Collecting and analysing the arguments for FET

But what if you've observed many different parts of the earth, like I have? I cannot go into 'space', so it's impossible for me to view the earth in its entirety. If the earth looks flat no matter where you are on the planet, and you cannot go into space (which the vast majority of people cannot), aren't you just telling us to assume it's round, without any observable proof?

It is not not necessary to go up into space to prove to the satisfaction of any reasonable person that the Earth is round.  All you have to do is look up and observe the apparent motions of the Sun, Moon and Stars and apply basic trigonometry to those observations.  See the threads Polaris and the Celestial North Pole and Another Observation that FET Simply Cannot Explain.  Like it or not, only RET comes even close to being a reasonable and intellectually honest explanation for the observations listed in those threads.  You can confirm these observations yourself without going into space.  You don't have to just take anyone's word for it.

We believe the earth is flat. Whatever you think of our science, this is what we believe. The only explanation then is that there is some sort of conspiracy; otherwise it is impossible to imagine such large organisations unknowingly spreading a false belief.

Unbelievable!  Can you really not see that this is a blatant example of circular reasoning, and therefore totally invalid?  Merely having to fall back on that type of reasoning to support your views does as much or more damage to the credibility of your views as any conceivable argument that can be used against them!

The fact that any small portion of the Earth appears to be flat is not proof that it is flat. In both RET and FET, the Earth is considered to be huge, so in both theories it is perfectly logical that any small portion of the Earth will appear to be flat from close up. I have shown that even under perfect conditions, the visible curve of the Earth according to RET would be less than 0.5°. Imperceptible for a human. Considering that the Earth's surface is not perfectly even adds to that. So, when you say you look out of the window and the Earth appears to be flat, no matter where you are on Earth, you cannot be sure that the entire Earth is truly flat because you cannot see it.

So we have to assume it's flat instead of trusting our senses. This is a major problem with RET for me.

As for magical UA vs magical gravity, since both seem to be equally likely but they contradict each other, neither can be considered to be true, therefore both must default to false until proven otherwise.

Ok, but that means you cannot level this as a criticism of FE, which would, to my mind, make it a moot point.

As has been stated in numerous threads, the assumption that there is a conspiracy is based on the assumption that the Earth is flat and vice versa. Since there is no proof for either, both default to false. Yes, the fake image argument is connected to this. I can merge them if you like.

Well, I believe there is proof- that I can observe its general shape from any height and any position on earth and find that it appears flat. If it is so clearly and so obviously flat, then there must be a conspiracy.

As for the sun and moon, their size and distance is pure conjecture, created to fit into FET. Thus unless the Earth is proven to be flat, the assumptions made on the size and distance of the sun, moon, stars and other planets are completely worthless.

I have to concede that the study of the heavens is a part of FET which needs development, and to my mind is the greatest challenge flacing FE'ers today. That said, I have no doubt that were the same financial, technological and intellectual resources used to develop FET that are used to develop RET, we would have a sound model to explain this.

As for sustained space flight being impossible, yes it seems that this point is disputed even amongst FE proponents. Still it is an unverified claim in any case.

Again, this is a point I am unable to deal with, if I'm honest.

Quote from: MadDogX on July 03, 2008, 02:14:40 AM

The fact that any small portion of the Earth appears to be flat is not proof that it is flat. In both RET and FET, the Earth is considered to be huge, so in both theories it is perfectly logical that any small portion of the Earth will appear to be flat from close up. I have shown that even under perfect conditions, the visible curve of the Earth according to RET would be less than 0.5°. Imperceptible for a human. Considering that the Earth's surface is not perfectly even adds to that. So, when you say you look out of the window and the Earth appears to be flat, no matter where you are on Earth, you cannot be sure that the entire Earth is truly flat because you cannot see it.

So we have to assume it's flat instead of trusting our senses. This is a major problem with RET for me.

My meaning is quite simple. We have two possibilities:

RET: Assuming that the Earth is a sphere with a circumference of ~40.041,47km, the Earth would appear to be flat from anywhere but space.
FET: Assuming that the Earth is a disk with a diameter of ~40.000km, the Earth would appear to be flat from anywhere, including space.

Now we can conduct experiments based on these theories.

Experiment 1:

You look out of your window from ground level or from a plane. People do this on a daily basis. Observation: the Earth appears to be flat. Does this observation fit into RET? Yes. Does it fit into FET? Yes. Therefore the observation that the Earth appears to be flat is inconclusive.

Experiment 2:

An astronaught looks out of the window of a space shuttle. Observation: the Earth appears round. Does this observation fit into RET? Yes. Does it fit into FET? No! This is conclusive proof for RET!

Problem: Experiment 2 is not verifiable unless you have access to a space shuttle. Otherwise you would need to trust that the person conducting the experiment is telling the truth. FE proponents choose not to trust the results of this experiment.

Hmm, I've yet to see anyone refute any of my arguments.

I can improve a few of these:

Quote

PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating up at 1g

EVIDENCE: The downward acceleration varies depending on where you are on Earth, and even varies with time at the same place.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Quote

PREMISE: The Sun is a spotlight

EVIDENCE: In summer, the spotlight would have to illuminate all around the world while leaving a section towards the centre in darkness. In winter this pattern is reversed.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Quote

PREMISE: The sun and moon are ~3000 miles away and roughly 32 miles in diameter.

EVIDENCE: The moon only presents one face to the entire Earth, implying it is very distant.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Quote

PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

EVIDENCE: Man made objects such as the ISS can be independantly observed and verified to be in space.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Quote from: NEEMAN on July 03, 2008, 02:47:10 AM

Quote from: MadDogX on July 03, 2008, 02:14:40 AM

The fact that any small portion of the Earth appears to be flat is not proof that it is flat. In both RET and FET, the Earth is considered to be huge, so in both theories it is perfectly logical that any small portion of the Earth will appear to be flat from close up. I have shown that even under perfect conditions, the visible curve of the Earth according to RET would be less than 0.5°. Imperceptible for a human. Considering that the Earth's surface is not perfectly even adds to that. So, when you say you look out of the window and the Earth appears to be flat, no matter where you are on Earth, you cannot be sure that the entire Earth is truly flat because you cannot see it.

So we have to assume it's flat instead of trusting our senses. This is a major problem with RET for me.

My meaning is quite simple. We have two possibilities:

RET: Assuming that the Earth is a sphere with a circumference of ~40.041,47km, the Earth would appear to be flat from anywhere but space.
FET: Assuming that the Earth is a disk with a diameter of ~40.000km, the Earth would appear to be flat from anywhere, including space.

Now we can conduct experiments based on these theories.

Experiment 1:

You look out of your window from ground level or from a plane. People do this on a daily basis. Observation: the Earth appears to be flat. Does this observation fit into RET? Yes. Does it fit into FET? Yes. Therefore the observation that the Earth appears to be flat is inconclusive.

Experiment 2:

An astronaught looks out of the window of a space shuttle. Observation: the Earth appears round. Does this observation fit into RET? Yes. Does it fit into FET? No! This is conclusive proof for RET!

Problem: Experiment 2 is not verifiable unless you have access to a space shuttle. Otherwise you would need to trust that the person conducting the experiment is telling the truth. FE proponents choose not to trust the results of this experiment.

Exactly. I have to believe an indirect account which I cannot verify. I may as well believe in the voyage of St. Brendan.

Unverifiable observations are false.

What you've done here is known as the negative proof fallacy.

Deductions made from unverifiable observations are false.

A deduction from an unverifiable observation? I'm not even sure what that means. Do you have an example of this? Not to mention that coining it false is again, illogical.

Baseless claims are false.

So, if someone happened to guess something (a baseless claim), it's wrong even if it's right? LOL.

Deductions made from baseless claims are obviously false.

Non-sequitur.

Quote

PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating up at 1g

EVIDENCE: The downward acceleration varies depending on where you are on Earth, and even varies with time at the same place.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

I guess you forgot something important. I'll let you try and figure out what that is. You should know as you crafted the "premise" and "evidence."

And FE as a whole (other than Dogplatter) doesn't discount the variability.

PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

EVIDENCE: Man made objects such as the ISS can be independantly observed and verified to be in space.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Another twisting, but it's expected because you want to win the argument.

Traditional, orbital, sustained spaceflight is not possible. Sustained spaceflight by means of refueling and other means is clearly possible. That you'd ignore something obvious showcases your desperateness.

Nice use of quotation, here, I'll correct it for you:

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 03:11:05 AM

Quote

PREMISE: The Earth is accelerating up at 1g

EVIDENCE: The downward acceleration varies depending on where you are on Earth, and even varies with time at the same place.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

I guess you forgot something important. I'll let you try and figure out what that is. You should know as you crafted the "premise" and "evidence."

The gravitational pull of the stars, perhaps? If this was the case, why wouldn't the gravitational anomolies rotate every 24 hours?

And FE as a whole (other than Dogplatter) doesn't discount the variability.

So how do they explain it?

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 03:11:05 AM

Quote

PREMISE: Sustained space flight is not possible.

EVIDENCE: Man made objects such as the ISS can be independantly observed and verified to be in space.

CONCLUSION: FALSE

Another twisting, but it's expected because you want to win the argument.

Traditional, orbital, sustained spaceflight is not possible. Sustained spaceflight by means of refueling and other means is clearly possible. That you'd ignore something obvious showcases your desperateness.

Funny we don't see these huge refueling tankers, which would have to be much larger than the ISS itself, either when tey're launched (which would require an astronomical amounts of fuel and therefore an enormous rocket). Also, to continuously maintain it's altitude by rocket thrusters would be astronomically expensive, far more expensive than orbital spaceflight. In this case, the conspiracy would actually cost money!

What you've done here is known as the negative proof fallacy.

In the strictest sense, correct. Maybe I should relativise my usage of the word "false". I use the word false in the meaning of "unsubstantiated claim", not as "definitely wrong". I did this because I do not feel like writing a whole paragraph every time I come to a conclusion about the veracity of a claim. In my opinion there is either true or false, whereby unverfied claims default to false until proven true. Being a software engineer this seems logical to me, but obviously not everyone would agree with my choice of words. I'll change the word "false" to "unverified".

I hope this clears up my stand point.

Weird. I was in Land's End, England for the 1999 solar eclipse. That was no coincidence. I knew of this event, because it was accurately predicted years in advance. I have also seen several lunar eclipses. Coinsidence? No. I knew of these events because they were predicted in advance. Please stop repeating your foolish claims as if you knew the slightest thing about astronomy.

I do know about astronomy. You're wrong.

The Lunar Eclipse is not predicted based on the motions of the earth and sun, or the position of the earth. The Lunar Eclipse is predicted based on historic timetables of past eclipses. The Lunar Eclipse comes in repeating patterns, and by studying the particulars of previous eclipses it's possible to create an equation to predict when the next one will occur.

The analysis of repeating patterns is the only way astronomers know how to predict Lunar Eclipses, Solar Eclipses, Planetary Transits, and all other recurring phenomenas of the cosmos. The prediction is based on a pattern which occurs in the sky and has nothing to do with the positioning of celestial bodies or the study of any particular cosmic model.

Read the Lunar Eclipse chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony for more information.

The gravitational pull of the stars, perhaps? If this was the case, why wouldn't the gravitational anomolies rotate every 24 hours?

No, what you omitted is that even RE defines a standard gravity for Earth. Double standard.

So how do they explain it?

Explanations can obviously vary. Tom has his gravitational pull from the stars; or it could be a mix between the characteristics of the matter under the Earth or influences of the DEF. These will probably not satisfy you though.

Funny we don't see these huge refueling tankers, which would have to be much larger than the ISS itself, either when tey're launched (which would require an astronomical amounts of fuel and therefore an enormous rocket). Also, to continuously maintain it's altitude by rocket thrusters would be astronomically expensive, far more expensive than orbital spaceflight. In this case, the conspiracy would actually cost money!

Sigh, I never claimed that the ISS was refueled; I was speaking to the aspect of sustained spaceflight and the misconceptions that REers place in FET explanations of it being impossible.

The analysis of repeating patterns is the only way astronomers know how to predict Solar Eclipses, Lunar Eclipses, planetary transits, and all other recurring phenomenas of the cosmos. The prediction has nothing to do with the positioning of celestial bodies.

Read the Lunar Eclipse chapter in Zetetic Cosmogony.

Wow Tom. Just wow. Just because when a few-hundred year-old book was written eclipses were predicted by pattern-recognition doesn't mean that it's still done that way. Your method could probably predict which day or night the eclipse would happen on, but modern methods can predict exactly which second it will start and finish, what percentage of the moon/sun will be eclipsed and exactly where on Earth the eclipse will be visible. Have a look at these links:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=503 and te accompanying pdf
http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/public/eclipse/ecl_calc.html

Specifically:

The detailed prediction of eclipses requires complex calculations of the celestial mechanics of the Moon's orbit, but amazingly good approximate solutions to the problem of predicting eclipses were known to the ancient Greeks and Babylonians.

So yes, it is possible to get good results from patter-fitting, but the accuracy we have today is only possible with orbital mechanics.

Remind me, how well can FET predict eclipses?

First you say:

It's been shown that NASA can't even predict where the sun and moon will be (...)

Then you say:

The Lunar Eclipse is predicted based on historic tables of past eclipses.

So NASA can't predict where the sun, moon or planets will be, but they can predict solar eclipses? Not to mention lunar eclipses, planetary eclipses (for example Jupiter moving behind the moon, which I personally observed several years ago and is quite rare) aswell as the flight paths of recently discovered comets - for example when Hale Bopp was discovered in 1995 it didn't take long to predict what constellations it would pass through over the course of the following months.

Sorry Tom, I just don't buy it. Modern eclipse prediction is accurate down to the second and even predicts the exact path of the shadow umbra over the Earth's surface (which ironically follows a path consistent with a spherical Earth  ). Do you think they do that by studying reports of old eclipses? Tom, as always your explanation is laughable at best. I can only repeat myself here: you don't have a clue about astronomy.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 03:58:44 AM

The gravitational pull of the stars, perhaps? If this was the case, why wouldn't the gravitational anomolies rotate every 24 hours?

No, what you omitted is that even RE defines a standard gravity for Earth. Double standard.

RE defines a "standard gravity" for convenience when quoting G-forces and the like. However, this doesn't mean that RE'ers think downward acceleration is constant all over the world all the time.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 03:58:44 AM

So how do they explain it?

Explanations can obviously vary. Tom has his gravitational pull from the stars; or it could be a mix between the characteristics of the matter under the Earth or influences of the DEF. These will probably not satisfy you though.

Quite right they don't. Variations in gravity are not some trivial detail that needs to be ironed out, they are (as far as I can tell) entirely incompatible with an accelerating Earth.

Quote from: ghazwozza on July 03, 2008, 03:58:44 AM

Funny we don't see these huge refueling tankers, which would have to be much larger than the ISS itself, either when tey're launched (which would require an astronomical amounts of fuel and therefore an enormous rocket). Also, to continuously maintain it's altitude by rocket thrusters would be astronomically expensive, far more expensive than orbital spaceflight. In this case, the conspiracy would actually cost money!

Sigh, I never claimed that the ISS was refueled; I was speaking to the aspect of sustained spaceflight and the misconceptions that REers place in FET explanations of it being impossible.

Well, I gave the ISS as evidence that orbital spaceflight was possible. FET will have to offer some alternative explanation for how the ISS stays up there.

Wow Tom. Just wow. Just because when a few-hundred year-old book was written eclipses were predicted by pattern-recognition doesn't mean that it's still done that way. Your method could probably predict which day or night the eclipse would happen on, but modern methods can predict exactly which second it will start and finish, what percentage of the moon/sun will be eclipsed and exactly where on Earth the eclipse will be visible. Have a look at these links:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=503 and te accompanying pdf
http://www.ulo.ucl.ac.uk/public/eclipse/ecl_calc.html

Are you kidding me? The links just tell me exactly what's in the Zetetic Cosmogony chapter I linked: The prime and only way to calculate the Lunar Eclipse is to use equations derived from recurring patterns of past eclipses. It's exactly how Aritsotile did it in 300 B.C. Here's a direct quote from your link:

The detailed prediction of eclipses requires complex calculations of the celestial mechanics of the Moon's orbit, but amazingly good approximate solutions to the problem of predicting eclipses were known to the ancient Greeks and Babylonians.

They discovered that the key to predicting eclipses, whether solar or lunar, is the Saros cycle, 223 ordinary lunar months. This periodicity was discovered by the Babylonians. It is 18 solar calendar years plus 10-1/3 days. After that period of time, starting with a total eclipse at new Moon (after 6585.3211 days, to be more exact), the phase of the Moon is again exactly new and the Moon is eagain almost exactly lined up with the Sun, so another eclipse takes place, though it will be seen from a different place on Earth. Simply having a new Moon isn't enough because the Moon's orbit is inclined. For an eclipse to take place the alignment must be very close.

The word node is used to describe the two crossing points of the Moon's orbit, where they cross the apparent path of the Sun in the sky This path is called the ecliptic. Eclipses can only take place close to the nodes of the Moon's orbit. The orbit is inclined by a little more than 5 degrees to the ecliptic. Because of gravitational effects, the nodes move (regress) around the ecliptic in a period of 18.61 years. The Moon returns to the same node 242 times in almost but not quite exactly the same time as a Saros, 6585.3572 days (remember, the node is moving so months defined this way are shorter than other months). But a remarkable coincidence occurs in that the Sun returns to the same node after exactly 6585.7806 days (after 19 so-called eclipse years of 346.62 days). On the first 241 occasions, the Sun is not near the same spot as the Moon, but on the 242nd arrival of the Moon at the node, the Sun will be almost exactly in the same position relative to the node and another very similar eclipse will occur. Hence we find that eclipses can repeat in series over a long period of time.

Thus the ancients discovered that, if a solar eclipse occurred on a given day, another eclipse would occur 6585.32 days later when the Moon and Sun again lined up almost exactly, although at a different place along the ecliptic. However, the resulting solar eclipse would be visible about 1/3 of the way around the world and not always visible from the original location, even in its partial phases. But, after three Saros cycles, or 54 years, 1 month, and a couple of days, another solar eclipse would occur at the same approximate range of longitudes on Earth. This time, however, the next eclipse in the 54 year cycle would be some distance further north or further south of the previous track, depending on whether or not the eclipses happen on the descending node (Moon going south as it crosses the ecliptic) or ascending node.

So yes, it is possible to get good results from patter-fitting, but the accuracy we have today is only possible with orbital mechanics.

No. Your link just tells me about eclipse cycles and Soros cycles and calculating future eclipses based on previous eclipses.

You didn't read your own Googled link. You fail.

Remind me, how well can FET predict eclipses?

Just fine. There are equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse at the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

So NASA can't predict where the sun, moon or planets will be, but they can predict solar eclipses? Not to mention lunar eclipses, planetary eclipses (for example Jupiter moving behind the moon, which I personally observed several years ago and is quite rare) aswell as the flight paths of recently discovered comets - for example when Hale Bopp was discovered in 1995 it didn't take long to predict what constellations it would pass through over the course of the following months.

All those celestial phenomenas are predicted based on cycles derived from historic charts and table. They are not predicted by the complex calculation of the position of celestial bodies in relation to each other as many of you believe.

Sorry Tom, I just don't buy it. Modern eclipse prediction is accurate down to the second and even predicts the exact path of the shadow umbra over the Earth's surface (which ironically follows a path consistent with a spherical Earth  ). Do you think they do that by studying reports of old eclipses? Tom, as always your explanation is laughable at best. I can only repeat myself here: you don't have a clue about astronomy.

The equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse can predict the time, magnitude, and duration of the Lunar Eclipse down to the second. It's all based on the detailed particulars of previous eclipses, in records which stretch back to the time of the Ancient Greeks. See the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe for a sample of Lunar Eclipse equations derived from the charts and tables.

The detailed prediction of eclipses requires complex calculations of the celestial mechanics of the Moon's orbit, but amazingly good approximate solutions to the problem of predicting eclipses were known to the ancient Greeks and Babylonians.

The subsequent paragraphs you qouted merely describe the approximate solutions used by the ancient Greeks and Babylonians, not the methods used today, which were hinted at in the first part of the sentence ("complex calculations of the celestial mechanics of the Moon's orbit"). And it is you who did not read the links provided. The first one contains a link to a PDF document which accurately describes the modern method, as opposed to the old method that you quoted.

You really like to cut stuff up to fit into your argument don't you?

Quote

So NASA can't predict where the sun, moon or planets will be, but they can predict solar eclipses? Not to mention lunar eclipses, planetary eclipses (for example Jupiter moving behind the moon, which I personally observed several years ago and is quite rare) aswell as the flight paths of recently discovered comets - for example when Hale Bopp was discovered in 1995 it didn't take long to predict what constellations it would pass through over the course of the following months.

All those celestial phenomenas are predicted based on cycles derived from historic charts and table. They are not predicted by the complex calculation of the position of celestial bodies in relation to each other as many of you believe.

Quote

Sorry Tom, I just don't buy it. Modern eclipse prediction is accurate down to the second and even predicts the exact path of the shadow umbra over the Earth's surface (which ironically follows a path consistent with a spherical Earth  ). Do you think they do that by studying reports of old eclipses? Tom, as always your explanation is laughable at best. I can only repeat myself here: you don't have a clue about astronomy.

The equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse can predict the time, magnitude, and duration of the Lunar Eclipse down to the second. It's all based on the detailed particulars of previous eclipses, in records which stretch back to the time of the Ancient Greeks. See the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe for a sample of Lunar Eclipse equations derived from the charts and tables.

Somehow I wonder why I should take your word for that, considering that there  are formulae for predicting the movements of celestial bodies in accordance with RET. I also don't see why I should read a book written by a man who was bent on proving conventional science wrong because it did not conform with his religious beliefs. Your baseless claims are still not convincing, Tom. I ask you again: how stupid do you think people are?

The subsequent paragraphs you qouted merely describe the approximate solutions used by the ancient Greeks and Babylonians, not the methods used today, which were hinted at in the first part of the sentence ("complex calculations of the celestial mechanics of the Moon's orbit"). And it is you who did not read the links provided. The first one contains a link to a PDF document which accurately describes the modern method, as opposed to the old method that you quoted.

You really like to cut stuff up to fit into your argument don't you?

I read the PDF you linked. It is not a method for predicting the Lunar Eclipse. The author of the article does not pretend that it is. The author is answering a question for a software programmer who has been unsuccessful in modeling the RE system (I wonder why). The author gives a few basic introductions for basic orbital mechanics from literature and finishes with the following:

The challenge in eclipse calculation is to determine whether Earth will lie within the
umbra or penumbra of the Moon (vice versa for lunar eclipse) using the three dimensional
positions of the Earth and the Moon. It is quite non-trivial and is a chief ingredient in
the eclipse code. The radii of the Sun, Earth and Moon are given below:

<snip>

I assume that you are not trying to do an eclipse calculation exactly. If so, the problem
becomes much more complicated, as you have to take into account the perturbations of
all planets, the exact relation between θp, θu and the radii R1, R2, etc. In addition, you
will need the initial condition of the Earth-Moon-Sun system, which you can obtain over
the internet. However, to get a rough idea as to modeling the eclipse calculations, you
can possibly approximate the orbits a circles, as the eccentricities are very small. Good
luck on your software development effort!

Regards,
Jagadheep

Basically the author is saying that it's very difficult to calculate a Lunar Eclipse and tells the programmer to "go search the internet" and mentions a few possibilities to look into.

The PDF is not a methodology for predicting the Lunar Eclipse. It's not even a stepping stone for creating a model for predicting the eclipse.

That's exactly what I mean. The important phrases here are:

The detailed prediction of eclipses requires complex calculations of the celestial mechanics of the Moon's orbit, but amazingly good approximate solutions to the problem of predicting eclipses were known to the ancient Greeks and Babylonians.

Just what I said, pattern-fitting can only go so far.

and

the resulting solar eclipse would be visible about 1/3 of the way around the world

Modern methods can provide an exact path for the lunar eclipse, rather than "about 1/3".

and

...another solar eclipse would occur at the same approximate range of longitudes on Earth. This time, however, the next eclipse in the 54 year cycle would be some distance further north or further south of the previous track, depending on whether or not the eclipses happen on the descending node (Moon going south as it crosses the ecliptic) or ascending node.

As you can see, the Saros cycle can only deal in approximates. Even knowing whether it is going to appear North or South of last time requires orbital mechanics.

From the link you provided:

"Let A, B, R, (in the following diagram) be a section of the earth's shadow at the distance of the moon; S, n, the path described by its centre, S, on the ecliptic; M, n, the relative orbit of the moon; M, n, S, n, being considered straight lines. Draw S, o, perpendicular to S, n, and S, m, to M, n; then o, and m, are in the places, with respect to S, of the moon in opposition, and at the middle of the eclipse.

"Earth's shadow at the distance of the moon?" "ecliptic"? "orbit of the moon"? "moon in oposition"? These are all RE ideas based on the moon orbiting the Earth.

In FET the Earth does not cast a shadow towards the moon, there is no ecliptic plane, the moon does not orbit the Earth, and thus cannot be in opposition [to the sun].

Furthemore, variables are ill-defined, for example:

h = the moon's horary [hourly] motion in the relative orbit.

This does not tell me what h is, or what units it is measured in. I can only guess it means the distance the moon moves in an hour, but this assumes that the moon's orbit is circular, and doesn't say what units h is measured in.
It is bad maths and bad physics.

"Earth's shadow at the distance of the moon?" "ecliptic"? "orbit of the moon"? "moon in oposition"? These are all RE ideas based on the moon orbiting the Earth.

In FET the Earth does not cast a shadow towards the moon, there is no ecliptic plane, the moon does not orbit the Earth, and thus cannot be in opposition [to the sun].

Rowbotham is copy-pasting RE's methodologies for predicting the Lunar Eclipse.

Of course, in the wording he reproduces for us one would replace 'Earth' with 'Shadow Object' for the FE equation.

Quote

Remind me, how well can FET predict eclipses?

Just fine. There are equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse at the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

Rowbotham is copy-pasting RE's methodologies for predicting the Lunar Eclipse.

My self-contradiction sense is tingling...

My self-contradiction sense is tingling...

The RE method for predicting the Lunar Eclipse is to derive equations from historic charts and tables. The Lunar Eclipse comes in patterns and it's possible to predict future eclipses based on those patterns. It's precisely how all astronomers have predicted the eclipse since the time of the Ancient Greeks.

The FE method can use those same equations because the equations are based on nothing more than the patterns of eclipses one sees in the sky.

Quote

My self-contradiction sense is tingling...

The RE method for predicting the Lunar Eclipse is to derive equations from historic charts and tables. The Lunar Eclipse comes in patterns and it's possible to predict future eclipses based on those patterns. It's precisely how all astronomers have predicted the eclipse since the time of the Ancient Greeks.

The FE method can use those same equations because the equations are based on nothing more than the patterns of eclipses one sees in the sky.

No, in RE there are several methods for predicting elcipses, depending on what kind of accuracy you want. As I've already said, the star-charts method will give you a rough indication of when and where eclipses will happen. This is the best FET can do. However, using orbital mechanics, RET can predict eclipses to a much higher accuracy. It can also predict the motions of comets and other bodies, as MadDogX pointed out.

So, the fact that orbital mechanics improves on the predictions of pattern-fitting is pretty strong evidence for RET.

No, in RE there are several methods for predicting elcipses, depending on what kind of accuracy you want. As I've already said, the star-charts method will give you a rough indication of when and where eclipses will happen. This is the best FET can do. However, using orbital mechanics, RET can predict eclipses to a much higher accuracy. It can also predict the motions of comets and other bodies, as MadDogX pointed out.

So, the fact that orbital mechanics improves on the predictions of pattern-fitting is pretty strong evidence for RET.

No. Orbital Mechanics cannot predict the eclipse. The author of the PDF file MadDogX linked admits that it's very difficult to predict the eclipse and sends the reader off to search the internet for data and then make up his own equations. The author of the article does not provide a method, the equations, or the data necessary to predict the eclipse based on the positioning of celestial bodies. The author admits that he has none.

I know that you'll find a lot of people who say that the eclipse is predicted based on celestial mechanics, but it is a false belief. Astronomers do not predict the eclipse through that method. I have never seen a celestial mechanics model capable of predicting the eclipse with any accuracy.

Tom, your claim that the motions of planets cannot be modeled using modern calculation methods is just plain false. It is a baseless claim resulting from your blind unwillingness to believe in conventional science.

Remember the software called Celestia I mentioned recently? It is entirely based on the modern methods of calculating the positions of objects in the solar system. And guess what: it is 100% accurate. I can set any time I want in the software and it will provide accurate information. If I set it to the early morning of August 11th 1999, I can see the shadow of the moon wandering across Europe, just as it did back in 1999. I can fast forward the program to watch the entire solar system move according to the RE model, showing the sun, moon and planets exactly where they really are. I've used Celestia many times before to find out where in the sky I can find a specific object and it has never failed. Ever.

According to years of my own personal experience, this model of the solar system is 100% correct. When you try and convince me that it is wrong, you are not only denying the existence of hard scientific facts that have been verified millions of times by scientists and ordinary people all across the world, you are also insulting my intelligence. No, my arguments are neither an appeal to authority nor to the majority. This is about scientific facts that have been verified and that you can verify yourself.

If you do not believe that Celestia is modeled on the current formulae for calculating planetary movements, look at the source code. Celestia is open source. If you do not believe that Celestia provides accurate data on planetary positions: verify it yourself. According to Celestia, Jupiter is currently almost directly behind the Earth (relative to the sun), so it should be very bright and clearly visible high in the sky at around midnight. Take a look tonight and see for yourself.

RE defines a "standard gravity" for convenience when quoting G-forces and the like. However, this doesn't mean that RE'ers think downward acceleration is constant all over the world all the time.

Wow, what a coincidence; so does FE!

Like I said, double standard.

Quite right they don't. Variations in gravity are not some trivial detail that needs to be ironed out, they are (as far as I can tell) entirely incompatible with an accelerating Earth.

Assuming there are other possible explanations (which is essentially impossible), then you'd be right.

Well, I gave the ISS as evidence that orbital spaceflight was possible. FET will have to offer some alternative explanation for how the ISS stays up there.

It's a stratellite; or it gets refueled mid-air or they land and launch another. They can utilize atmospheric conditions to launch a second one to keep up the course and timing.

I've used Celestia many times before to find out where in the sky I can find a specific object and it has never failed. Ever.

Yeah right. Does Celestia predict selehelions where both the Sun and Moon are above the horizon during a Lunar Eclipse?

Recent thread on the subject: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21553.msg433162#msg433162

And guess what: it is 100% accurate.

Nope. Celestia is wildly inaccurate when it comes to positions of bodies within the solar system. It can only give one a general guess at the area in the sky where a body might be in. And that's only from known locations where the raw data was originally collected such as the US and Europe. Celestia does not model the movements of the solar system to any degree of accuracy.

The program even takes the easy way out and makes its eclipse predictions based on the tired and true historic charts and table predictions. It draws the moon where it would be in the RE model and sends it off in its wildly inaccurate path.

According to years of my own personal experience, this model of the solar system is 100% correct.

Have you studied the bodies of the solar system from various far off points on earth and compared their precise positions to the Celestia program? No you have not.

When you try and convince me that it is wrong, you are not only denying the existence of hard scientific facts that have been verified millions of times by scientists and ordinary people all across the world, you are also insulting my intelligence. No, my arguments are neither an appeal to authority nor to the majority. This is about scientific facts that have been verified and that you can verify yourself.

We constantly get those throw away phrases like "millions of scientists have verified this" or "countless scientists have proven that," yet everyone conveniently forgets to give us the data demonstrating that they have.

I can see you're trying hard to get me angry but repeating the same bullshit over and over again, as if you knew what the hell you were talking about. Not gonna fly. The planetary movements in Celestia are based on constants that remain constant no matter what date you set in the program. You could check that in the source code, but I assume you'd rather sit here and keep repeating the same meaningless phrases over and over again, as if you were more intelligent than everyone else on the entire planet. Yet you have no credentials, no proof to back up your claims and therefore no credibility. All you have is an opinion - and no matter how matter-of-factly you state it, it still remains nothing more than an opinion. I don't see why I should take you seriously.

There are scientific facts that I have verified myself and have been verified by many others. Do you honestly think that your opinion holds enough weight to overthrow the truth of those facts? My world does not turn on its head, just because you claim to be more knowledgable than anyone else on the planet. The fact that you can provide no evidence to your claims is proof to the contrary. There are others in this forum, and I'm talking about FE'ers, who have made more sense in a single sentence than you have in the entire collection of worthless, nauseating drivel you've posted and that I've actually forced myself to read. Good day to you.

Prediction of eclipses have nothing to do with a flat earth

Prediction of eclipses have nothing to do with a flat earth

So predicting the movement of heavenly bodies is totally irrelevant?