The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: lupadim on January 04, 2015, 05:15:13 PM
-
I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?
The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?
-
I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?
The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?
That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.
-
How many bodies do orbit the sun Tom.
-
I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?
The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?
That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.
Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?
-
How many bodies do orbit the sun Tom.
All the planets and asteroids.
I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?
The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?
That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.
Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?
Not really. I'm only passing through.
-
I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?
The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?
That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.
Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?
Not really. I'm only passing through.
Typical. ::)
-
I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?
The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?
That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.
Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?
Not really. I'm only passing through.
Typical. ::)
Why don't you contribute something to this community for once?
-
I did read the article this website has about it, but I see flaws on it. Is there any way to illustrate the issue?
The problem is: As the Shadow Body casts shadow on the moon, wouldn't it also cast shadow on Earth and block the Earth's vision of the sun, at least partially?
That depends where the Shadow Object is. Not all bodies which orbit the sun transit across its surface between the earth and the sun.
Would you care to show us a diagram of an object capable of casting a shadow on the moon in such an orbit?
Not really. I'm only passing through.
Typical. ::)
Why don't you contribute something to this community for once?
Why won't you support your claims with evidence?
-
Why won't you support your claims with evidence?
But I do. The evidence that there is a body passing between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse is that a shadow appears on the moon's surface.
-
Tom, I have another question for you. According to the TFES wiki, full moon happens when the moon orbit is above the altitude of the sun. My question is why does this Shadow Object only cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is in full phase (full moon) and not in other phases (crescent, 1st/3rd quarter etc)?
-
Tom, I have another question for you. According to the TFES wiki, full moon happens when the moon orbit is above the altitude of the sun. My question is why does this Shadow Object only cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is in full phase (full moon) and not in other phases (crescent, 1st/3rd quarter etc)?
Some thoughts:
1. As mentioned in the Wik article on the Shadow Object (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse)i, the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane.
2. There is some kind of pattern for the vertical movement of bodies in the cosmos. They rise and fall at the same time independent of the sun. But this is a matter we have not really studied. When the moon is at its highest point, the shadow object is also at its highest point, and are the furthest from the sun. They are most likely to align at this time.
-
That is because, of two reasons:
1. As mentioned in the Wik article (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse)i, the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane.
I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.
2. There is some kind of pattern for the vertical movement of bodies in the cosmos. They rise and fall at the same time independent of the sun. But this is a matter we have not really studied.
I completely don't get this one Tom
-
I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.
If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only limited points where it could align with a third body.
For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, only there momentarily at two points on its circular path around the sun, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object aligned with the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow Object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards for a long period of time. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.
-
I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.
If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only a few points where it could align with a third body.
For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object on the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.
Ideally you should use a diagram to help clarify what you are trying to say. In RE we can easily understand how lunar eclipse occurs and why we don't see lunar eclipse for each full moon. A picture is worth a thousand words.
(http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/nodesb.jpg)
-
I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.
If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only a few points where it could align with a third body.
For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object on the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.
Ideally you should use a diagram to help clarify what you are trying to say. In RE we can easily understand how lunar eclipse occurs and why we don't see lunar eclipse for each full moon. A picture is worth a thousand words.
(http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/nodesb.jpg)
I am just passing through as a matter of charity. I don't really have the time or inclination. I have stated the matter in simple, plain English words, and that is enough coinage from me.
-
So we count with a huge coincidence, as in a chance of one in one million, for FE eclipses? But shouldn't the scenario I described in the OP eventually happen thus proving a flat earth? (The Shadow Object being positioned in such a way that would block Earth's vision of the sun at least partially while at the same time causing a lunar eclipse)
-
Why won't you support your claims with evidence?
But I do. The evidence that there is a body passing between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse is that a shadow appears on the moon's surface.
No, that is an assertion. Evidence would be a photograph of said body or a model showing how that body could cast a shadow on the moon without being visible from earth.
Seriously Tom, if you don't even know the difference between an assertion and evidence, then it's no wonder that FES is synonymous with ignorance.
-
So we count with a huge coincidence, as in a chance of one in one million, for FE eclipses? But shouldn't the scenario I described in the OP eventually happen thus proving a flat earth? (The Shadow Object being positioned in such a way that would block Earth's vision of the sun at least partially while at the same time causing a lunar eclipse)
That would depend where the Shadow Object is. Not all things that orbit the sun transit its surface.
Why won't you support your claims with evidence?
But I do. The evidence that there is a body passing between the sun and the moon during a lunar eclipse is that a shadow appears on the moon's surface.
No, that is an assertion. Evidence would be a photograph of said body or a model showing how that body could cast a shadow on the moon without being visible from earth.
Seriously Tom, if you don't even know the difference between an assertion and evidence, then it's no wonder that FES is synonymous with ignorance.
It's evidence. The question of why it is not visible in the night sky, what it is, its properties, are separate questions. But the shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body of some form exists to cast that shadow. Even RET uses this fact to justify the explanation that a body passes between the sun and the moon.
-
It's evidence. The question of why it is not visible in the night sky, what it is, its properties, are separate questions. But the shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body of some form exists to cast that shadow. Even RET uses this fact to justify the explanation that a body passes between the sun and the moon.
Yes, RET does claim that a body (the earth) passes between the sun and moon. However, RET provides evidence in the form of being able to provide a model showing that when the sun and moon are 180 degrees apart (give or take a bit of atomospheric refraction) and on the same orbital plane, the earth is in a position to cast its umbral shadow on the moon causing a total lunar eclipse. FET has yet to provide an equivalent model.
-
In fact they have invented a invisible body they cannot prove exists to explain the fe model. Isn't that what they accuse re of doing with gravity? Although we can prove gravity.
-
It's evidence. The question of why it is not visible in the night sky, what it is, its properties, are separate questions. But the shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body of some form exists to cast that shadow. Even RET uses this fact to justify the explanation that a body passes between the sun and the moon.
Yes, RET does claim that a body (the earth) passes between the sun and moon. However, RET provides evidence in the form of being able to provide a model showing that when the sun and moon are 180 degrees apart (give or take a bit of atomospheric refraction) and on the same orbital plane, the earth is in a position to cast its umbral shadow on the moon causing a total lunar eclipse. FET has yet to provide an equivalent model.
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.
How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?
-
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.
How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?
Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?
The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.
Your turn.
-
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.
How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?
Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?
The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.
Your turn.
There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?
I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.
-
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.
How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?
Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?
The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.
Your turn.
There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?
I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.
You also missed the reference I provided you for NOVAS used by the USNO. Not a single mention of the Saros Cycle and can calculate the position of any celestial body displaying parallax to milliarcseconds from multiple frames of reference.
You are an incredible hypocrite by the way. You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.
-
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse. We keep asking for a RET geometric model that has been shown to predict the eclipse, but we keep getting linked to NASA Astrophysicists who use methods created by ancient Flat Earth scientists.
How many times and how many years do we need to ask before we can conclude that this "superior predictive model" of yours does not, in fact, exist?
Did you miss the part about VSOP87 theory describing planetary motions in the other prediction thread?
The VSOP87 theory and solutions, by Pierre Bretagnon and Gerard Francou of Bureau des Longitudes, are likely the most used and most accurate algorithms available today for determining the positions of the planets without using interpolation. It consists of a large number of periodic terms that are then added up together in a special way to produce the 3-dimensional heliocentric coordinates of any planet at any moment in time for thousands of years into the future and the past. These coordinates can then be converted through a few transformations into geocentric coordinates which can be used to show their position as seen from Earth.
Your turn.
There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?
I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.
It would be quite an event if an eclipse didn't happen exactly as predicted. Have you ever observed an eclipse? Did it happen as expected?
See the last part of this post (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62426.msg1649319#msg1649319) for other examples of routine predictions and verification based on mathematical solar-system models.
-
There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?
I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.
The predictions are made by the astronomy applications that use the VSOP87 algorithms and the observations are made by the people who use said astronomy applications to help them find the planets in the night sky.
If you like, you can use VSOP87 in your own software and verify the accuracy of the algorithms yourself.
http://www.neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/source_code_generator_tool/ (http://www.neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/source_code_generator_tool/)
http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.asp?ID=464 (http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.asp?ID=464)
http://www.mmto.org/~dclark/Reports/MountDoxygen/html/vsop87_8c_source.html (http://www.mmto.org/~dclark/Reports/MountDoxygen/html/vsop87_8c_source.html)
http://www.moshier.net/ (http://www.moshier.net/)
-
You are an incredible hypocrite by the way. You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.
I can explain space-time warping for our buddy Tom.
Space-time warping is assumed to be existent by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, but was not proven to be a thing. Now, though, we CAN view it by measuring the bending of light around a celestial body. Light gets bent by the gravity wells generated by 'mass'ive objects such as stars and this is a measurable effect. This in turn proves space-time warping as space is the general term for matter, and matter is non-random information particles, but the most important part is the information which subclasses energies of things such as gravity, electricity, magnetism, and excludes gamma radiation from the aforementioned group. Since light is able to reliably transfer information (Fiber optics) and is able to be interacted with (Lasers, generation of electromagnetic fields to bend a beam of light, fiber optics), then it is assumed to be matter - a photon. Since a photon is now shown to be matter, we can extend the laws of General Space and say that the General Space-time theories will apply to a photon, and this is proven to be correct as we can alter the flow of light through a powerful enough electromagnetic field in a laboratory. It's the same idea as using an EMF to bend the flow of water!
-
I am sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. I still don't understand why the fact that the Shadow Object rotates at an angle to the sun's orbital plane makes it impossible to cast its shadow on the moon when the moon is not orbiting above the sun.
If the Shadow Object is orbiting the sun at an angle to its plane then there are only a few points where it could align with a third body.
For example, the shadow object wouldn't be spending much time at a location on the exact plane of the sun, always quickly passing through, so there is less of a chance that it would cast a shadow on an object on the sun's plane. However, as the Shadow object moves on its upwards path away from the sun it is casting a long sweeping shadow pointing slightly upwards. A high body, such as the moon at its high point, might catch that shadow.
Ideally you should use a diagram to help clarify what you are trying to say. In RE we can easily understand how lunar eclipse occurs and why we don't see lunar eclipse for each full moon. A picture is worth a thousand words.
(http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/nodesb.jpg)
I am just passing through as a matter of charity. I don't really have the time or inclination. I have stated the matter in simple, plain English words, and that is enough coinage from me.
Oh Tom, thank you soooooo much for the charity. I guess you wont be here long since the scientifically literate here is far far higher than the sheep you have over at tfes?
-
You also missed the reference I provided you for NOVAS used by the USNO. Not a single mention of the Saros Cycle and can calculate the position of any celestial body displaying parallax to milliarcseconds from multiple frames of reference.
NOVAS is more like a star chart. The Saros Cycle is exclusive to the lunar eclipse. Some pages of NOVAS claim that it is able to predict the eclipses. But take a look at the eclipse page of the NOVAS software, in the "notes on the data" section:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes)
More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal (http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi).
Then, on that portal page:
http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi (http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi)
You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses.
If this is a geometric model of the solar system that can predict anything, what is the significance of only having lunar eclipses listed for 1501 CE to 2100 CE? It sure sounds like they're using ancient eclipse tables and saros cycle predictions to me.
You are an incredible hypocrite by the way. You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.
What is a shadow evidence of?
-
You also missed the reference I provided you for NOVAS used by the USNO. Not a single mention of the Saros Cycle and can calculate the position of any celestial body displaying parallax to milliarcseconds from multiple frames of reference.
NOVAS is more like a star chart. The Saros Cycle is exclusive to the lunar eclipse. But take a look at the eclipse page of the NOVAS software:
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes)
More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal (http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi).
Then, on that page:
http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi (http://www.eclipse.org.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi)
You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses.
If this is a geometric model of the solar system that can predict anything, what is the significance of only having lunar eclipses listed for 1501 CE to 2100 CE? It sure sounds like they're using ancient eclipse tables and saros cycle predictions to me.
Because they have an extensive chart of eclipses it must be ancient eclipse tables? You understand how tenuous and grasping this sounds? You understand that that is also completely contrary to the claims they explicitly make? please provide some sort of concrete evidence that they are lying if this is what you believe.
You are an incredible hypocrite by the way. You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.
What is a shadow evidence of?
You have not even demonstrated it is a shadow. You are assuming it is.
-
Because they have an extensive chart of eclipses it must be ancient eclipse tables? You understand how tenuous and grasping this sounds? You understand that that is also completely contrary to the claims they explicitly make? please provide some sort of concrete evidence that they are lying if this is what you believe.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes)
The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone. The altitude and azimuth of the Moon at each of the events is given as well.
It says right here under the Notes section that the eclipse times come from The Astronomical Almanac, a publication which has come out yearly for over 200 years. I didn't read anything about the eclipses being predicted based on some computer model.
You are an incredible hypocrite by the way. You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.
What is a shadow evidence of?
You have not even demonstrated it is a shadow. You are assuming it is.
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
-
There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?
I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.
The predictions are made by the astronomy applications that use the VSOP87 algorithms and the observations are made by the people who use said astronomy applications to help them find the planets in the night sky.
If you like, you can use VSOP87 in your own software and verify the accuracy of the algorithms yourself.
http://www.neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/source_code_generator_tool/ (http://www.neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/source_code_generator_tool/)
http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.asp?ID=464 (http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.asp?ID=464)
http://www.mmto.org/~dclark/Reports/MountDoxygen/html/vsop87_8c_source.html (http://www.mmto.org/~dclark/Reports/MountDoxygen/html/vsop87_8c_source.html)
http://www.moshier.net/ (http://www.moshier.net/)
So, as I am reading from you, no one has actually been able to predict anything with this model, yet we are supposed to take it as a source for unimpeachable predictions?
-
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
If this is caused by some third object, why does the shadow object only block out the light from the moon and not the stars? If there were a third object, could it not be reasoned that we would see a section of sky that had an absence of stars in it? And would not this section of sky move through the night?
-
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
If this is caused by some third object, why does the shadow object only block out the light from the moon and not the stars? If there were a third object, could it not be reasoned that we would see a section of sky that had an absence of stars in it? And would not this section of sky move through the night?
During the Lunar Eclipse the body moves between the sun and the moon, not between the moon and the observer. What is seen during the eclipse is a shadow projected upon the moon's surface. The body is not seen in the night sky "obscuring stars" because it is not in the night sky. It is in the day sky.
See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse)
-
Then why do we not see some large object in the daytime sky? I mean, if it were large enough to block the light from the sun, it should be large enough to see in the daytime sky.
-
Then why do we not see some large object in the daytime sky? I mean, if it were large enough to block the light from the sun, it should be large enough to see in the daytime sky.
During the day the sun's light hits the atmosphere and washes out most celestial bodies in the sky. The stars and planets, for example, are generally not seen anywhere near the sun.
-
Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day. SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?
-
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
If this is caused by some third object, why does the shadow object only block out the light from the moon and not the stars? If there were a third object, could it not be reasoned that we would see a section of sky that had an absence of stars in it? And would not this section of sky move through the night?
During the Lunar Eclipse the body moves between the sun and the moon, not between the moon and the observer. What is seen during the eclipse is a shadow projected upon the moon's surface. The body is not seen in the night sky "obscuring stars" because it is not in the night sky. It is in the day sky.
See: http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse (http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse)
How would some locations have a total eclipse and some only have a partial?
-
Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day. SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?
The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!) and comes out of nowhere.
https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html
-
Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day. SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?
The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.
https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html
Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?
And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse? I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?
-
Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day. SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?
The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.
https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html
Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?
It does.
And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse? I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?
It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.
-
Because they have an extensive chart of eclipses it must be ancient eclipse tables? You understand how tenuous and grasping this sounds? You understand that that is also completely contrary to the claims they explicitly make? please provide some sort of concrete evidence that they are lying if this is what you believe.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes)
The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone. The altitude and azimuth of the Moon at each of the events is given as well.
It says right here under the Notes section that the eclipse times come from The Astronomical Almanac, a publication which has come out yearly for over 200 years. I didn't read anything about the eclipses being predicted based on some computer model.
The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model. Are you disputing this?
You are an incredible hypocrite by the way. You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.
What is a shadow evidence of?
You have not even demonstrated it is a shadow. You are assuming it is.
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.
Citation required. I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.
The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.
-
Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day. SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?
The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.
https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html
Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?
It does.
Really? didn't see the moon then not see the moon, then see the moon again in that video. Do you have a video that shows such during a solar eclipse?
And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse? I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?
It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.
So now 5-10 miles in diameter is much smaller than the 30 that the sun and moon are supposedly? Yes smaller, but the object itself should be readily visible and much larger than anything else visible in the sky during solar eclipse.
-
Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day. SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?
The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.
https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html
Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?
It does.
Really? didn't see the moon then not see the moon, then see the moon again in that video. Do you have a video that shows such during a solar eclipse?
And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse? I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?
It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.
So now 5-10 miles in diameter is much smaller than the 30 that the sun and moon are supposedly? Yes smaller, but the object itself should be readily visible and much larger than anything else visible in the sky during solar eclipse.
If you want to look at the stars during the Solar Eclipse and identify a patch of missing stars or lack thereof, go right ahead. It is a challenge I am simply not up to the task for. And like I said, it doesn't get dark enough to see the stars, making it a fruitless endeavor.
-
I'll ask again, if the shadow object moves between the moon and sun, how do different locations on earth see different amounts of eclipsed moon?
-
Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day. SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?
The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.
https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html
Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?
It does.
Really? didn't see the moon then not see the moon, then see the moon again in that video. Do you have a video that shows such during a solar eclipse?
And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse? I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?
It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.
So now 5-10 miles in diameter is much smaller than the 30 that the sun and moon are supposedly? Yes smaller, but the object itself should be readily visible and much larger than anything else visible in the sky during solar eclipse.
If you want to look at the stars during the Solar Eclipse and identify a patch of missing stars or lack thereof, go right ahead. It is a challenge I am simply not up to the task for. And like I said, it doesn't get dark enough to see the stars, making it a fruitless endeavor.
You would not be looking for stars, you would be looking for the object. The brightness of the sun diminishes, the other object should be illuminated since the moon is between us and the sun, not the sun and the other object. And the other object is 1/6th to 1/3rd the size of the sun and moon. This object should become readily visible during a solar eclipse. WHy hasn't it?
-
This shadow object must emit infra red. It would have been spotted by IR astronomers by now.
This idea is a bit shady Tom, think a better one.
-
Yes, but all asstronomers are in on The ConspiracyTM and would never mention any discoveries before running it past The GovernmentTM. Otherwise, they risk their million dollar paychecks and their families' lives.
-
This shadow object must emit infra red. It would have been spotted by IR astronomers by now.
This idea is a bit shady Tom, think a better one.
The flat earthers always forget about infrared dont they?
-
Yes, but all asstronomers are in on The ConspiracyTM and would never mention any discoveries before running it past The GovernmentTM. Otherwise, they risk their million dollar paychecks and their families' lives.
Do you honestly think that nobody but infrared astronomers have access to infrared cameras? Infrared cameras are even used by the military and they are commercialy available.
-
Yes, but all asstronomers are in on The ConspiracyTM and would never mention any discoveries before running it past The GovernmentTM. Otherwise, they risk their million dollar paychecks and their families' lives.
Do you honestly think that nobody but infrared astronomers have access to infrared cameras? Infrared cameras are even used by the military and they are commercialy available.
Guess you didn't notice the sarcasm in my post when I bolded ass, and put the TM after conspiracy and government.
-
The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model. Are you disputing this?
The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...
But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.
Citation required. I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.
I already told you how it was demonstrated. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event.
The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.
The conclusion had already been established. You should have been there.
-
The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model. Are you disputing this?
The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...
But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.
Citation required. I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.
I already told you how it was demonstrated. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event.
The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.
The conclusion had already been established. You should have been there.
What about infrared signatures of the object? If it doesn't emit them, then what about radiation levels? If it doesn't emit them then it would block out the background cosmic radiation, it would certainly either emit x-rays or block out x-rays from space. I could go on poking holes if you'd like?
Oooor, how about when you come up with a batshit theory, remember what every flatearther seems to forget. "Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared "
-
By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?
What about infrared signatures of the object? If it doesn't emit them, then what about radiation levels? If it doesn't emit them then it would block out the background cosmic radiation, it would certainly either emit x-rays or block out x-rays from space. I could go on poking holes if you'd like?
Oooor, how about when you come up with a batshit theory, remember what every flatearther seems to forget. "Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared "
Infrared telescopes would only be relevant to this conversation if they could zoom out and see the entire sky. But they cannot. They are satellite dishes that focus on a tiny section of the sky. They're just like satellite dishes for TV. If they're not pointed exactly at the object in question, they don't work.
Considering the magnification of these sorts of telescopes, in this discussion it would be like searching for the shadow object with something a magnitude smaller than a coffee stirrer.
(http://www.mdahlem.net/img/sale/mopra_2612_t.jpg)
-
Foot in mouth Tom, that image is a radio telescope.
Infrared detectors attached to ground based telescopes can detect the near-infrared wavelengths which make it through our atmosphere. The best location for ground based infrared observatories is on a high, dry mountain, above much of the water vapor which absorbs infrared. At these high altitudes, astronomers can study infrared wavelengths centered at 1.25, 1.65, 2.2, 3.5, 4.75, 10.5, 19.5 and 35 microns. Telescopes as well as our atmosphere emit infrared radiation which can complicate the observation of cosmic sources. Infrared telescopes are designed to limit the amount of this thermal emission from reaching the detectors. All ground based infrared detectors are cooled to extremely low temperatures to reduce their emission. In addition, astronomers making ground based observations measure both the emission from our atmosphere and from the object that they are observing. They then subtract the atmospheric emission from the infrared emission of a celestial object to get an accurate measurement.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/irastro_history.html (http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/irastro_history.html)
-
A sailor's life can depend on this.
n Great Britain, The Nautical Almanac has been published annually by HM Nautical Almanac Office, ever since the first edition was published in 1767. [1] [2] In the United States of America, a nautical almanac has been published annually by the US Naval Observatory since 1852.[2] Since 1958, the USNO and HMNAO have jointly published a unified nautical almanac, for use by the navies of both countries.[2] Almanac data is now available online from the US Naval Observatory
-
By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?
That table was not generated by NOVAS as far as I can tell.
The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model. Are you disputing this?
The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...
But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.
It does not claim to be limited to stars. Why are you assuming it is?
The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.
Citation required. I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.
I already told you how it was demonstrated. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event.
Fascinating but this does not exclude every other possible explanation of a darkened area on the moon on your view. Try again.
The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.
I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.
The conclusion had already been established. You should have been there.
Your conclusion is woefully inconclusive and you are not even committed enough to your cause to try and observe the shadow object. Your position is extremely unconvincing because of an astounding lack of observation and modelling so you will forgive me for trusting the USNO Over you.
-
Foot in mouth Tom, that image is a radio telescope.
Infrared detectors attached to ground based telescopes can detect the near-infrared wavelengths which make it through our atmosphere. The best location for ground based infrared observatories is on a high, dry mountain, above much of the water vapor which absorbs infrared. At these high altitudes, astronomers can study infrared wavelengths centered at 1.25, 1.65, 2.2, 3.5, 4.75, 10.5, 19.5 and 35 microns. Telescopes as well as our atmosphere emit infrared radiation which can complicate the observation of cosmic sources. Infrared telescopes are designed to limit the amount of this thermal emission from reaching the detectors. All ground based infrared detectors are cooled to extremely low temperatures to reduce their emission. In addition, astronomers making ground based observations measure both the emission from our atmosphere and from the object that they are observing. They then subtract the atmospheric emission from the infrared emission of a celestial object to get an accurate measurement.
http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/irastro_history.html (http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/irastro_history.html)
You would be incorrect. Infrared telescopes and radio telescopes can look very alike. The description on the Atacama Large Millimeter Array in Chile, which is an array of dishes, reads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_radio_telescopes):
"54 dishes with 12-m diameter and 12 dishes with 7-m diameter, sensitive to wavelengths between radio and infrared."
Optical infrared telescopes do exit, but are not as common as dishes for observing infrared phenomena. But they too have the same problem of only being able to see a small section of the sky at a time. Look at the Gemini North Infrared Optical Telescope:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Ygg2P0fEPho/VBnN5bVn_JI/AAAAAAABN-c/PTwDWLRFnKs/s1600/gemini-north-observatory.jpg)
Only a pinprick of sky can be seen at once. The little red beam of sight is not my own.
-
By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?
That table was not generated by NOVAS as far as I can tell.
On the USNO NOVAS eclipse page (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php), which is three levels down on the main page, under About the Data we read that
"The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone."
Next we read "More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal (http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi)."
If we go to that page by the UNSO, the same organization that makes NOVAS, we read:
"You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses."
Knowing from Google that that date range is a reference to a well known table of eclipses, why would the USNO put this on their eclipse portal page if their data is generated by their superior geometric computer models? I clicked on that link for "more information" and it's basically telling me that it's using a table of eclipses which is plastered all over the internet in its program
It does not claim to be limited to stars. Why are you assuming it is?
I know it doesn't. But the lunar eclipse computer is three levels down, not really front and center. When I click on that link it tells me stuff about the data being the same as The Astronomical Almanac, a 200+ year old publication put out yearly, and links me to another UNSO page dedicated to the eclipse predictions, where I'm supposed to go for more information about the data predictions, which states that the USNO can predict a date range for eclipses which is identical to common eclipse tables which are known to use the Saros Cycle.
What else am I supposed to think?
The NOVAS program may be good for something, but as far as its ability to model orbital dynamics, the evidence is lacking.
-
By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?
That table was not generated by NOVAS as far as I can tell.
On the USNO NOVAS eclipse page (http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php), which is three levels down on the main page, under About the Data we read that
"The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone."
Next we read "More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal (http://astro.ukho.gov.uk/eclbin/query_usno.cgi)."
If we go to that page by the UNSO, the same organization that makes NOVAS, we read:
"You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses."
I should hope their information is consistent.
Knowing from Google that that date range is a reference to a well known table of eclipses, why would the USNO put this on their eclipse portal page if their data is generated by their superior geometric computer models?
They use matrix formulation not geometric models. Maybe the data from their eclipse portal page is generated by NOVAS or corroborated by NOVAS. There are often multiple methods to solve a problem contrary to what you appear to think.
I clicked on that link for "more information" and it's basically telling me that it's using a table of eclipses which is plastered all over the internet in its program
So everyone agrees the information is correct. Phew!
It does not claim to be limited to stars. Why are you assuming it is?
I know it doesn't. But the lunar eclipse computer is three levels down, not really front and center. When I click on that link it tells me stuff about the data being the same as The Astronomical Almanac, a 200+ year old publication put out yearly,
Their 200 year old publication. Relevance?
and links me to another UNSO page dedicated to the eclipse predictions, where I'm supposed to go for more information about the data predictions, which states that the USNO can predict a date range for eclipses which is identical to common eclipse tables which are known to use the Saros Cycle.
Maybe you need to research epoches (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epoch_(astronomy))? The variables for prediction change periodically.
What else am I supposed to think?
The NOVAS program may be good for something, but as far as its ability to model orbital dynamics, the evidence is lacking.
That this system does not merely have a large database of charts. The Saros Cycle would simply not be capable of milli-arc second accuracy as it would be constrained by the resolution of the human eye. What NOVAS appears to do is take basic variables supplied by observation (where else could you get them?) and derive, mathematically, a large number of extraordinarily precise predictions. From lunar eclipses to the position of distant dwarf planets.
Is your hang up that their model relies to a certain degree on real world observations? If so, then we are having a definitional issue of "model".
-
I just noticed that how an eclipse looks from different places can be used to determine the distances of the Moon and the Sun.
-
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse.
Tom, if the Saros cycle can predict solar and lunar eclipses quite nicely just using the geometry of the RET Earth, moon, sun system, then why add the unnecessary complexity of an otherwise unobservable "shadow" object? That doesn't seem like a very Zetetic thing to do. I doubt that Occam would approve either.
-
I just noticed that how an eclipse looks from different places can be used to determine the distances of the Moon and the Sun.
A lot of assumptions are made in the trig, namely that the equations rely on the assumption that the observers are standing at different angles on a Round Earth. If a Flat Earth is assumed, the results are much different.
See http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun (http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) for a similar explanation.
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse.
Tom, if the Saros cycle can predict solar and lunar eclipses quite nicely just using the geometry of the RET Earth, moon, sun system, then why add the unnecessary complexity of an otherwise unobservable "shadow" object? That doesn't seem like a very Zetetic thing to do. I doubt that Occam would approve either.
The Saros cycle doesn't use the RET Earth, Moon and Sun system. Maybe you should look into the matter a little more.
-
I just noticed that how an eclipse looks from different places can be used to determine the distances of the Moon and the Sun.
A lot of assumptions are made in the trig, namely that the equations rely on the assumption that the observers are standing at different angles on a Round Earth. If a Flat Earth is assumed, the results are much different.
See http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun (http://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun) for a similar explanation.
RET uses the Sarros Cycle, an ancient Babylonian method, to predict the Lunar Eclipse.
Tom, if the Saros cycle can predict solar and lunar eclipses quite nicely just using the geometry of the RET Earth, moon, sun system, then why add the unnecessary complexity of an otherwise unobservable "shadow" object? That doesn't seem like a very Zetetic thing to do. I doubt that Occam would approve either.
The Saros cycle doesn't use the RET Earth, Moon and Sun system. Maybe you should look into the matter a little more.
Actually, on a flat Earth the data for the positions of objects in the sky changing depending on where you are would make no sense and conflict with it's self.
-
Hard also to explain why when I'm here in California I see a completely different set of stars vs when I visit my ladies home in Perth. If the planet were flat then when I looked Perth way I'd see those stars.
-
The Saros cycle doesn't use the RET Earth, Moon and Sun system. Maybe you should look into the matter a little more.
Oh? So you're saying that eclipses aren't caused by the relative motions of the sun, moon and earth? Maybe you should look into Saros a little better yourself.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1806-11172009000100003&script=sci_arttext (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1806-11172009000100003&script=sci_arttext)
-
The Saros cycle doesn't use the RET Earth, Moon and Sun system. Maybe you should look into the matter a little more.
Oh? So you're saying that eclipses aren't caused by the relative motions of the sun, moon and earth? Maybe you should look into Saros a little better yourself.
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1806-11172009000100003&script=sci_arttext (http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1806-11172009000100003&script=sci_arttext)
The Ancient Babylonians did not believe that the earth revolved around the sun. That belief is unnecessary in the Saros Cycle. I refer you to the Lunar Eclipse Chapter of Earth Not a Globe.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm)
Those who are unacquainted with the methods of calculating eclipses and other phenomena, are prone to look upon the correctness of such calculations as powerful arguments in favour of the doctrine of the earth's rotundity and the Newtonian philosophy, generally. One of the most pitiful manifestations of ignorance of the true nature of theoretical astronomy is the ardent inquiry so often made, "How is it possible for that system to be false, which enables its professors to calculate to a second of time both solar and lunar eclipses for hundreds of years to come?" The supposition that such calculations are an essential part of the Newtonian or any other theory is entirely gratuitous, and exceedingly fallacious and misleading. Whatever theory is adopted, or if all theories are discarded, the same calculations can be made. The tables of the moon's relative positions for any fraction of time are purely practical--the result of long-continued observations, and may or may not be connected with hypothesis. The necessary data being tabulated, may be mixed up with any, even the most opposite doctrines, or kept distinct from every theory or system, just as the operator may determine.
"The considered defects of the system of Ptolemy (who lived in the second century of the Christian era), did not prevent him from calculating all the eclipses that were to happen for 600 years to come." 1
"The most ancient observations of which we are in possession, that are sufficiently accurate to be employed in astronomical calculations, are those made at Babylon about 719 years before the Christian era, of three eclipses of the moon. Ptolemy, who has transmitted them to us, employed them for determining the period of the moon's mean motion; and therefore had probably none more ancient on which he could depend. The Chaldeans, however, must have made a long series of observations before they could discover their 'Saros,' or lunar period of 6585⅓ days, or about 18 years; at which time, as they had learnt, the place of the moon, her node and apogee return nearly to the same situation with respect to the earth and the sun, and, of course, a series of nearly similar eclipses occur." 1
"Thales (B.C. 600) predicted the eclipse which terminated the war between the Medes and the Lydians. Anaxagoras (B.C. 530) predicted an eclipse which happened in the fifth year of the Peloponnesian War." 2
"Hipparchus (140 B.C.) constructed tables of the motions of the sun and moon; collected accounts of such eclipses as had been made by the Egyptians and Chaldeans, and calculated all that were to happen for 600 years to come." 3
"The precision of astronomy arises, not from theories, but from prolonged observations, and the regularity of the motions, or the ascertained uniformity of their irregularities." 4
"No particular theory is required to calculate eclipses; and the calculations may be made with equal accuracy independent of every theory." 5
"It is not difficult to form some general notion of the process of calculating eclipses. It may be readily conceived that by long-continued observations on the sun and moon, the laws of their revolution may be so well understood that the exact places which they will occupy in the heavens at any future times may be foreseen, and laid down in tables of the sun and moon's motions; that we may thus ascertain by inspecting the tables the instant when these bodies will be together in the heavens, or be in conjunction." 1
The simplest method of ascertaining any future eclipse is to take the tables which have been formed during hundreds of years of careful observation; or each observer may form his own tables by collecting a number of old almanacks one for each of the last forty years: separate the times of the eclipses in each year, and arrange them in a tabular form. On looking over the various items he will soon discover parallel cases, or "cycles" of eclipses; that is, taking the eclipses in the first year of his table, and examining those of each succeeding year, he will notice peculiarities in each year's phenomena; but on arriving to the items of the nineteenth and twentieth years, he will perceive that some of the eclipses in the earlier part of the table will have been now repeated--that is to say, the times and characters will be alike. If the time which has elapsed between these two parallel or similar eclipses be carefully noted, and called a "cycle," it will then be a very simple and easy matter to predict any future similar eclipse, because, at the end of the "cycle," such similar eclipse will be certain to occur; or, at least, because such repetitions of similar phenomena have occurred in every cycle of between eighteen and nineteen years during the last several thousand years, it may be reasonably expected that if the natural world continues to have the same general structure and character, such repetitions may be predicted for all future time. The whole process is neither more nor less--except a little more complicated--than that because an express train had been observed for many years to pass a given point at a given second--say of every eighteenth day, so at a similar moment of every cycle or eighteenth day, for a hundred or more years to. come, the same might be predicted and expected. To tell the actual day and second, it is only necessary to ascertain on what day of the week the eighteenth or "cycle day" falls.
Tables of the places of the sun and moon, of eclipses, and of kindred phenomena, have existed for thousands of years, and w ere formed independently of each other, by the Chaldean, Babylonian, Egyptian, Hindoo, Chinese, and other ancient astronomers. Modern science has had nothing to do with these; farther than rendering them a little more exact, by averaging and reducing the fractional errors which a longer period of observation has detected.
-
The Ancient Babylonians did not believe that the earth revolved around the sun. That belief is unnecessary in the Saros Cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Ancient Babylonians believe that the sun revolved around the earth?
-
The Ancient Babylonians did not believe that the earth revolved around the sun. That belief is unnecessary in the Saros Cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Ancient Babylonians believe that the sun revolved around the earth?
They believed that the earth was flat.
From Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea
"The flat-earth belief can be traced back to some of the most ancient civilizations in history..." (https://books.google.com/books?id=7uRuzP1RydAC&lpg=PT25&ots=ZVH4yes1qo&dq=ancient%20babylonians%20flat%20earth&pg=PT25#v=onepage&q=ancient%20babylonians%20flat%20earth&f=false)
-
The Ancient Babylonians did not believe that the earth revolved around the sun. That belief is unnecessary in the Saros Cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Ancient Babylonians believe that the sun revolved around the earth?
They believed that the earth was flat.
From Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea
"The flat-earth belief can be traced back to some of the most ancient civilizations in history..." (https://books.google.com/books?id=7uRuzP1RydAC&lpg=PT25&ots=ZVH4yes1qo&dq=ancient%20babylonians%20flat%20earth&pg=PT25#v=onepage&q=ancient%20babylonians%20flat%20earth&f=false)
Not exactly what he asked is it Tom?
-
The Ancient Babylonians did not believe that the earth revolved around the sun. That belief is unnecessary in the Saros Cycle.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Ancient Babylonians believe that the sun revolved around the earth?
They believed that the earth was flat.
From Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea
"The flat-earth belief can be traced back to some of the most ancient civilizations in history..." (https://books.google.com/books?id=7uRuzP1RydAC&lpg=PT25&ots=ZVH4yes1qo&dq=ancient%20babylonians%20flat%20earth&pg=PT25#v=onepage&q=ancient%20babylonians%20flat%20earth&f=false)
Not exactly what he asked is it Tom?
They believed that the movements of the heavens were on a horizontal plane.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe10.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe10.htm)
consequently the diurnal movements of the sun and moon were regarded as occurring in a horizontal plane.
-
"54 dishes with 12-m diameter and 12 dishes with 7-m diameter, sensitive to wavelengths between radio and infrared."
The wavelengths between radio and infrared are called microwaves Tom.
-
"54 dishes with 12-m diameter and 12 dishes with 7-m diameter, sensitive to wavelengths between radio and infrared."
The wavelengths between radio and infrared are called microwaves Tom.
And? I would suggest looking into the matter. The ALMA claims to be able to capture millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelengths, including x-rays, radio waves, and infrared.
http://www.nrao.edu/news/ALMAbackground.pdf (http://www.nrao.edu/news/ALMAbackground.pdf)
-
Have a look at this Tom. Your shadow object must be in these pics somewhere.
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/importance.html (http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/importance.html)
-
They believed that the movements of the heavens were on a horizontal plane.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe10.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe10.htm)
consequently the diurnal movements of the sun and moon were regarded as occurring in a horizontal plane.
As it turns out, their understanding of the cosmos changed over the years. At one time they believed that the earth revolved with the rest of the heavens:
In contrast, Babylonian cosmology suggested that the cosmos revolved around circularly with the heavens and the earth being equal and joined as a whole.
They were also among the first to develop a heliocentric model.
According to Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, Seleucus may have proved the heliocentric theory by determining the constants of a geometric model for the heliocentric theory and by developing methods to compute planetary positions using this model. He may have used trigonometric methods that were available in his time, as he was a contemporary of Hipparchus.
-
The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model. Are you disputing this?
The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...
Not true. NOVAS is an Astrometric package (that's what the 'A' in 'NOVAS' stands for). Astrometry concerns itself with the precise location of celestial bodies. A Planisphere ("plastic sliding star chart") can give you a general idea of where in the sky to look for a particular bright star; if you think this is a substitute for real data, I can see why you believe some other of the things you claim to believe.
The stars aren't even static at the precision NOVAS is capable of operating - down in the milliarcsecond range. NOVAS uses a star catalog as input data for star positions (several good ones are available); if you want to know the precise location of a solar-system object, it uses an ephemeris as input data, but this is optional. The JPL ephemerides are commonly used for the major solar-system bodies - the NOVAS documentation tells you what you need to know to use these - but others are available as well. Even if you're not interested in solar system objects, NOVAS still needs to know where earth is relative to the Sun and solar-system barycenter, so it has a built-in ephemeris to calculate that, at slightly lower precision than the better external ephemerides. If you're looking at the NOVAS documentation, see the section about the solarsystem v.1 and solarsystem v.3 routines; which of these and which ephemeris you use determines which the solar system bodies are available. Once NOVAS has the position of a celestial object in one of the coordinate systems it can work with, and your location (otherwise the geocenter), it will tell you where it is relative to that location (in your choice of the coordinate systems it supports); it doesn't care if it's a distant galaxy, star, or solar-system object.
But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.
Where "on NOVAS" (information pages or documentation?) is the link that leads to the Lunar Eclipse predictions pages you refer to? Since NOVAS is not concerned with eclipses per se, I was surprised to see there would be such a reference, and, since I haven't seen any that are obvious, without exhaustively following all paths down three levels, I can't find it. NOVAS could certainly be used for this purpose, but I doubt many are using it this way. I can think of one person who might, but I'm not sure he's using NOVAS.
The geometric model which "can predict anything at any year" that you refer to simply does not exist. If you are looking for precise predictions, solving the N-body problem for all reasonably-well characterized solar-system objects (including moons and many large and not-quite-so-large asteroids), all of which affect each other at least somewhat, with relativistic effects addressed as needed, is far from trivial. Even if you don't need overly precise predictions, far into the future or past, even very small errors accumulate to become significant. This is not even remotely a "charting" operation.
"Sounds more like". In other words, you're guessing. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? The NASA page says that Saros is used to catalog eclipses; they do not say they they use Saros to predict them, so please don't bring that up again.
-
"54 dishes with 12-m diameter and 12 dishes with 7-m diameter, sensitive to wavelengths between radio and infrared."
The wavelengths between radio and infrared are called microwaves Tom.
And? I would suggest looking into the matter. The ALMA claims to be able to capture millimeter and sub-millimeter wavelengths, including x-rays, radio waves, and infrared.
http://www.nrao.edu/news/ALMAbackground.pdf (http://www.nrao.edu/news/ALMAbackground.pdf)
Are you referring to this paragraph?
Astronomers learn about objects in space by studying the energy emitted by those objects. Our Sun and the other stars throughout the Universe emit visible light. But, these objects also emit other kinds of energy, such as X-rays, infrared radiation, and radio waves. Other objects emit very little or no visible light, yet are strong sources of other wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.
Keep reading, starting with the very next paragraph...
Most of the energy in the Universe is present in the millimeter portion of the spectrum. This energy comes from the cold dust and gas that fills interstellar and even intergalactic space. It also comes from distant galaxies and galaxy clusters that formed many billions of years ago at the edges of the known universe.
With ALMA, astronomers will have access to this remarkable portion of the spectrum.
Do you really believe this says they claim to "to be able to capture ... x-rays, radio waves, and infrared", or are you being disingenuous?
-
This is from your own link Tom.
ALMA will be an array of 64 radio
antennas that will work together as
one telescope to study millimeter- and
submillimeter-wavelength light from
space. These wavelengths, which
crosses the critical boundary between
infrared and microwave radiation,
hold the key to understanding such
processes as planet and star formation,
the formation of early galaxies and
galaxy clusters, and the formation of
organic and other molecules in space.
My point is IR astronomers would have found your shadow object.
Your old school does IR work, Check this out.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/facilities/Ground-Based-Telescopes (http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/facilities/Ground-Based-Telescopes)
You may have not noticed the astronomy course, I know how busy a students life can be.
Your shadow object has no zedetic proof.
-
Have a look at this Tom. Your shadow object must be in these pics somewhere.
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/importance.html (http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/outreach/Edu/importance.html)
Do you know why the sun and the moon are not seen in that image? That is because that infrared sky map was taken by stitching thousands of squares of sky together over a long period of time. Infrared telescopes don't see a large part of the sky. They are dishes which look at tiny sections of the sky, or are large deeply recessed observatory sized optical telescopes. And observatory telescopes don't "zoom out".
The expectation that we would see captured celestial bodies which are moving through the static stars in that image is, therefore, misplaced.
They believed that the movements of the heavens were on a horizontal plane.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe10.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/boe/boe10.htm)
consequently the diurnal movements of the sun and moon were regarded as occurring in a horizontal plane.
As it turns out, their understanding of the cosmos changed over the years. At one time they believed that the earth revolved with the rest of the heavens:
In contrast, Babylonian cosmology suggested that the cosmos revolved around circularly with the heavens and the earth being equal and joined as a whole.
They were also among the first to develop a heliocentric model.
According to Bartel Leendert van der Waerden, Seleucus may have proved the heliocentric theory by determining the constants of a geometric model for the heliocentric theory and by developing methods to compute planetary positions using this model. He may have used trigonometric methods that were available in his time, as he was a contemporary of Hipparchus.
Seleucus lived a couple thousand years after Stonehenge was built, a monument believed to use the Saros cycle to predict the eclipses. So, I would say that your comment that cosmology changed over time is irrelevant.
The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model. Are you disputing this?
The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...
Not true. NOVAS is an Astrometric package (that's what the 'A' in 'NOVAS' stands for). Astrometry concerns itself with the precise location of celestial bodies. A Planisphere ("plastic sliding star chart") can give you a general idea of where in the sky to look for a particular bright star; if you think this is a substitute for real data, I can see why you believe some other of the things you claim to believe.
The stars aren't even static at the precision NOVAS is capable of operating - down in the milliarcsecond range. NOVAS uses a star catalog as input data for star positions (several good ones are available); if you want to know the precise location of a solar-system object, it uses an ephemeris as input data, but this is optional. The JPL ephemerides are commonly used for the major solar-system bodies - the NOVAS documentation tells you what you need to know to use these - but others are available as well. Even if you're not interested in solar system objects, NOVAS still needs to know where earth is relative to the Sun and solar-system barycenter, so it has a built-in ephemeris to calculate that, at slightly lower precision than the better external ephemerides. If you're looking at the NOVAS documentation, see the section about the solarsystem v.1 and solarsystem v.3 routines; which of these and which ephemeris you use determines which the solar system bodies are available. Once NOVAS has the position of a celestial object in one of the coordinate systems it can work with, and your location (otherwise the geocenter), it will tell you where it is relative to that location (in your choice of the coordinate systems it supports); it doesn't care if it's a distant galaxy, star, or solar-system object.
But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.
Where "on NOVAS" (information pages or documentation?) is the link that leads to the Lunar Eclipse predictions pages you refer to? Since NOVAS is not concerned with eclipses per se, I was surprised to see there would be such a reference, and, since I haven't seen any that are obvious, without exhaustively following all paths down three levels, I can't find it. NOVAS could certainly be used for this purpose, but I doubt many are using it this way. I can think of one person who might, but I'm not sure he's using NOVAS.
The geometric model which "can predict anything at any year" that you refer to simply does not exist. If you are looking for precise predictions, solving the N-body problem for all reasonably-well characterized solar-system objects (including moons and many large and not-quite-so-large asteroids), all of which affect each other at least somewhat, with relativistic effects addressed as needed, is far from trivial. Even if you don't need overly precise predictions, far into the future or past, even very small errors accumulate to become significant. This is not even remotely a "charting" operation.
"Sounds more like". In other words, you're guessing. Do you have any evidence that this is the case? The NASA page says that Saros is used to catalog eclipses; they do not say they they use Saros to predict them, so please don't bring that up again.
I don't really care about what you read about astronomy today. Why don't you just put up or shut up?
Where are the papers showing that the predictions of any geometric model of the solar system which uses celestial mechanics has met reality?
-
Where are your peer reviewed papers that show the earth is flat?
-
Where are your peer reviewed papers that show the earth is flat?
Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth), which ran for over 75 issues with 100-400 pages each.
-
Where are your peer reviewed papers that show the earth is flat?
Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth), which ran for over 75 issues with 100-400 pages each.
So a paper on earth not being round is reviewed by a journal that believes the earth is not round? Sounds like a rather bad conflict of interest.
I doubt if alpha produced a paper reviewed by the geometric model journal you'd accept it all.
But I digress.
-
I don't really care about what you read about astronomy today. Why don't you just put up or shut up?
Where are the papers showing that the predictions of any geometric model of the solar system which uses celestial mechanics has met reality?
I don't read "Astronomy Today".
I did provide a reference to a paper showing the predicted positions of solar-system bodies matched measured positions to a very high degree of accuracy, as requested. You simply dismissed it without consideration. Why should anyone bother with more?
Where are your papers showing they don't? Any instance of that would be newsworthy, and more worthy of publication than the contrary.
Why are you afraid to compare the predicted locations of solar-system objects with the sky? There's a previously-unknown comet easily visible in binoculars now and for the next couple weeks. Find some predictions and go look for it since you won't take anyone else's word that this stuff works. If you need help finding it, ask. As a favor, I'll give you a search term: "comet lovejoy" [you can include the quotes or not - you'll get pretty much the same results either way]. Most of the first handful or hits will include a "finder chart" to help you locate it. If you wait too long, of course, the opportunity will be lost, so there's always that "out" for you.
-
Tom something big enough to shade would be viable with lots of IR devices. And radio telescopes don't see IR, Check this out. There is a huge gap between far IR and the shortest waves used in radio astronomy
http://www.hardhack.org.au/book/export/html/18 (http://www.hardhack.org.au/book/export/html/18)
I am only a dumb hippie but I know some stuff.
-
Where are your peer reviewed papers that show the earth is flat?
Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth), which ran for over 75 issues with 100-400 pages each.
Were both parties owned by Rowbotham?
-
Seleucus lived a couple thousand years after Stonehenge was built, a monument believed to use the Saros cycle to predict the eclipses.
Apparently the jury is still out on that one.
British astronomer Fred Hoyle suggested that the circle of 56 "Aubrey Holes" could have been used as an analog computer to track the motion of the node of the lunar orbit (56 years, or 3 saros cycles, is required to bring solar eclipses back to approximately the same locations on Earth's surface), though this idea has found little support.
So, I would say that your comment that cosmology changed over time is irrelevant.
Tom, do you honestly believe that there has been absolutely no further development of the Saros Cycle since the Babylonians?
-
Where are your peer reviewed papers that show the earth is flat?
Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a journal called The Earth Not a Globe Review (later shortened to Earth), which ran for over 75 issues with 100-400 pages each.
Were both parties owned by Rowbotham?
"The Earth Not a Globe Review" was a magazine published by Elizabeth Blount....after Rowbotham's death.
I don't think Tom understands peer review. ::)