[RazaTD]

If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.

What is the best prediction that the Flat Earth can make?

[Pete Svarrior]

If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.

This premise is false.

[AATW]

If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.

This premise is false.

How so? If you think that the earth is flat then surely that model should replace the globe earth model, like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.

[RazaTD]

If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.

This premise is false.

No.

[Tumeni]

If Flat Earth is to replace Globe Earth, it must at the very least have the same predictive capabilities if not more.

This premise is false.

Why?

[jack44556677]

like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.

That isn't what happened.  They argued and ultimately convinced the pope to ignore physics and science to switch to the "new model". It was not a "better model of reality".

[AATW]

like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.

That isn't what happened.  They argued and ultimately convinced the pope to ignore physics and science to switch to the "new model". It was not a "better model of reality".

None of that is true.

Can you provide a source which backs up any of that?

[Pete Svarrior]

How so? If you think that the earth is flat then surely that model should replace the globe earth model, like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.

We've discussed this many times, and I dou t repeating myself yet again will help, but hey ho. We care about what is true, and not what is currently more complete. Using known incorrect answers to fill the gaps in what would otherwise be unknowns is not a healthy approach, and has pretty much got us into the mess we're in as a society.

No.

Refrain from creating posts which do not contribute to the discussion at hand.

[Tom Bishop]

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

[RazaTD]

How so? If you think that the earth is flat then surely that model should replace the globe earth model, like the heliocentric model replaced the geocentric one when it was found to be a better model of reality.

We've discussed this many times, and I dou t repeating myself yet again will help, but hey ho. We care about what is true, and not what is currently more complete. Using known incorrect answers to fill the gaps in what would otherwise be unknowns is not a healthy approach, and has pretty much got us into the mess we're in as a society.

No.

Refrain from creating posts which do not contribute to the discussion at hand.

What predictions can the Flat Earth model make so far that can be observed in reality? Derive only with Flat Earth equations

[AATW]

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Just demonstrably not true.
Your inability to understand it - or your flat our unwillingness to accept the evidence you've been shown - doesn't make it true.
It has been explained that the n body problem can be split into multiple 2 body problems - thus clearly using the underlying laws.
We have sent probes to every planet, there's a rover sitting on Mars as we speak. There's an ISS which you can see from the ground.
The eclipse path was predicted down to the block level, you can't do that with a Saros cycle.
None of this was achieved with a FE model.

[RazaTD]

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools

[Tom Bishop]

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Just demonstrably not true.
Your inability to understand it - or your flat our unwillingness to accept the evidence you've been shown - doesn't make it true.
It has been explained that the n body problem can be split into multiple 2 body problems - thus clearly using the underlying laws.
We have sent probes to every planet, there's a rover sitting on Mars as we speak. There's an ISS which you can see from the ground.
The eclipse path was predicted down to the block level, you can't do that with a Saros cycle.
None of this was achieved with a FE model.

Multiple two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under the laws of gravity and motion, but that you can't get it to work.

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools

The Ancient Babylonians were a Flat Earth civilization and they are known to have predicted the position of the planets just fine.

Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.

[RazaTD]

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Just demonstrably not true.
Your inability to understand it - or your flat our unwillingness to accept the evidence you've been shown - doesn't make it true.
It has been explained that the n body problem can be split into multiple 2 body problems - thus clearly using the underlying laws.
We have sent probes to every planet, there's a rover sitting on Mars as we speak. There's an ISS which you can see from the ground.
The eclipse path was predicted down to the block level, you can't do that with a Saros cycle.
None of this was achieved with a FE model.

Multiple Two body problems is a workaround to the problem of multiple bodies. There is a problem is when you have to explain the Sun-Earth-Moon system as multiple two body problems in which one of the bodies ignores the gravity of another because the three body version of the problem doesn't work even on paper. It is farcical that you think that the bodies operate under those laws, but that you can't get it to work.

You guys are getting too far ahead of yourselves. The first problem is actually that RE can't predict anything because it has not been demonstrated, by academic resources or by anyone here, that the systems are actually based on RE Theory rather than patterns and historical events.

Can you please calculate where in the sky is Mars right now? Only use Flat Earth tools

The Ancient Babylonians were a Flat Earth civilization and they are known to have predicted the position of the planets just fine.

Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.

What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?

[Tom Bishop]

What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Ancient Babylonians

Astronomy for Physical Science - Cal State Long Beach

“ The Babylonians accumulated records of astronomical observations for many centuries. The records enabled them to see repeated patterns in the motions of the celestial objects. They used the patterns to predict the positions of the Moon and planets. ”

From Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times: Volume One by Professor Morris Kline (bio) we see:

“ Babylonians calculated the first and second differences of successive data, observed the consistency of the first or second differences, and extrapolated or interpolated data. Their procedure was equivalent to using the fact that the data can be fit by polynomial functions and enabled them to predict the daily positions of the planets. They knew the periods of the planets with some accuracy, and also used eclipses as a basis for calculation. There was, however, no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion in Babylonian astronomy. ”

[stack]

Just open up Stellarium. Someone already studied the patterns of Mars and put them into an application for you. If you think it's based on RE theories then you can go ahead and prove that for us rather than insisting that your assumptions are fact.

In Stellarium, if you change the observer position to the Moon or Mars and then look back on earth, what do you see?

From Mars:


From the Moon:



I'm pretty sure Stellarium is Globe centric.

Not to mention from the Stellarium User Guide:

"By default, Stellarium uses the VSOP87 planetary theory, an analytical solution which is able todeliver planetary positions for any input date (P. Bretagnon and Francou, 1988)."
http://priede.bf.lu.lv/ftp/pub/TIS/astronomija/Stellarium/stellarium_user_guide-0.18.0-1.pdf

VSOP87:
"The semi-analytic planetary theory VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a mathematical model describing long-term changes (secular variation) in the orbits of the planets Mercury to Neptune. The earliest modern scientific model considered only the gravitational attraction between the Sun and each planet, with the resulting orbits being unvarying Keplerian ellipses. In reality, all the planets exert slight forces on each other, causing slow changes in the shape and orientation of these ellipses. Increasingly complex analytical models have been made of these deviations, as well as efficient and accurate numerical approximation methods.

VSOP87 comes in six tables:

VSOP87 Heliocentric ecliptic orbital elements for the equinox J2000.0; the 6 orbital elements, ideal to get an idea of how the orbits are changing over time
VSOP87A Heliocentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox J2000.0; the most useful when converting to geocentric positions and later plot the position on a star chart
VSOP87B Heliocentric ecliptic spherical coordinates for the equinox J2000.0
VSOP87C Heliocentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox of the day; the most useful when converting to geocentric positions and later compute e.g. rise/set/culmination times, or the altitude and azimuth relative to your local horizon
VSOP87D Heliocentric ecliptic spherical coordinates for the equinox of the day
VSOP87E Barycentric ecliptic rectangular coordinates for the equinox J2000.0, relative to the barycentre of the solar system."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSOP_(planets)

So, you are incorrect, Stellarium uses mathematical models based upon a heliocentric globe earth. It is not Babylonian patterned-based as you would prefer.

[Tom Bishop]

The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read and address the arguments in the Wiki, since you know that it is just going to be quoted anyway as a response. The system is based on epicycles:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#VSOP

VSOP

VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a popular software package used to generate planetary ephemeris, which are the positions of the planetary objects in the sky. It is used in astronomy software such as Stellarium and Celestia. It has been alleged that VSOP uses a geometric RET model to make its predictions, and so VSOP and the astronomy software which uses it is therefore a validation of the theory. On assessment we find, however, that VSOP is based on the ancient epicyclic methods:

Comparing VSOP to the Ptolemaic System

The following is left by an editor on VSOP's Wikipedia Talk Page (Archive):

  “ Modelling VSOP on a ubiquitous PC computer program, starting with only one element for each of the three parameters (L, B R) and then slowly incrementing the number of elements, gives a sense of irony that it is in fact nothing more than a more complex development of the ancient deferent / epicycle system used by Ptolemy. A system that despite being totally dismissed out of hand for being intellectually "wrong", was able to provide a prediction service accurate enough to match the observational resolution available (naked eye, with no reliable mechanical timekeeping). A system that, astoundingly to this author, was able to detect and measure, accurately, the lunar evection, one of the still-used perturbations of the Earth-Moon system. Summing powers of sines and cosines is certainly tantamount to circles upon (or perhaps within) circles; recursing, or perhaps simply nesting, almost endlessly. Whilst of course this is totally irrelevant to the mathematics, it perhaps behoves Wikipedia's wider terms of reference to include this as a philosophical point. ”

Comments from Celestia Developers

Celestia Developers comment on the large number of planet-specific terms used in computing positions:

https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8285 (Archive)

  “ VSOP87 is a set of polynomials describing the orbits of the major planets. There are over 1000 terms in each series. ”

https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2592 (Archive)

  “ I could add more terms to the VSOP-87 series, but there are already over 1000 per major planet ”

The rest of the page explains how epicycles are used to predict patterns of events and are still used in Astronomy, but now with a gravitational twist, because the three body problem can't be solved.

[RazaTD]

What calculations would an FE scientist do to predict the position of Mars?

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

Ancient Babylonians

Astronomy for Physical Science - Cal State Long Beach

“ The Babylonians accumulated records of astronomical observations for many centuries. The records enabled them to see repeated patterns in the motions of the celestial objects. They used the patterns to predict the positions of the Moon and planets. ”

From Mathematical Thought from Ancient to Modern Times: Volume One by Professor Morris Kline (bio) we see:

“ Babylonians calculated the first and second differences of successive data, observed the consistency of the first or second differences, and extrapolated or interpolated data. Their procedure was equivalent to using the fact that the data can be fit by polynomial functions and enabled them to predict the daily positions of the planets. They knew the periods of the planets with some accuracy, and also used eclipses as a basis for calculation. There was, however, no geometrical scheme of planetary or lunar motion in Babylonian astronomy. ”

I agree with the point that if there is repeating then it’s state can be accurately predicted without understanding mechanics that drive it.

The Ancient Babylonians did not understand why planets were moving but they observed the motion and understood it to be repeating. From there, they were able to make their prediction.

However, the problem is that their “model” is just memorizing a pattern and is too simplistic. Since then science has developed a lot and we have a greater predictability with our model where we don’t necessarily have to observe something before we can predict it. In other words, we are able to understand the mechanics of how things work.

The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.

Understand here that the Ancient Babylonians could not have done this because their model was purely observation with no mechanics. They would have seen Uranus’ quirk and overtime, due to its repetition, become able to predict it. But they couldn’t give a reason as to why this happens.

So I guess I should ask, has Flat Earth developed since the time on Ancient Babylon’s? If so how will a FE scientist calculate the position of Mars? Would they rely on patterns or will they introduce some mechanics?

The Round Earth has introduced a lot of mechanics which is one of the reasons why Neptune was found.

[stack]

The Stellarium system is explained on the Astronomical Prediction Based on Patterns Page. I would suggest that you read all of it. It is bases on epicycles:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#VSOP

VSOP

VSOP (French: Variations Séculaires des Orbites Planétaires) is a popular software package used to generate planetary ephemeris, which are the positions of the planetary objects in the sky. It is used in astronomy software such as Stellarium and Celestia. It has been alleged that VSOP uses a geometric RET model to make its predictions, and so VSOP and the astronomy software which uses it is therefore a validation of the theory. On assessment we find, however, that VSOP is based on the ancient epicyclic methods:

Comparing VSOP to the Ptolemaic System

The following is left by an editor on VSOP's Wikipedia Talk Page (Archive):

  “ Modelling VSOP on a ubiquitous PC computer program, starting with only one element for each of the three parameters (L, B R) and then slowly incrementing the number of elements, gives a sense of irony that it is in fact nothing more than a more complex development of the ancient deferent / epicycle system used by Ptolemy. A system that despite being totally dismissed out of hand for being intellectually "wrong", was able to provide a prediction service accurate enough to match the observational resolution available (naked eye, with no reliable mechanical timekeeping). A system that, astoundingly to this author, was able to detect and measure, accurately, the lunar evection, one of the still-used perturbations of the Earth-Moon system. Summing powers of sines and cosines is certainly tantamount to circles upon (or perhaps within) circles; recursing, or perhaps simply nesting, almost endlessly. Whilst of course this is totally irrelevant to the mathematics, it perhaps behoves Wikipedia's wider terms of reference to include this as a philosophical point. ”

Comments from Celestia Developers

Celestia Developers comment on the large number of planet-specific terms used in computing positions:

https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8285 (Archive)

  “ VSOP87 is a set of polynomials describing the orbits of the major planets. There are over 1000 terms in each series. ”

https://celestia.space/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2592 (Archive)

  “ I could add more terms to the VSOP-87 series, but there are already over 1000 per major planet ”

The rest of the page explains how epicycles are used to predict patterns of events and are still used in Astronomy because the three body problem can't be solved.

So what? That whole passage from someone has been in "Talk" since 2014. It certainly doesn't take away from the fact that you are wrong about Stellarium. And I have no idea why it's significant that a poster says the VSOP has over 1000 terms per planet. That poster also says they should use JPL DE405 for greater accuracy. Which is completely heliocentrically based as well like VSOP. And Stellarium has a feature in the client version to toggle over to DE405 if you desire. 

The bottomline, Stellarium and the like use heliocentric mathematical models for planetary movement/tracking. Not your Babylonian pattern-based stuff. Sorry, I guess you'll have to find an FE based celestial program to use instead.

[Tom Bishop]

The best example I can give you is the story of discovery of Neptune. Some scientists figured that the motion of Uranus was observed to be quite different than what our models would suggest and he predicted there to be a planet beyond Uranus.

There is a page on that too, to read and comment on - https://wiki.tfes.org/Discovery_of_Neptune

So what?

Have you ever seen a heliocentric system based on epicycles? Copernicus's system was heliocentric, but still had epicycles like Ptolmy, arranged differently. Epicycles are fudges to explain something under whatever scheme you wish.

From https://www.physast.uga.edu/~loris/astr1010/ASTR1010_Study_Notes_part2.pdf -