shootingstar

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #20 on: January 02, 2019, 08:56:57 AM »
A number of modern astronomical sources, the BAA handbook included provides eclipse timings accurate to minutes. This applies to any eclipse visible over the course of many years to come. Not so much in the case of a lunar eclipse but in the case of a total solar eclipse, totality lasts only minutes and so you need a very accurate prediction about exactly when this is going to occur and where.

Given that these predictions are always exactly right, why would you need to use any other methods of prediction for eclipses other than the information provided? For example I know that on 21st January from my location the beginning of the eclipse will start (penumbral phase) at 2.36am with totality lasting from 4.41am through to 5.43am with the eclipse ending finally at 7.48am.  So that is a period of just over 5 hours.


I don't understand the problem.  The information is out there and readily available.

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2019, 10:53:42 AM »
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
How does the sun have a satellite if gravity doesn't exist?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 5300
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2019, 12:59:23 PM »
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.

But, but, but, there isn’t even a FE map to make a prediction on to. How can any of this work without a map? And wait, is Rowbotham using Euclidean geometry? When did he prove that it works?  Doesn’t Euclid, in your view, require the existence of infinities? Let us know which way it actually is, so that one of your other contrarian arguments can be refuted.
You don't get races of anything ... accept people.

shootingstar

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2019, 01:53:31 PM »
Quote
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.

The Sun has many satellites Tom.  We call them planets, asteroids, comets and dwarf planets. AKA the Solar System.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3214
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2019, 09:01:32 PM »
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.
Interesting.  I would have thought that knowing the sizes and relative distances of the sun, moon and "lunar eclipsor" would be pretty important in calculating the size of the shadow and thereby the duration of the eclipse.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3214
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2019, 09:05:22 PM »
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
How does the sun have a satellite if gravity doesn't exist?
Apparently celestial gravitation does exist, but terrestrial gravitation doesn't exist.  And before you ask why celestial objects can have gravity but the flat earth can't, just remember that the flat earth is not a celestial object and therefore does not need to obey the same rules as celestial objects.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

shootingstar

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2019, 09:15:05 PM »
The only thing that seems to be consistent about FET is how inconsistent it is.  Not a great start when it comes to explaining something that has been around for as long as the Earth has (how long is that exactly in FET) and been working the same way for most if not all of that time.

Never ceases to amaze me the exotic ways in which they try to explain straightforward observations.

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2019, 09:17:53 PM »
What's the source of the shadow?
Probably a satellite of the sun that is in the daylight area.
How does the sun have a satellite if gravity doesn't exist?
Apparently celestial gravitation does exist, but terrestrial gravitation doesn't exist.  And before you ask why celestial objects can have gravity but the flat earth can't, just remember that the flat earth is not a celestial object and therefore does not need to obey the same rules as celestial objects.
Yes, I did look at the Wiki page about that. It says

Quote
Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Gravitation

So it's one of the FE fudges used to try and explain certain things, I guess it could be used to explain how objects orbit one another.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 167
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #28 on: January 03, 2019, 01:21:28 AM »
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.

On a round Earth the Earth is between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse, therefore the the lunar eclipsor is visible on the entire visible surface of the moon.  You're right, Tom.  It fits perfectly.

You still haven't explained what causes earth's shadow, the lunar eclipsor, to appear on the moon.  Are you suggesting that there is a celestial body - let's call it "Sun" - directly under the flat earth - I'll call it Earth for short - casting a shadow of said disk (or disc) on the moon?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

Offline JCM

  • *
  • Posts: 150
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #29 on: January 03, 2019, 02:52:26 AM »
Rowbotham explains in the article that "Earth's shadow" may be replaced with the term "the lunar eclipsor" with the same result. There is no geometry of the earth moon and sun in those equations.

On a round Earth the Earth is between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse, therefore the the lunar eclipsor is visible on the entire visible surface of the moon.  You're right, Tom.  It fits perfectly.

You still haven't explained what causes earth's shadow, the lunar eclipsor, to appear on the moon.  Are you suggesting that there is a celestial body - let's call it "Sun" - directly under the flat earth - I'll call it Earth for short - casting a shadow of said disk (or disc) on the moon?

Frankly, a shadow object magically appearing just in time to cause eclipses makes more sense then the Moon chasing the Sun in narrowing and widening circles speeding up for six months then slowing down back and forth back and forth.  For the moon to cause a solar eclipse it would have to pass just underneath it, why wouldn’t we get all kinds of different views of such an event?  We would be incredibly lucky they never collided since they are so close to us...   Really, the shadow objects with invisible properties the rest of the time are more likely then the near Sun/Moon chasing each other as far as I am concerned. 

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #30 on: January 03, 2019, 02:42:36 PM »
So, some information provided by Tom in another thread really got me thinking last night. He said roughly that the sun projects itself onto the atmoplane a bit like a projector for the FE hypothesis. So what we see isn't in fact the actual sun. Thinking about this, it presents a few issues for how FE currently presents its idea. First off, it means FE has no actual idea on the size of the sun. If all we're seeing is a projection, we can't know the actual size of the sun based on that. The same obviously goes for the moon and other celestial bodies. Secondly, by extension we don't know the actual height of the sun or moon. We know this 'atmoplane' should be roughly 3000 miles up. But the height of the actual sun/moon? Completely unknown. So, we've now thrown two important factors out the window in regards to what? Eclipse prediction.

Since this would mean FE can't possibly create a model for the celestial objects to assist with predicting eclipses, they must rely completely upon their being reliable patterns in the Saros cycles. It's been Tom's claim for some time now that eclipse predictions are all based on patterns anyway. Lets try and put this to the test.

I decided to focus on Lunar Eclipses, since that would eliminate the need to explore at least one bit of data (namely *where* they occur would be a touch less impactful) too thoroughly. So, I pulled up the data for some lunar eclipses on NASA's website. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEdecade/LEdecade2001.html Plenty of easy links to other resources from there. As you can no doubt see though, there seems to be little help in looking at just a decade or two of eclipses. Clearly we need something else to look for patterns. Oh, Saros Cycles! Those things claimed to be how all predictions are made! Let's go take a look!

I started by grabbing the cycle that will have this years big upcoming eclipse in it, which happens to be cycle 134. The easiest pattern to spot from just a single Saros Cycle is that they appear to follow a sort of 'curve' where they start with very minor penumbral eclipses, move up to total eclipses, then slide back down to penumbral eclipses. That's good! Clearly there IS a pattern going on here. Now, can we get more granular?

This is about where my solo attempts to glean info started running into problems. Perusing that single Saros Cycle there doesn't appear to be any pattern to things like duration or magnitude. Time to look further afield! Thankfully NASA has a handy bit of info at the top of each Saros Cycle page, so we can take a look at that to start, and move forward from there. I looked over that starting info on each of 10 consecutive Saros Cycles. I've got nothing. Granted, I'm not looking even at quite 10% of the total Saros Cycles we have identified, but I can't find any sort of pattern here with regards to: Total number of eclipses, number of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, ratio of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, duration of longest or shortest eclipse. Now I don't have the familiarity with a program that I could run to help me look for patterns, but by napkin math I'm not seeing any sort of pattern that could be used here to replicate the precision being offered by these predictions.

I know we're a bit away from the original question, but how does or would an FE predict anything but the periodicity of these eclipses? I'm not seeing any sort of pattern to their duration, or similar. Obviously we have the time between them, but I'm unable to locate any other pattern that could be used. Perhaps someone else might be able to?

shootingstar

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #31 on: January 03, 2019, 06:36:05 PM »
Quote
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.


In an attempt to revert back to basics about lunar eclipses, this extract from FE Wiki should make it clear that the satellite of the Sun or 'shadow object' they refer to is in fact the Earth.

shootingstar

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #32 on: January 03, 2019, 06:38:11 PM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

This sentence should be deleted because it is factually wrong.  For the reasons explained in my previous post. You are standing on the thing that is causing the shadow!

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #33 on: January 03, 2019, 07:28:23 PM »
Quote
A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.
This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.


In an attempt to revert back to basics about lunar eclipses, this extract from FE Wiki should make it clear that the satellite of the Sun or 'shadow object' they refer to is in fact the Earth.
The Earth is not a satellite of the sun under the FE hypothesis though? You're drawing an incorrect conclusion at best here. The Earth is does in no way orbit the sun under FE.

Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

This sentence should be deleted because it is factually wrong.  For the reasons explained in my previous post. You are standing on the thing that is causing the shadow!
See above. The Earth is not a satellite of the sun.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3214
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #34 on: January 03, 2019, 09:26:14 PM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5975
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #35 on: January 03, 2019, 09:30:05 PM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?

What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?

So, some information provided by Tom in another thread really got me thinking last night. He said roughly that the sun projects itself onto the atmoplane a bit like a projector for the FE hypothesis. So what we see isn't in fact the actual sun. Thinking about this, it presents a few issues for how FE currently presents its idea. First off, it means FE has no actual idea on the size of the sun. If all we're seeing is a projection, we can't know the actual size of the sun based on that. The same obviously goes for the moon and other celestial bodies. Secondly, by extension we don't know the actual height of the sun or moon. We know this 'atmoplane' should be roughly 3000 miles up. But the height of the actual sun/moon? Completely unknown. So, we've now thrown two important factors out the window in regards to what? Eclipse prediction.

Since this would mean FE can't possibly create a model for the celestial objects to assist with predicting eclipses, they must rely completely upon their being reliable patterns in the Saros cycles. It's been Tom's claim for some time now that eclipse predictions are all based on patterns anyway. Lets try and put this to the test.

I decided to focus on Lunar Eclipses, since that would eliminate the need to explore at least one bit of data (namely *where* they occur would be a touch less impactful) too thoroughly. So, I pulled up the data for some lunar eclipses on NASA's website. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEdecade/LEdecade2001.html Plenty of easy links to other resources from there. As you can no doubt see though, there seems to be little help in looking at just a decade or two of eclipses. Clearly we need something else to look for patterns. Oh, Saros Cycles! Those things claimed to be how all predictions are made! Let's go take a look!

I started by grabbing the cycle that will have this years big upcoming eclipse in it, which happens to be cycle 134. The easiest pattern to spot from just a single Saros Cycle is that they appear to follow a sort of 'curve' where they start with very minor penumbral eclipses, move up to total eclipses, then slide back down to penumbral eclipses. That's good! Clearly there IS a pattern going on here. Now, can we get more granular?

This is about where my solo attempts to glean info started running into problems. Perusing that single Saros Cycle there doesn't appear to be any pattern to things like duration or magnitude. Time to look further afield! Thankfully NASA has a handy bit of info at the top of each Saros Cycle page, so we can take a look at that to start, and move forward from there. I looked over that starting info on each of 10 consecutive Saros Cycles. I've got nothing. Granted, I'm not looking even at quite 10% of the total Saros Cycles we have identified, but I can't find any sort of pattern here with regards to: Total number of eclipses, number of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, ratio of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, duration of longest or shortest eclipse. Now I don't have the familiarity with a program that I could run to help me look for patterns, but by napkin math I'm not seeing any sort of pattern that could be used here to replicate the precision being offered by these predictions.

I know we're a bit away from the original question, but how does or would an FE predict anything but the periodicity of these eclipses? I'm not seeing any sort of pattern to their duration, or similar. Obviously we have the time between them, but I'm unable to locate any other pattern that could be used. Perhaps someone else might be able to?

The eclipses repeat themselves every 18 and such years. Looking at a conseucive series of 10 or 20 eclipses might not suggest a patten. It follows from the Saros Cycle that there would be patterns by looking at the ones that are 18 years + n eclipses later

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #36 on: January 03, 2019, 09:40:38 PM »
So, some information provided by Tom in another thread really got me thinking last night. He said roughly that the sun projects itself onto the atmoplane a bit like a projector for the FE hypothesis. So what we see isn't in fact the actual sun. Thinking about this, it presents a few issues for how FE currently presents its idea. First off, it means FE has no actual idea on the size of the sun. If all we're seeing is a projection, we can't know the actual size of the sun based on that. The same obviously goes for the moon and other celestial bodies. Secondly, by extension we don't know the actual height of the sun or moon. We know this 'atmoplane' should be roughly 3000 miles up. But the height of the actual sun/moon? Completely unknown. So, we've now thrown two important factors out the window in regards to what? Eclipse prediction.

Since this would mean FE can't possibly create a model for the celestial objects to assist with predicting eclipses, they must rely completely upon their being reliable patterns in the Saros cycles. It's been Tom's claim for some time now that eclipse predictions are all based on patterns anyway. Lets try and put this to the test.

I decided to focus on Lunar Eclipses, since that would eliminate the need to explore at least one bit of data (namely *where* they occur would be a touch less impactful) too thoroughly. So, I pulled up the data for some lunar eclipses on NASA's website. https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEdecade/LEdecade2001.html Plenty of easy links to other resources from there. As you can no doubt see though, there seems to be little help in looking at just a decade or two of eclipses. Clearly we need something else to look for patterns. Oh, Saros Cycles! Those things claimed to be how all predictions are made! Let's go take a look!

I started by grabbing the cycle that will have this years big upcoming eclipse in it, which happens to be cycle 134. The easiest pattern to spot from just a single Saros Cycle is that they appear to follow a sort of 'curve' where they start with very minor penumbral eclipses, move up to total eclipses, then slide back down to penumbral eclipses. That's good! Clearly there IS a pattern going on here. Now, can we get more granular?

This is about where my solo attempts to glean info started running into problems. Perusing that single Saros Cycle there doesn't appear to be any pattern to things like duration or magnitude. Time to look further afield! Thankfully NASA has a handy bit of info at the top of each Saros Cycle page, so we can take a look at that to start, and move forward from there. I looked over that starting info on each of 10 consecutive Saros Cycles. I've got nothing. Granted, I'm not looking even at quite 10% of the total Saros Cycles we have identified, but I can't find any sort of pattern here with regards to: Total number of eclipses, number of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, ratio of total/partial/penumbral eclipses, duration of longest or shortest eclipse. Now I don't have the familiarity with a program that I could run to help me look for patterns, but by napkin math I'm not seeing any sort of pattern that could be used here to replicate the precision being offered by these predictions.

I know we're a bit away from the original question, but how does or would an FE predict anything but the periodicity of these eclipses? I'm not seeing any sort of pattern to their duration, or similar. Obviously we have the time between them, but I'm unable to locate any other pattern that could be used. Perhaps someone else might be able to?

The eclipses repeat themselves every 18 and such years. Looking at a conseucive series of 10 or 20 eclipses might not suggest a patten. It follows from the Saros Cycle that there would be patterns by looking at the ones that are 18 years + n eclipses later
I didn't look at a series of 10 or 20 eclipses. I looked at 10 different consecutive Saros Cycles, looking for any sort of reliable pattern within the cycle or between the cycles. The cycles held between 71 and 82 eclipses in them. I could find no pattern among them that would appear to indicate how many would be in a cycle. I saw no discernable pattern that would indicate what percentage Total/Partial/Penumbral eclipses would occur of the number of total eclipses in the cycle. I could see no pattern indicating a guide to discern how long the longest/shortest eclipse would be for that cycle. If you have a suggestion for how to attempt to glean an actual pattern out of them beyond the Saros Cycles, I'm all ears. Or a suggestion on how to setup an Excel sheet (or similar program) to make it easier that would also be great. But as is I am unable to locate anything suggesting a pattern to the more granular eclipse predictions set forth by NASA.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5975
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #37 on: January 03, 2019, 10:00:50 PM »
Take a look at Saros Series 1

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEsaros/LEsaros001.html

The first entry and second entry are 18 years apart from each other in 2570 BC and then 2552 BC. Those eclipses down that list are the ones which repeat.

Look down the Gamma field column. Those numbers gradually lessen in interger. Penn Magg gradually increases in interger. Um. Mag lessens in interger.

To find the pattern in a series of increasing or decreasing numbers like that there are tools to turn it into a polynomial equation.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2019, 10:02:32 PM by Tom Bishop »

shootingstar

Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #38 on: January 03, 2019, 10:36:31 PM »
Quote
The Earth is not a satellite of the sun under the FE hypothesis though? You're drawing an incorrect conclusion at best here. The Earth is does in no way orbit the sun under FE.


In that case FE hypothesis, as well as in many other aspects of its beliefs is wrong. 

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3214
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: 2019 Total Lunar Eclipse
« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2019, 12:12:48 AM »
Quote
The shadow object is never seen in the sky because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.
If it's so easily blotted out by the sun, then how can the "shadow object" cast a significant enough shadow to eclipse the moon?  If it can never be seen, then what empirical evidence is there that it even exists?

What makes you think that there is sky between the sun and the moon?
Huh?  What do you mean? ???
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.