Eclipses
« on: January 15, 2015, 07:00:50 PM »
Hi,
I've searched the FAQ about eclipses but didn't see anything. I've found a brief mention of eclipses in another forum thread, but it's not complete and doesn't answer my question.

In reality-based science, moon eclipses are explained because the earth blocks light coming from the sun to the moon.
In FE theory, I've read that 1. the moon is self illuminated and 2. eclipses are caused by another object coming between us on earth and the moon.

Obviously, I couldn't have been the same explanation than in reality-based science, because that would require the sun to go to the other side of the flat earth, which is not what FE theory says.

My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #1 on: January 15, 2015, 09:12:46 PM »
Hi,
I've searched the FAQ about eclipses but didn't see anything. I've found a brief mention of eclipses in another forum thread, but it's not complete and doesn't answer my question.

In reality-based science, moon eclipses are explained because the earth blocks light coming from the sun to the moon.
In FE theory, I've read that 1. the moon is self illuminated and 2. eclipses are caused by another object coming between us on earth and the moon.

Obviously, I couldn't have been the same explanation than in reality-based science, because that would require the sun to go to the other side of the flat earth, which is not what FE theory says.

My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?

Because they happen pretty regularly.  The moon phases are also more or less regular.  Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 09:28:50 PM by Tintagel »

Thork

Re: Eclipses
« Reply #2 on: January 15, 2015, 09:24:49 PM »
Besides, Round Earthers end up not having full moons.

And my calendar definitely has full moons on it. Real full moons. Not almost full moons or any other apology Markjo might come up with. 


Re: Eclipses
« Reply #3 on: January 15, 2015, 10:14:36 PM »
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?

Because they happen pretty regularly.  The moon phases are also more or less regular.  Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
Well, that maybe so but it's still better than no explanation at all...

And you actually completely evaded the question. The fact that lunar eclipses happen pretty regularly does not mean that you'd be able to predict exactly the date and time of the eclipse, and whether it would be a total or partial eclipse. I mean, can you?

Based on FE theory, can you predict the date, time and partial/total lunar eclipses for the next millenium?

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2015, 12:25:22 AM »
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?

Because they happen pretty regularly.  The moon phases are also more or less regular.  Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
Well, that maybe so but it's still better than no explanation at all...

And you actually completely evaded the question. The fact that lunar eclipses happen pretty regularly does not mean that you'd be able to predict exactly the date and time of the eclipse, and whether it would be a total or partial eclipse. I mean, can you?

Based on FE theory, can you predict the date, time and partial/total lunar eclipses for the next millenium?

Do you know what 'regularly' means?  Of course you can predict them, but this does not directly imply anything about earth's shape.

Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.  Have you?  If not, how are you so certain your idea is the right one?"

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2015, 06:33:10 AM »
My question then is: how is it that thanks to reality-based science we can accurately predict future eclipses? Is it just pure (unbelievably incredible) chance?

Because they happen pretty regularly.  The moon phases are also more or less regular.  Neither of these things directly imply anything about the shape of the earth, because (as the round earthers are so fond of pointing out) just because you have an explanation doesn't constitute evidence.
Well, that maybe so but it's still better than no explanation at all...

And you actually completely evaded the question. The fact that lunar eclipses happen pretty regularly does not mean that you'd be able to predict exactly the date and time of the eclipse, and whether it would be a total or partial eclipse. I mean, can you?

Based on FE theory, can you predict the date, time and partial/total lunar eclipses for the next millenium?

Do you know what 'regularly' means?  Of course you can predict them, but this does not directly imply anything about earth's shape.

Your next question will, of course, be "What causes eclipses, then?" to which I will say "I don't know, as I've never been on the moon during one.  Have you?  If not, how are you so certain your idea is the right one?"
The better theory is the one that makes more and better predictions. FET does not predict eclipses. RET does. RET is better.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9101
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2015, 06:41:50 AM »
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2015, 07:44:31 AM »
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Nope. I've already referred you to several texts on the matter. Try looking at a simple Amazon search and then head to your local library. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9101
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2015, 07:47:29 AM »
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Nope. I've already referred you to several texts on the matter. Try looking at a simple Amazon search and then head to your local library. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171

Show me that the lunar eclipse has been predicted with a geometric model of the solar system. Many of those mathematical astronomy books are simply talking about the maths behind the Saros Cycle and other cycles that predict things based on patterns in the sky. NASA uses the Saros Cycle on their website to predict the eclipse, a method created by ancient Flat Earth scientists. How embarrassing for them.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 08:03:24 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2015, 07:56:02 AM »
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
Nope. I've already referred you to several texts on the matter. Try looking at a simple Amazon search and then head to your local library. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_17?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mathematical+astronomy&sprefix=mathematical+astr%2Caps%2C171

Show me that the lunar eclipse has been predicted with a geometric model of the solar system. NASA uses the Saros Cycle on their website to predict the eclipse, a method created by ancient Flat Earth scientists. How embarrassing for them.
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9101
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2015, 08:02:42 AM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I'm talking about a geometric model of the solar system which operates on celestial mechanics. The Saros Cycle operates by looking at the time period when past eclipses have taken place in the past and then finding the pattern. Equations can be made to predict when it will occur, the duration, and even the totality, all from looking at patterns and trends of past events. In order for the prediction of a Lunar Eclipse to validate the Round Earth model, it would need to be predicted with celestial mechanics, rather than the pattern method.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 08:05:34 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2015, 10:19:10 AM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I'm talking about a geometric model of the solar system which operates on celestial mechanics. The Saros Cycle operates by looking at the time period when past eclipses have taken place in the past and then finding the pattern. Equations can be made to predict when it will occur, the duration, and even the totality, all from looking at patterns and trends of past events. In order for the prediction of a Lunar Eclipse to validate the Round Earth model, it would need to be predicted with celestial mechanics, rather than the pattern method.
And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

*

Offline Tintagel

  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Full of Tinier Tintagels
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2015, 06:33:33 PM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.

I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.

Offline Gulliver

  • *
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2015, 08:11:53 PM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.

I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
Since RET predicts the shape of earth's shadow and how it will cross the moon from hundreds of locations across the globe, I challenge your to show your predictions for the next lunar eclipse if the earth were a trapezoid. Then we'll just check which theory does a better job of predicting. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf
Don't rely on FEers for history or physics.
[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.
The ISS doesn't accelerate.

Re: Eclipses
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2015, 09:01:59 PM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
Google is irrelevant. Gulliver provided information which indeed shows calculations for predicting lunar eclipses based on the "geometric model" of the solar system.

If you think this argument doesn't stand, please provide a refutation. Ad hominem fallacies or mocking only discredits your position. And i'm quoting you: "In lieu of sufficient rebuttal, he sayeth, "LOL.""

Quote
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
The Saros method has limited accuracy (although a pretty good one) and couldn't predict eclipses to the hour or minute. This is only possible with calculations based on the "geometric model".
It is true that the ability to predict eclipses to the minute based on RET is not an absolute proof that RET is true. There is no such thing as an absolute proof to anything. I certainly wouldn't say however that it "has absolutely zero to do with" RET. It's an argument in favor of RET.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2015, 09:11:25 PM by Sceptom »

*

Offline Lemmiwinks

  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2015, 11:32:48 PM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?



Only if you change your name to "I Research Nothing", seems fair.
Scepti is the most eminent flat earth scientist of our generation, he's never even heard of you clowns.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 8669
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2015, 05:55:41 AM »
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.

Please bear in mind that Tom thinks The Saros Cycle is used in exactly the same way as the Babylonians did. This is false as there has been a tremendous amount of precision introduced with the refinement of astronomical epoches. This has made the delta-t calculations much more precise than the Babylonians could have dreamed of.

NASA can also transform the coordinates of a lunar exlipse such that they can be predicted from any locale on Earth. These coordinate transformations would only work if the Earth is round.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9101
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2015, 09:05:28 PM »
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.
The only method NASA uses to predict the eclipse is the Saros Cycle. The Saros Cycle is an Ancient Babylonian method based on recurring patterns in the sky. The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers. Flat Earth Theory is better.

Please bear in mind that Tom thinks The Saros Cycle is used in exactly the same way as the Babylonians did. This is false as there has been a tremendous amount of precision introduced with the refinement of astronomical epoches. This has made the delta-t calculations much more precise than the Babylonians could have dreamed of.

NASA can also transform the coordinates of a lunar exlipse such that they can be predicted from any locale on Earth. These coordinate transformations would only work if the Earth is round.

The lunar eclipse occurs at the same point in time for everybody, wherever the moon is visible, since it is a shadow on its surface. Your assumption of special maths which show different eclipse times at different locations is of your own imagination. It happens at the same time for everybody. It's only the solar eclipse that occurs at different times for different people.

But even if the saros cycle has been refined for accuracy over the years and more patterns have been picked out for different variables of the eclipse, it is still a pattern based prediction, not one based on celestial mechanics. The use of the Saros Cycle or its variants is still irrelevant and not evidence for RET.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2015, 09:21:42 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9101
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2015, 09:17:35 PM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.

I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
Since RET predicts the shape of earth's shadow and how it will cross the moon from hundreds of locations across the globe, I challenge your to show your predictions for the next lunar eclipse if the earth were a trapezoid. Then we'll just check which theory does a better job of predicting. See: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Apr04T.pdf

Why do you keep calling methods created by ancient flat earth scientists a RET method which predicts the lunar eclipse?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9101
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Eclipses
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2015, 09:27:42 PM »
I've never heard of a geometric model. I don't see it in a Google search either. Perhaps you mis-typed? Since the Saros Cycle provides only a limited prediction, NASA must be using more than it to accomplish their published results. For example, see: http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html and

I move that Gulliver change his name to Googler, since he seems to believe that Google is where all the universe's knowledge is housed.  If you can't google it, it must not be real, eh?

And link I provided showed just that. RET models present the math to make accurate and regular prediction.
Google is irrelevant. Gulliver provided information which indeed shows calculations for predicting lunar eclipses based on the "geometric model" of the solar system.

If you think this argument doesn't stand, please provide a refutation. Ad hominem fallacies or mocking only discredits your position. And i'm quoting you: "In lieu of sufficient rebuttal, he sayeth, "LOL.""

Quote
I say again - the ability to predict eclipses has absolutely zero to do with the shape of the earth.  They happen regularly and are thus easily predictable, even if the earth were a trapezoid.  "RET" doesn't predict eclipses; the regularity of eclipses predicts eclipses.
The Saros method has limited accuracy (although a pretty good one) and couldn't predict eclipses to the hour or minute. This is only possible with calculations based on the "geometric model".
It is true that the ability to predict eclipses to the minute based on RET is not an absolute proof that RET is true. There is no such thing as an absolute proof to anything. I certainly wouldn't say however that it "has absolutely zero to do with" RET. It's an argument in favor of RET.

Show us where a geometric model has predicted the eclipse. The only method talked about on NASA's website is the ancient Flat Earth one.