The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Sceptom on March 18, 2015, 09:02:31 PM
-
Hi there,
a friend of mine sent me a link about the eclipse that will be visible from where I am (Belgium) on March 20th: http://www.eclips2015.be/fr and I couldn't help thinking about this forum where I posted a few topics some time ago (including one that successfully falsified FET (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2241.0)).
The link is in french, but you can see the pictures and animations which are kind of obvious. The green lines, for example, show the path where a total eclipse will be visible. In my case, it won't be total but the sun should be 83% blocked by the moon.
Now, these are predictions, as the eclipse didn't occur yet. But you'll notice that these are pretty detailed predictions: exact path, timing (to the minute), shape of eclipse, etc.
Knowing that FET is wrong, and that calculations for those predictions are based on RET, I actually won't be surprised to see those predictions come true.
But what is the position for FEers? that the predictions will fail? or that they will indeed be true but simply because of luck (a LOT of it) ? or... something else?
thanks!
Sceptom
-
The Flat Earth Society has been using the Shadow Object to accurately predict lunar eclipses since 1881.
-
The Flat Earth Society has been using the Shadow Object to accurately predict lunar eclipses since 1881.
Is there some place where we can see the calculations based on the Shadow Object concept? (more specifically for the March 20th eclipse)
-
Equations for finding the lunar eclipse can be found at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
-
Equations for finding the lunar eclipse can be found at the end of the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
What about solar ecplises, such as the one occuring on March 20th 2015?
-
They do it using historical tables. Not whirling ball mathematics.
They interpolate tables and have done for hundreds of years.
Christopher Columbus, in an effort to induce the natives of Jamaica to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus.[2]
1504. Copernicus didn't publish his heliocentric theories until 1534. So there was definitely no whirly ball maths going on there.
-
PSA: It's dangerous to view a solar or lunar eclipse due to the proven deleterious effects of moonlight. If you live in Europe and wish to view this rare event, make sure you take the proper precautions. Limited exposure, lots of layers of clothing, things like that.
-
They do it using historical tables. Not whirling ball mathematics.
They interpolate tables and have done for hundreds of years.
Christopher Columbus, in an effort to induce the natives of Jamaica to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus.[2]
1504. Copernicus didn't publish his heliocentric theories until 1534. So there was definitely no whirly ball maths going on there.
Right but I'm not talking about the date of the eclipse. I'm talking specifically about the exact path it's going to take (the green lines on this link (http://www.eclips2015.be/images/pad_zonsverduistering_2015-2.jpg) show the predicted path of the full eclipse, more details on this one (http://www.eclips2015.be/fr/)) and how the RET-based calculations to predict it could be true while RET is false.
-
It's getting dark.....we are doomed.
-
including one that successfully falsified FET
Sure, sure.
Now, these are predictions, as the eclipse didn't occur yet. But you'll notice that these are pretty detailed predictions: exact path, timing (to the minute), shape of eclipse, etc.
Knowing that FET is wrong, and that calculations for those predictions are based on RET, I actually won't be surprised to see those predictions come true.
But what is the position for FEers? that the predictions will fail? or that they will indeed be true but simply because of luck (a LOT of it) ? or... something else?
thanks!
Sceptom
Of course the predictions won't fail. They're based on observations dating back thousands of years. Claiming that they're based on RET is a bit of an exaggeration. The math linking the eclipse to RET is completely ad hoc.
-
including one that successfully falsified FET
Sure, sure.
If you disagree, please provide your refutation on the post.
Now, these are predictions, as the eclipse didn't occur yet. But you'll notice that these are pretty detailed predictions: exact path, timing (to the minute), shape of eclipse, etc.
Knowing that FET is wrong, and that calculations for those predictions are based on RET, I actually won't be surprised to see those predictions come true.
But what is the position for FEers? that the predictions will fail? or that they will indeed be true but simply because of luck (a LOT of it) ? or... something else?
thanks!
Sceptom
Of course the predictions won't fail. They're based on observations dating back thousands of years. Claiming that they're based on RET is a bit of an exaggeration. The math linking the eclipse to RET is completely ad hoc.
Again, the observations dating back thousands of years are not capable of predicting the exact path the eclipse would take. Those predictions are based on models of the solar system, in this case the JPL DE405 (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEgoogle/SEgoogle2001/SE2015Mar20Tgoogle.html).
So my question remains: how does RET-based calculations give accurate true predictions while RET is false?
-
Still no answers. I'm starting to think this could be the second post that proves FET wrong...
-
Still no answers. I'm starting to think this could be the second post that proves FET wrong...
What are you proving exactly? You asked how we predict eclipses, and we answered you.
-
Still no answers. I'm starting to think this could be the second post that proves FET wrong...
What are you proving exactly? You asked how we predict eclipses
No, that was not my question.
and we answered you.
And no, you didn't answer me.
My question was not about how FET predict eclipses, and it was not about eclipses in general but the eclipse of March 20th 2015, and even more specifically about the path where the full eclipse would be visible, about how this path was predicted using RET-based calculations, about how this prediction was indeed accurate, and, the very core of my question, how all this is possible if RET is wrong.
And all the answers I got were about lunar eclipses.
So, again, RET:1 - FET:0
-
Thork answered how the solar eclipses are predicted.
-
I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.
-
I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.
I don't get it.
-
I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.
I don't get it.
Probably because this forum is so full of gibberish.
-
Thork answered how the solar eclipses are predicted.
No, he did not. He talked about the prediction of the dates of eclipses. I was talking about the path where the full eclipse would be visible (see this link (http://www.eclips2015.be/images/pad_zonsverduistering_2015-2.jpg)). This path was calculated with a model of the solar system with a round earth (and round moon, round sun). And the question is: how is it that this RET-based calculation worked?
You failed again at answering my question. (And probably at simply understanding it).
-
I swear, RE'ers are utterly incapable of comprehending what they read on this forum.
and yet, no one was able to answer my question, or even understand it.
This is the second post that proves FET wrong.
-
Thork answered how the solar eclipses are predicted.
No, he did not. He talked about the prediction of the dates of eclipses. I was talking about the path where the full eclipse would be visible (see this link (http://www.eclips2015.be/images/pad_zonsverduistering_2015-2.jpg)). This path was calculated with a model of the solar system with a round earth (and round moon, round sun). And the question is: how is it that this RET-based calculation worked?
You failed again at answering my question. (And probably at simply understanding it).
How did Columbus know where the Solar Eclipse would happen in America if only the date can be predicted but not the location?
-
How did Columbus know where the SolarLunar Eclipse would happen in America if only the date can be predicted but not the location?
Considering a lunar eclipse can be viewed from anywhere the moon is visible, then it is not very important where you are. It is different in the case of a solar eclipse.
-
How did Columbus know where the SolarLunar Eclipse would happen in America if only the date can be predicted but not the location?
Considering a lunar eclipse can be viewed from anywhere the moon is visible, then it is not very important where you are. It is different in the case of a solar eclipse.
Columbus predicted a Solar Eclipse.
-
How did Columbus know where the SolarLunar Eclipse would happen in America if only the date can be predicted but not the location?
Considering a lunar eclipse can be viewed from anywhere the moon is visible, then it is not very important where you are. It is different in the case of a solar eclipse.
Columbus predicted a Solar Eclipse.
Incorrect. The whole discussion is from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_1504_lunar_eclipse.
Or check out the link here: http://www.space.com/2729-lunar-eclipse-saved-columbus.html
or here: http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/lunar-eclipse-saved-christopher-columbus/
or here: http://todayinhistory.tumblr.com/post/18488413482/february-29th-1504-christopher-columbus-predicts
or here: http://farmersalmanac.com/astronomy/2009/10/12/how-did-an-almanac-save-christopher-columbus/
Shall I go on?
-
I am not interested in those fables. Apologize and don't post any Round Earth rubbish for three months! Also, send Thork and I all of your bitcoins as penance.
-
I am not interested in those fables.
Which fables are you interested in? The ones by Rowbotham?
-
I am not interested in those fables. Apologize and don't post any Round Earth rubbish for three months! Also, send Thork and I all of your bitcoins as penance.
I have never seen You kid around before. I guess this is as close as you get to admitting you are wrong. This is worth all the bitcoins Rushy had.
-
I am not interested in those fables. Apologize and don't post any Round Earth rubbish for three months! Also, send Thork and I all of your bitcoins as penance.
At least, Rama Set provided links to show his sources.
Could you please also provide the sources that say Columbus predicted a solar eclipse? (and explain how this prediction is accurate enough to know the exact path where the full eclipse is visible?)
-
Could you please also provide the sources that say Columbus predicted a solar eclipse? (and explain how this prediction is accurate enough to know the exact path where the full eclipse is visible?)
Super lazy.
Christopher Columbus, in an effort to induce the natives of Jamaica to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris
-
Could you please also provide the sources that say Columbus predicted a solar eclipse? (and explain how this prediction is accurate enough to know the exact path where the full eclipse is visible?)
Christopher Columbus, in an effort to induce the natives of Jamaica to continue provisioning him and his hungry men, successfully intimidated the natives by correctly predicting a lunar eclipse for February 29, 1504, using the Ephemeris of the German astronomer Regiomontanus.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephemeris
The linked text reads "lunar eclipse" and my question is about solar eclipse. Now, English is not my first language, but I'm pretty sure those are different...
-
When you demand an explanation because you can't figure out how to use Google, it'd be nice if you actually read the links provided that answer your questions.
The astronomical position calculated from an ephemeris is given in the spherical polar coordinate system of right ascension and declination. Some of the astronomical phenomena of interest to astronomers are eclipses, apparent retrograde motion/planetary stations, planetary ingresses, sidereal time, positions for the mean and true nodes of the moon, the phases of the Moon, and the positions of minor celestial bodies such as Chiron.
And done the way its always been done in historical Ephemeris
http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/History/Pages/1851-1860.html
and some more from 1252!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonsine_tables
-
When you demand an explanation because you can't figure out how to use Google, it'd be nice if you actually read the links provided that answer your questions.
Perhaps you should read the thread before you chime in. Tom claimed twice that Columbus predicted a solar eclipse. Pretty much every reference (including one that you provided) said that it was a lunar eclipse that Columbus actually predicted. Now please try to keep up, will you?
-
When you demand an explanation because you can't figure out how to use Google, it'd be nice if you actually read the links provided that answer your questions.
The astronomical position calculated from an ephemeris is given in the spherical polar coordinate system of right ascension and declination. Some of the astronomical phenomena of interest to astronomers are eclipses, apparent retrograde motion/planetary stations, planetary ingresses, sidereal time, positions for the mean and true nodes of the moon, the phases of the Moon, and the positions of minor celestial bodies such as Chiron.
And done the way its always been done in historical Ephemeris
http://eclipse-maps.com/Eclipse-Maps/History/Pages/1851-1860.html
and some more from 1252!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfonsine_tables
Thanks for those sources, it's interesting. You just proved that, indeed, eclipses are based on heliocentric and RE models, and that solar eclipses are caused by the moon passing in front of the sun.
But that was not the original question, which keeps getting avoided each time. As a reminder, the question was: how do RET-based calculations for predicting the exact path of the total eclipse (using NASA JPL DE405) actually work (considering RET is allegedly false)?
-
You just proved that, indeed, eclipses are based on heliocentric and RE models
So the Alfonsine tables that accurately predict solar eclipse paths that were published 300 years before Copernicus delivered his theory on heliocentricity, is proof of heliocentricity despite the fact no one had entertained heliocentricity in the scientific community at that time when the tables were made?
I realise your powers of reasoning are not that great, but even the dimmest on this forum would not have reached the conclusion you did, from the sources I provided.
-
You just proved that, indeed, eclipses are based on heliocentric and RE models
So the Alfonsine tables that accurately predict solar eclipse paths that were published 300 years before Copernicus delivered his theory on heliocentricity, is proof of heliocentricity despite the fact no one had entertained heliocentricity in the scientific community at that time when the tables were made?
You do realize that the Alfonsine tables are based on RE (Ptolemaic) geocentrism, not FE geocentrism, don't you? BTW, how many epicycles did it take to calculate those tables?
-
Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.
Now, can you explain the difference between RE (Ptolemaic) geocentrism and FE geocentrism for us? I don't want to hear that Ptolemy estimated the sun to be 93 million miles away from you either.
Using the same method as Hipparchus to determine the distance to the Sun led Ptolemy to the same serious underestimate in its distance
Underestimate meaning purely a lower number than is estimated by the globular liars of today, of course.
-
Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.
Now, can you explain the difference between RE (Ptolemaic) geocentrism and FE geocentrism for us?
Well, biggest difference is that Ptolemy had an RE geocentric model that kinda, sorta worked (depening on how many epicycles you add). It more or less matched observations and could explain how things like sunsets and eclipses work.
-
Oh, you mean this?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Cassini_apparent.jpg/1024px-Cassini_apparent.jpg)
Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.
-
Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.
Who cares how eclipses work on an round earth (geocentric or heliocentric)? This thread is about how FET explains and predicts eclipses. Please stay on topic.
-
Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.
Who cares how eclipses work on an round earth (geocentric or heliocentric)? This thread is about how FET explains and predicts eclipses. Please stay on topic.
Well I'm assuming you are going to explain how Ptolemy's model works and therefore much of ours. I need only correct you on the bits you get wrong that way. Saves me doing all the leg work when you already know most of it already.
-
Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.
Who cares how eclipses work on an round earth (geocentric or heliocentric)? This thread is about how FET explains and predicts eclipses. Please stay on topic.
Sorry markjo, but this is not the topic. The topic is about a RET model used to predict the March 20th 2015 solar full eclipse path that actually worked. What do FEers have to say about that?
So far, I actually got no answer about that. But I think the general idea that FEers have is that this RET model wasn't really used, but instead it was predicted with the same level of accuracy using old data that are also based on a round earth, but whatever, FET is still true.
-
Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.
What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?
-
Well I'm assuming you are going to explain how Ptolemy's model works and therefore much of ours. I need only correct you on the bits you get wrong that way. Saves me doing all the leg work when you already know most of it already.
??? I'm sorry, but what gives you the impression that flat earth geocentric models work anything like Ptolemy's round earth geocentric model? Almost all of the same problems FET has with RET, FET will have with Ptolemy.
For one thing, Ptolemy didn't require the sun and moon to orbit about some mysterious barycenter some arbitrary distance above the earth. Ptolemy's celestial objects rose and set because they moved above and below the horizon. He didn't need to invent aetherific eddification or some wild misinterpretation of perspective to make a sunrise or sunset.
-
Do go on. Explain eclipses and sunsets.
Who cares how eclipses work on an round earth (geocentric or heliocentric)? This thread is about how FET explains and predicts eclipses. Please stay on topic.
Sorry markjo, but this is not the topic. The topic is about a RET model used to predict the March 20th 2015 solar full eclipse path that actually worked. What do FEers have to say about that?
So far, I actually got no answer about that. But I think the general idea that FEers have is that this RET model wasn't really used, but instead it was predicted with the same level of accuracy using old data that are also based on a round earth, but whatever, FET is still true.
How is it based on a round earth? You never answer that question. RE'ers are constantly claiming to us that various bits of science (this, the Equivalence Principle, relativity, etc.) are based entirely on Round Earth Theory and are therefore inherently incompatible with FET, but when asked to back up their claims they never do. I'd say I don't understand why, but I suspect I do.
-
Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.
What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?
Enough to know where to stand and when to observe it. How accurate are globular models?
-
For one thing, Ptolemy didn't require the sun and moon to orbit about some mysterious barycenter some arbitrary distance above the earth. Ptolemy's celestial objects rose and set because they moved above and below the horizon.
No, he ended up getting the distance and size of the sun completely wrong in RET terms, and yet his eclipse tables were flawless because he did them by interpolation, not whirly ball mathematics.
and when you say "mysterious barycentre" you mean the North Celestial Pole, just so everyone realises the FUD you like to push out on these forums.
-
For one thing, Ptolemy didn't require the sun and moon to orbit about some mysterious barycenter some arbitrary distance above the earth. Ptolemy's celestial objects rose and set because they moved above and below the horizon.
No, he ended up getting the distance and size of the sun completely wrong in RET terms, and yet his eclipse tables were flawless because he did them by interpolation, not whirly ball mathematics.
Umm.. Ptolemy got lots of stuff wrong in RET terms, that's why RET doesn't use it anymore. However, the fact is that Ptolemy's model was a "whirly ball" model, he just had the balls whirling the wrong way.
and when you say "mysterious barycentre" you mean the North Celestial Pole, just so everyone realises the FUD you like to push out on these forums.
No, I mean some unknown, undetectable object about which the sun and moon must orbit because they sure don't orbit around each other.
-
Ahhh, progress. So agreed that heliocentricity is not a requirement of predicting eclipses. Super.
What degree of accuracy can you achieve with your model?
Enough to know where to stand and when to observe it. How accurate are globular models?
to the tenth of a second.
-
https://youtu.be/InlUONyIpdM
-
At last, FETers have "admitted defeat" by refusing to reply to points that disprove their world view
-
At last, FETers have "admitted defeat" by refusing to reply to points that disprove their world view
Two things:
- If you don't have anything of value to add to a thread, please refrain from necroposting. It helps nobody and makes active threads just a little bit harder to find.
- I think you're confusing the difference between people getting bored with flogging a dead horse (RE'ers refusing to acknowledge our points and repeating the same mantra over and over can become tiresome).
-
At last, FETers have "admitted defeat" by refusing to reply to points that disprove their world view
Two things:
- If you don't have anything of value to add to a thread, please refrain from necroposting. It helps nobody and makes active threads just a little bit harder to find.
- I think you're confusing the difference between people getting bored with flogging a dead horse (RE'ers refusing to acknowledge our points and repeating the same mantra over and over can become tiresome).
Then by all means, counter the point raised about the precision of geographical positions of solar eclipse predictions.
-
Then by all means, counter the point raised about the precision of geographical positions of solar eclipse predictions.
I don't understand why I would need to counter it. Solar eclipse predictions are based on prior observation and formulating a mathematical model. They're identical for the Round Earth scenario and an epicycle-based Flat Earth scenario.
-
Then by all means, counter the point raised about the precision of geographical positions of solar eclipse predictions.
I don't understand why I would need to counter it. Solar eclipse predictions are based on prior observation and formulating a mathematical model. They're identical for the Round Earth scenario and an epicycle-based Flat Earth scenario.
While I understand what you are saying, the exact area on the earth the solar eclipse occurs is not based on historical eclipses, rather on the round earth model of the solar system. So, again, how does the exact geographical location of the shadow get predicted using RET, if RET is fake?
-
While I understand what you are saying, the exact area on the earth the solar eclipse occurs is not based on historical eclipses, rather on the round earth model of the solar system. So, again, how does the exact geographical location of the shadow get predicted using RET, if RET is fake?
By using thousands of years of records of historical eclipses, as I already stated. However, the heliocentric model is largely equivalent to the epicyclic model, so that would work anyway.
-
While I understand what you are saying, the exact area on the earth the solar eclipse occurs is not based on historical eclipses, rather on the round earth model of the solar system. So, again, how does the exact geographical location of the shadow get predicted using RET, if RET is fake?
By using thousands of years of records of historical eclipses, as I already stated. However, the heliocentric model is largely equivalent to the epicyclic model, so that would work anyway.
As has already been established, the times of solar eclipses is based on historical eclipses, but the place of them is not.
-
As has already been established, the times of solar eclipses is based on historical eclipses, but the place of them is not.
It has not been established. Making a claim is not the same as establishing a position.