You can turn on your TV or radio and find out exactly what time the sun will rise or set wherever. You can pre-determine the phase of the moon. You can find out any time you want via the web when and where to look for a particular planet through your telescope. Even find out when it will be closest and easiest to view.
If you want to know what the sea/lake/water levels will be that day, and when the tides will be, just call up the local appropriate information line for your area. Spot on.
The fact that any of those phenomenas recur says nothing about their root cause. A tide chart says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the water moves up and down in patterns. There is no mechanism implied by the existence of that chart.
The same goes for the movements of the cosmos. The eclipse, for example, is predicted entirely on recurring charts and tables based upon historical accounts. It's nothing more than pattern recognition. The fact that we can use the previous patterns of lunar eclipses to predict the next eclipse says nothing about the shape of the earth. Those charts work for both RE and FE.
See the Eclipse Chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony.
The fact that a planet spirals around the hub of the earth at a predictable rate says nothing about the shape of the earth, only that the planet moves at a predictable pattern.
There is nothing inherent in a recurring phenomenon which implies a mechanism. The mechanism is entirely interpreted. There are no controlled experiments which demonstrate that the shadow on the moon during an eclipse comes from the earth. There are no controlled experiments demonstrating that the spinning of the pendulum occurs due to a rotating earth verses rotating stars. There are no controlled experiments showing that the earth is a sphere.
It's all observation and interpretation. The fact that certain phenomena recur over a period says nothing about the truthness of one model over another. Those predictability of phenomena is as equally applicable to both models.
Actually lunar phases can't just be taken from 'historical documents' and repeated forever. Changes occur and have to be accounted for.
You seem awfully centred around the moon as proof lately, and to be honest the phases of the moon and being able to view them the same at any point on earth (that they are visible at the same time) in the same fashion within 1.4 degrees from east to west coast of the U.S. for example - doesn't hold water with your summation. (in fact, the 1.4 degrees adds to your discrepancy)
And aside from all of that, I never included pendulums into the equation although it does provide something of interest that counter-rotating gravitational celestial bodies do not account for.
Precisely timed tides are not going to happen on a sloshing motion earth since that would create a more uniform tidal structure from one 'side' of the flat earth to the other and could not possibly account for the way in which tides work. In accordance with the moon.
And yes, as a matter of fact - the fact that a planet 'spirals around the earth' is exactly a way to observe how it works within the RE model. And does not work within a FE model. If you can't see this and proclaim you honestly and truly do not see how this can't work with a FE model then I can't imagine a way to explain it to you as an adult individual. By your own constant contradictions throughout this forum I don't know if you even believe this truly, but if you do - I can't really help you.
And besides, if you really want a ball buster on your earth motion tides... that wouldn't effect lake or river levels in the same fashion whatsoever. Rivers would be most often the same observationally, but larger inland lakes are still affected by the moon, and if they are at much higher elevations, then the earth's wobble would be slightly more noticeable and the levels would vary quite drastically when compared to simple tidal variances.
That's all I have to say on the matter, if you wish to respond I won't argue with you about it, but continue to offer supporting possible theories and disproofs that might lead to others as I have done so thus far.
Take care,
John