizons website, but is taking his tilt and elliptical parameters from the 'Earth facts' website. The problem with that is the earth facts data is, as per its factsheet, not particularly accurate. The orbital data, for example, when he looked at it, came from the year 2000, and was a mean value of a constantly changing parameter.

The next problem builds on that - he's taken each year, divided it by two, and created two perfect ellipses, based on the 2000 average figures for eccentricity and the ephemeris figures for the range from the sun, with a correction made in the second ellipse to bring the finish point into alignment with the distance from the sun of the following January. The problem is that the ellipse the earth is on changes constantly - doing it in the way he's done is a simplification. It's a small amount of error, but when you're trying to predict eclipses it will be enough to throw the result.

He is then triumphantly wondering why the moon and sun are not precisely where they were predicted to be according to the azimuth and elevation figures at, for example, the eclipse. If he'd have used one of the coordinate datasets - those are tick options on the menu of parameters on the horizons page - for the actual position of the earth and moon, with respect to the sun, instead of trying to build his ellipses the way he did, then I suspect he'd have achieved 'better' results, if indeed that's what he wanted to happen.

They may be other errors in there too. I'm not going to wade through 3 hours to find them.

[Dual1ty]

Sure, I can if it makes you happy, but I don't know what you mean by that "flaw". I watched those videos years ago. You would have to explain it in detail for me to address it, and/or give me a timestamp.

But the main issue is that you're not watching the videos and you're trying to make arguments to defend the model instead.

A couple of problems that I can see right away.

If you look in the first of his videos that you posted, around the 7 minute mark, you'll see that he is doing something of a 'pick and mix'. He is taking the distances from the ephemeris data on the horizons website, but is taking his tilt and elliptical parameters from the 'Earth facts' website. The problem with that is the earth facts data is, as per its factsheet, not particularly accurate. The orbital data, for example, when he looked at it, came from the year 2000, and was a mean value of a constantly changing parameter.

The next problem builds on that - he's taken each year, divided it by two, and created two perfect ellipses, based on the 2000 average figures for eccentricity and the ephemeris figures for the range from the sun, with a correction made in the second ellipse to bring the finish point into alignment with the distance from the sun of the following January. The problem is that the ellipse the earth is on changes constantly - doing it in the way he's done is a simplification. It's a small amount of error, but when you're trying to predict eclipses it will be enough to throw the result.

He is then triumphantly wondering why the moon and sun are not precisely where they were predicted to be according to the azimuth and elevation figures at, for example, the eclipse. If he'd have used one of the coordinate datasets - those are tick options on the menu of parameters on the horizons page - for the actual position of the earth and moon, with respect to the sun, instead of trying to build his ellipses the way he did, then I suspect he'd have achieved 'better' results, if indeed that's what he wanted to happen.

They may be other errors in there too. I'm not going to wade through 3 hours to find them.

Are you seriously saying that the tilt angle and the orbital eccentricity have changed significantly from 2000 to 2015?

"It's a small amount of error, but when you're trying to predict eclipses it will be enough to throw the result.". If you really think so, prove it. Even if what you're saying could hypothetically explain the disparity in the 1st video, it explains nothing regarding the conclusions of the 2nd video. Saying "there may be other errors in there too" is meaningless, it's just you hoping and praying that there are so you can dismiss the conclusions.