What about the Solar eclipse?

The fact of the matter is that predicting eclipses is independent of theory and a mere matter of tabulation. Consider the number of ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.

[/quote]




well teh greek EXPERTS devised a device that used a correcting factor to account for an earth centric model vs sun centric.
both gets the same results.
both are right.

if both are right, which makes more sense?
to claim earth is the center frame of reference and use overly complicated math to make it so?
or
to create a new noneculidan math system so that geometry bends time and space to make earth flat?




oh whoops...those were the same options.

Physicist and computer scientist Stephen Wolfram, creator of Wolfram Alpha, says in regards to today's eclipse prediction methods that "strangely" it is predicted by the epicycle method of prediction like with the Antikythera device, "despite all the theoretical science that's been done":

https://www.wired.com/story/when-exactly-will-the-eclipse-happen/

  “ But computing eclipses is not exactly a new business. In fact, the Antikythera device from 2000 years ago even tried to do it—using 37 metal gears to approximate the motion of the Sun and Moon....Of course the results are a lot more accurate today. Though, strangely, despite all the theoretical science that’s been done, the way we actually compute the position of the Sun and Moon is conceptually very much like the gears—and effectively epicycles—of the Antikythera device. It’s just that now we have the digital equivalent of hundreds of thousands of gears. ”

no

my point was specifically to JohnDavis comment regarding

  ancient cultures that believed in a flat earth yet were able to predict to a great degree of certainty numerous celestial phenomena.

yes
they believed it flat and center frame of reference.
so using that belief and the measured paths of these Sky-Wanderers, they created the antikythera.

BUT
logical use of a helio centric yields the same result.



SAME

RESULT


it's not strange
it's impressive.
what's also impressive is your ability to do gymnastics.


so no, not that Round did a more complicated system to get the same result.
it's that Flat did a more compliated system to get the same result.

that's the point.

, the way we actually compute the position of the Sun and Moon is conceptually very much like the gears—

And again..

Flat Earth explains the Solar Eclipse paths

Really.  Wouldn’t you have to know the exact sizes of the sun and the moon, and their exact altitudes above the earth to accurately model their positions.

What are the exact sizes of the sun and moon?  What are their exact altitudes above the flat earth delusion.

Flat Earth explains the Solar Eclipse paths much better than the Round Earth.

No, it doesn't.
It can't explain the paths at all.
Especially combining the region of totality and region of partial eclipse.

Another massive issue is the size of these issues.

Consider those paths on a Round Earth.

Instead of using these particular views, why don't you show the actual path of the moon creating that shadow?
i.e. remove the rotation of Earth from the equation to show what the path of the shadow through space is.
That would be an honest portrayal.

Curiously, on a Northern Azimuthal FE map, the paths of the Solar Eclipse make symmetrical arcs:

Which in no way attempts to explain it through a flat Earth, and you also have some of these arcs go through the south pole.
And there is no indication at all of how accurate these paths are.
It takes 3 points, the start end and middle, and draws an arc.
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1926PA.....34...78R

Also see this image:

You mean yet another blatant lie from people like you, where even a cursory glance will reveal it is a blatant lie, but because you care about propping up your fantasy and are happy to discard the truth in the process you just ignore that obvious fault and present this lie as true?

These are cherry picked paths of 3 eclipses, which don't line up to make a continuous circle, yet you just happily draw that circle which doesn't show the correct path.
You are happy to entirely ignore the actual path to promote your fantasy.

Anything else you want to do to show you are happy to lie to everyone?

You don't need to know the size of the Moon to know that the shadow's path reflects the path of the Moon over the Earth. It makes symmetrical arcs in the Flat Earth version. I am waiting to see from you guys how all the odd shapes work in the Round Earth version. So far it appears that you are having difficulty in explaining it.

You don't need to know the size of the Moon to know that the shadow's path reflects the path of the Moon over the Earth. It makes symmetrical arcs in the Flat Earth version. I am waiting to see from you guys how all the odd shapes work in the Round Earth version. So far it appears that you are having difficulty in explaining it.

Even when the evidence is in plain site and the evidence from history reveals the past, flat earth believers just have to make stuff up to suit their beliefs.

The solar eclipse of April 8th is a fact as it was witnessed by billions. Its timing and exact location accurately predicted. That is also an undeniable fact.

The knowledge of the cosmic cycle that led to solar eclipses was indeed known by various ancient civilisations. Their ability to predict the exact time and location of the eclipse did not exist. This is another fact found in historical records. The other fact was they did not possess the mathematical knowledge to be able to deal with the three body problem involved in the prediction of solar eclipses.

It was not until Halley in 1715 that an solar eclipse was semi-accurately predicted. His solar eclipse map was a first and relied on calculations and facts totally at odds with flat earth belief, another fact.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/image/HalleyMap.GIF

The calculation of the April 8th solar eclipse was 100% accurate in both location and timing. Everyone was witness to that. This points to all the data used for the calculation to be valid, along with the movements and physical nature of all the heavenly bodies involved.

Flat earth believers not able to come to terms with these facts just invent a whole host of flat earth film flam, as is demonstrated from some of the posts on this subject.

What they can’t grasp is predictions were made and the events unfolded exactly as predicted.

Did any flat earther publish a set of accurate calculations based on their beliefs prior to the event?

The answer to that is of course a resounding NO. They are unable to do this as their version of reality is unable to deliver any prediction about any cosmic event. All they can do is throw their hands up in the air as you can read in the previous comments and just make contradictory stuff up.

Flat earth belief equates to ignoring reality in favour of belief.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 10:02:44 PM

You don't need to know the size of the Moon to know that the shadow's path reflects the path of the Moon over the Earth. It makes symmetrical arcs in the Flat Earth version. I am waiting to see from you guys how all the odd shapes work in the Round Earth version. So far it appears that you are having difficulty in explaining it.

Even when the evidence is in plain site and the evidence from history reveals the past, flat earth believers just have to make stuff up to suit their beliefs.

You were asked to explain the symmetrical FE arcs vs. the odd RE shapes for the eclipses, not to write up a dissertation which no one cares about.

You don't need to know the size of the Moon to know that the shadow's path reflects the path of the Moon over the Earth. It makes symmetrical arcs in the Flat Earth version. I am waiting to see from you guys how all the odd shapes work in the Round Earth version. So far it appears that you are having difficulty in explaining it.

That in the spirit of what I actually posed…

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 12:06:25 PM

, the way we actually compute the position of the Sun and Moon is conceptually very much like the gears—

And again..

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM

Flat Earth explains the Solar Eclipse paths

Really.  Wouldn’t you have to know the exact sizes of the sun and the moon, and their exact altitudes above the earth to accurately model their positions.

What are the exact sizes of the sun and moon?  What are their exact altitudes above the flat earth delusion.

You don't need to know the size of the Moon to know that the shadow's path reflects the path of the Moon over the Earth. It makes symmetrical arcs in the Flat Earth version. I am waiting to see from you guys how all the odd shapes work in the Round Earth version. So far it appears that you are having difficulty in explaining it.

So more dishonesty.
Just entirely ignore the fact that those arc you are appealing to are pure fiction.

And you make no attempt to even try to demonstrate that is the expected path for a FE.

And while you appeal to strange shapes for a RE, you make no attempt to show the actual path, instead of the path on a rotating body.

You were asked to explain the symmetrical FE arcs vs. the odd RE shapes for the eclipses, not to write up a dissertation which no one cares about.

And I demonstrated how those symmetrical arcs are nothing more than a blatant lie.
How about you explain that?

You don't need to know the size of the Moon to know that the shadow's path reflects the path of the Moon over the Earth. It makes symmetrical arcs in the Flat Earth version. I am waiting to see from you guys how all the odd shapes work in the Round Earth version. So far it appears that you are having difficulty in explaining it.

So.   I watched a solar eclipse in the afternoon.

How on a flat earth did the moon and sun travel in such away they lined up, and their speed was matched to stay the same apparent size in the sky to create totality for about 3 minutes.  Where other cities experienced 4 minutes of totality. Where the radiuses of the orbits of the moon and sun for the flat earth delusion have different diameters.  Where on a flat earth if you give specific sizes for the sun and moon with corresponding altitudes, the sun and moon should change apparent sizes throughout the day for a FE, change apparent sizes at different rates, and both should visibly turn north in their orbits from my position in the afternoon. 

You have explained nothing at all jackblack.

A step by step analysis of your nonsense.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM

Flat Earth explains the Solar Eclipse paths much better than the Round Earth.

No, it doesn't.
It can't explain the paths at all.
Especially combining the region of totality and region of partial eclipse.

Another massive issue is the size of these issues.

That is a FE map, therefore the paths are explained completely. You are trying, as usual, to baffle your readers, thinking that these tricks are working, but they are not.

On a FE map, the paths are correct.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM

Consider those paths on a Round Earth.

Instead of using these particular views, why don't you show the actual path of the moon creating that shadow?
i.e. remove the rotation of Earth from the equation to show what the path of the shadow through space is.
That would be an honest portrayal.

Have you lost your freaking mind? Now you want the Earth to be stationary? Don't you understand that you can't have it both ways?

In fact, this is a quote from your own reference:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1926PA.....34...78R&db_key=AST&page_ind=4&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

"In this method the observed is supposed to be stationed in the sun and to look down on the ROTATING EARTH."

You can't even read your own references properly, but what we can expect from a science fiction peddler like you?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM

Curiously, on a Northern Azimuthal FE map, the paths of the Solar Eclipse make symmetrical arcs:

Which in no way attempts to explain it through a flat Earth, and you also have some of these arcs go through the south pole.
And there is no indication at all of how accurate these paths are.
It takes 3 points, the start end and middle, and draws an arc.
https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1926PA.....34...78R

That's a FE map you numskull!

It is the shape of those arcs we are talking about.

This is the shape for RET:



For many of those paths, the direction is suddenly changed, this is what are talking about here. The totality of the arcs is composed actually of two different arcs: one is concave, the other is convex.

In other words, THERE IS A POINT OF INFLECTION!!! Like this:


That is how we know the solar eclipses paths are totally false for RET.

Now, take a look at the FE arcs:



Exactly what you'd expect for the paths of the solar eclipses.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 09, 2024, 04:44:00 AM

Also see this image:

You mean yet another blatant lie from people like you, where even a cursory glance will reveal it is a blatant lie, but because you care about propping up your fantasy and are happy to discard the truth in the process you just ignore that obvious fault and present this lie as true?

These are cherry picked paths of 3 eclipses, which don't line up to make a continuous circle, yet you just happily draw that circle which doesn't show the correct path.
You are happy to entirely ignore the actual path to promote your fantasy.

Anything else you want to do to show you are happy to lie to everyone?

You numskull, the circle is drawn to show the region the reader is supposed to look at. You are desperate to lie yet again, you science fiction peddler.

https://wiki.tfes.org/images/0/03/Solar_Eclipse_REvsFE.jpg

The paths of the eclipses in FET work out perfectly, the shape of the arcs are correct.

For RET, the shape of the arcs have two arcs: one is convex, one is concave. A total disaster for RET.

You have really screwed up on this one jackblack.

Now, take a look at the FE arcs:

I keep asking this question.  It keeps getting ignored because it exposes the flat earth lie that is hidden in walls of word salad with a specific.

Can you answer the question?


For this example below…

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/how-did-the-ancients-predicted-eclipses-the-saros-cycle/




How does the position of the moon and sun for a flat earth explain the 1937 June 8th shadow path of the eclipse? 


You can even mark the position of the sun and moon in their flat earth orbits using your provided map?  For the 1937 June 8th shadow path of the eclipse? 

You are spamming the upper forums dataflows2022.

You have just been shown a map depicting RE paths for the solar eclipses which feature INFLECTION POINTS! This is what you have to explain, and do not.

Why don't you post the map for the 2046 solar eclipse?

Here let me do it for you:



A concave portion of the curve, then AN INFLECTION POINT, then a convex portion for the curve. Two different arcs, the curve suddenly changes direction.

You are really screwed up on this one dataflows2022.

You have explained nothing at all jackblack.

I think it’s that earth.

Let’s use the 1911 solar eclipse.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_April_28,_1911#:~:text=A%20total%20solar%20eclipse%20occurred,for%20a%20viewer%20on%20Earth.

RE.  It has a start and end.  The shadow path for totality is relatively a constant width from the sun and moon stating relatively the same distance from each other in the heliocentric model.

The path for flat earth, same eclipse?


Either stated or ended from beyond the disc?  Which is it?

Suffers from FE scale south of the equator being increasingly off the farther south you go.

The shadow would not be a consistent width with the sun and moon changing considerably distances from each other especially since their orbits have considerably different diameters for the flat earth delusion.

What? Let's use the 1911 path for the total solar eclipse? Have you really lost your mind?

THAT PATH FEATURES TWO ARCS, WITH AN INFLECTION POINT! A concave portion, an inflection point, then a convex portion. Impossible to explain for RET.


Here is a real beauty, solar eclipses 2021-2030, MOST OF THEM HAVE INFLECTION POINTS!!!



https://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEatlas/SEatlas21/SEWorldMap2021v.jpg

You are spamming the upper forums dataflows2022.

So you can’t show for the 1937 eclipse how the sun and moon could be even be positioned to create the eclipse on a flat earth.

While you ignore the flat earth model requires the shadow path width of totality to be constantly changing because the relative distance from the sun to the moon is constantly changing because of their very different diameters of orbit.

Where the heliocentric model explains why the shadow path of totality stays a very specific width due to the fact the sun and moon keep a very constant far distance from each other. 

What? Let's use the 1911 path for the total solar eclipse? Have you really lost your mind?

THAT PATH FEATURES TWO ARCS, WITH AN INFLECTION POINT! A concave portion, an inflection point, then a convex portion. Impossible to explain for RET.


Here is a real beauty, solar eclipses 2021-2030, MOST OF THEM HAVE INFLECTION POINTS!!!



https://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEatlas/SEatlas21/SEWorldMap2021v.jpg

Which has. No way address this not answers the questions raised in the below post.

Quote from: sandokhan on April 10, 2024, 07:00:45 AM

You have explained nothing at all jackblack.

I think it’s that earth.

Let’s use the 1911 solar eclipse.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_April_28,_1911#:~:text=A%20total%20solar%20eclipse%20occurred,for%20a%20viewer%20on%20Earth.

RE.  It has a start and end.  The shadow path for totality is relatively a constant width from the sun and moon stating relatively the same distance from each other in the heliocentric model.

The path for flat earth, same eclipse?


Either stated or ended from beyond the disc?  Which is it?

Suffers from FE scale south of the equator being increasingly off the farther south you go.

The shadow would not be a consistent width with the sun and moon changing considerably distances from each other especially since their orbits have considerably different diameters for the flat earth delusion.

What? Let's use the 1911 path for the total solar eclipse? Have you really lost your mind?

THAT PATH FEATURES TWO ARCS, WITH AN INFLECTION POINT! A concave portion, an inflection point, then a convex portion. Impossible to explain for RET.


Here is a real beauty, solar eclipses 2021-2030, MOST OF THEM HAVE INFLECTION POINTS!!!



https://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEatlas/SEatlas21/SEWorldMap2021v.jpg

You’re missing the point.

If I wanted to write a computer program to model the 1937 eclipse.

What latitude and / or longitude would I use for the sun and moon.

What diameters would I use for their orbits.

What sizes would I use for the sun and moon.

What altitudes would I use for the sun and moon.

What map would I use for earth.

Which raises the point why don’t eclipses on a flat earth occur at the same places at the same times every year.  Do the orbits vary that much on a flat earth?  And if they do, why? 

Funny flat earthers try to debate things like general relativity with authority, but for their “model” they can’t even state the sizes and how far the moon and sun are without a factor of 100 percent error?  It’s like if they got too specific they could be proven wrong?  Thus the walls of word salad where they can continuously twist the argument.

😁

What? Let's use the 1911 path for the total solar eclipse? Have you really lost your mind?

THAT PATH FEATURES TWO ARCS, WITH AN INFLECTION POINT! A concave portion, an inflection point, then a convex portion. Impossible to explain for RET.


Here is a real beauty, solar eclipses 2021-2030, MOST OF THEM HAVE INFLECTION POINTS!!!



https://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEatlas/SEatlas21/SEWorldMap2021v.jpg

just to be clear, is sando saying the mercator is a reaonsable representation of how the earth looks?
or is he saying eclipse is false because mercator is false?

Quote from: sandokhan on April 10, 2024, 07:35:23 AM

What? Let's use the 1911 path for the total solar eclipse? Have you really lost your mind?

THAT PATH FEATURES TWO ARCS, WITH AN INFLECTION POINT! A concave portion, an inflection point, then a convex portion. Impossible to explain for RET.


Here is a real beauty, solar eclipses 2021-2030, MOST OF THEM HAVE INFLECTION POINTS!!!



https://www.eclipsewise.com/solar/SEatlas/SEatlas21/SEWorldMap2021v.jpg

just to be clear, is sando saying the mercator is a reaonsable representation of how the earth looks?
or is he saying eclipse is false because mercator is false?

Not trying to be a dick.


Then you have to figure in this map where the shadow paths cross the end of the world.

Now, take a look at the FE arcs:

If you can put it all together, let us know. 

it's hard to follow sando's spam fest




the northern arcs map is a direct view from the north and doesn't show that skewedassshit projection where the southern is all distorted.

so he's saying the map that clearly shows earth as a ball, is more accurate because tehre are no inflection points?
that the moon traverses an orbital curved path?


but in the mercator, a view that would be a SIDE projection of a globe, is wrong because there are S curves of moon path?
does he take into account that when viewing from the SIDE, the earth rotation vs sun is tilted?   and the moon's orbit is also tilted?
all three pieces are rotating and orbiting at angle.




here's the "real beauty"
for the northern view, where's the sun in relation to the moon?
what is an eclipse?  one ojbect passing infront of the other?
what is mechanism of the moon crossing the path of the sun?

That is a FE map, therefore the paths are explained completely.

Repeating the same pathetic lies wont help.
It is an azimuthal equidistant projection. That is NOT a FE map.
On that map, the only accurate points are the start, middle and end. The rest is just arbitrarily drawn in.
But more importantly, there is no explanation at all.
Why should a FE produce those arcs?

As usual, you are just spouting pure BS with no justification at all to pretend your fantasy is true.

Have you lost your freaking mind? Now you want the Earth to be stationary? Don't you understand that you can't have it both ways?

And more dishonest BS from you.
My point is that Earth is rotating.
These paths show not the path of the moon or its shadow, but the path of the moon's shadow on the surface of a rotating Earth.
That rotation of Earth complicates the path.
The rotation changes the reference.
Try removing that rotation to show what the path of the shadow itself is.

That's a FE map you numskull!

Again, lying wont save you. It is a projection of the RE. That does not make it a FE map.
But far more importantly, IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN IT!
WHY SHOULD THE PATHS BE LIKE THAT?

In other words, THERE IS A POINT OF INFLECTION!!!

So what?
Why should that be a problem?

That is how we know the solar eclipses paths are totally false for RET.

No, that is a pathetic excuse you use to reject reality.

Now, take a look at the FE arcs:

Again, they are just drawn as 3 points, which are not accurate, and a FE.

Exactly what you'd expect for the paths of the solar eclipses.

Based on what?

You numskull, the circle is drawn to show the region the reader is supposed to look at.

No, the circle is drawn to pretend to be that path.
Note that it says "The same solar eclipse path".
It is a blatant lie to pretend the FE explains it, when it doesn't.

The paths of the eclipses in FET work out perfectly, the shape of the arcs are correct.

No, they don't.
You are yet to explain anything, and you continually lie and ignore the refutation of those lies.

For RET, the shape of the arcs have two arcs: one is convex, one is concave.

Which you are yet to show a problem with.

THAT PATH FEATURES TWO ARCS, WITH AN INFLECTION POINT! A concave portion, an inflection point, then a convex portion.

Which you are yet to demonstrate is a problem. Again, remove the effect of rotation, use an orthographic projection, and then see what it looks like.
Show the actual path of the shadow, through space, not on the surface of a rotating sphere.

jack, you can't remove the rotation.

This is your own bibliographical reference:

https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibcode=1926PA.....34...78R&db_key=AST&page_ind=4&plate_select=NO&data_type=GIF&type=SCREEN_GIF&classic=YES

"In this method the observed is supposed to be stationed in the sun and to look down on the ROTATING EARTH."

As for the unipolar map, yes that's a FE map.

What you have to explain, and have failed to do so thus far, is why for the FE map the arcs look perfect, while for RE map you have to deal with the concave/convex portions and with an inflection point.

Can any of the RE help jackblack, since this subject matter is way beyond his pay grade?

no possible to be the unipolar because you can't see southern hemisphere.

where is south america?
south africa?
south arctic?

What you have to explain, and have failed to do so thus far, is why for the FE map the arcs look perfect, while for RE map you have to deal with the concave/convex portions and with an inflection point.

Are they perfect arcs.

We can’t model them because you can’t tell us…

You’re missing the point.

If I wanted to write a computer program to model the 1937 eclipse.

What latitude and / or longitude would I use for the sun and moon.

What diameters would I use for their orbits.

What sizes would I use for the sun and moon.

What altitudes would I use for the sun and moon.

What map would I use for earth.

What you have to explain, and have failed to do so thus far, is why for the FE map the arcs look perfect, while for RE map you have to deal with the concave/convex portions and with an inflection point.

This eclipse? 

Total Solar Eclipse – April 8, 2024
Pacific Ocean, Mexico, United States, Canada, Atlantic Ocean



https://nso.edu/for-public/eclipse-map-2024/

Projected on this map..

1892 Flat Earth Map - Alexander Gleason's New Standard Map of the World 24 x 36 Large Wall Art Poster

https://www.amazon.com/Riley-Creative-Solutions-1892-Earth/dp/B07KCQYLHL

Looks more like a straight line?



🤔

Isnt it because the wobble of the moon orbit and the tilt of the earth rotation?







Heres a better one

Says to use google earth and you can trace the line.and see the inflecri9n