Where's your head at Tom?

The ancients are not reliable sources.

For example, besides telling people that the earth was a ball at the center of the universe, Aristotile also went around telling people that frogs and newts spontaneously generate from mud.

And we're just supposed to take his word for everything he says?

I told you, we use the same patterns the Greeks have used to predict the Solar Eclipse for thousands of years into the future. The charts can tell us the Time, Magnitude, and Duration of the Lunar or Solar eclipse.

It's just a pattern which recurs in the sky.

So you use unreliable Greek "patterns" to predict solar eclipses?

The point was that the prediction of the eclipse is applicable to both an RE or FE. It doesn't matter what shape your world is. The eclipse is predicted by following a pattern which recurs in the sky now and then.

There isn't anything special to predicting the eclipse, a demonstration being that ancient cavemen like Aristotile did it the same way for his ball-at-the-center-of-the-universe model.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2009, 03:17:06 PM

The point was that the prediction of the eclipse is applicable to both an RE or FE. It doesn't matter what shape your world is. The eclipse is predicted by following a pattern which recurs in the sky now and then.

There isn't anything special to predicting the eclipse, a demonstration being that ancient cavemen like Aristotile did it the same way for his ball-at-the-center-of-the-universe model.

Bishop ignores reality yet again. In order to predict the path of totality in a solar eclipse you need a precise and accurate map. A map that is in any way faulty will not predict it accurately. Round earth maps can be used to predict solar eclipse tracks perfectly.
Where's your map that does the same, Tom?

Quote from: Plebb on December 03, 2009, 03:33:35 PM

So you use unreliable Greek "patterns" to predict solar eclipses?

Some mathematical methods and writing down the the date of an eclipse is about all I'd trust them for.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 03, 2009, 04:44:00 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2009, 03:17:06 PM

The point was that the prediction of the eclipse is applicable to both an RE or FE. It doesn't matter what shape your world is. The eclipse is predicted by following a pattern which recurs in the sky now and then.

There isn't anything special to predicting the eclipse, a demonstration being that ancient cavemen like Aristotile did it the same way for his ball-at-the-center-of-the-universe model.

Bishop ignores reality yet again. In order to predict the path of totality in a solar eclipse you need a precise and accurate map. A map that is in any way faulty will not predict it accurately. Round earth maps can be used to predict solar eclipse tracks perfectly.
Where's your map that does the same, Tom?

It's not a map. It's a pattern in the sky.

In the case of the Lunar Eclipse, since it manifests as a shadow on the moon, the eclipse occurs everywhere at once and is visible to anyone who can see the moon. Any prediction which predicts the Lunar Eclise is applicable world-wide.

In the case of a Solar Eclipse, since it involves the alignment of bodies between the observer, and is therefore observer specific, it only happens on a narrow (but large) strip of land at a point in time. Multiple sets of data from several different latitudes are used for worldwide accuracy.

So only some of the mathematical methods the ancients used are suitable for you? And it's only a coincidence that you only use the methods that support your beliefs? I'm glad we cleared that up.

A map is necessary. Not a map of the stars, an accurate map of the ground. In order to say "the solar eclipse will be visible from Auckland starting at x time and finishing at y time" then you need to know PRECISELY where Auckland is. If you are in any way unsure of its position, you can't make a prediction to that accuracy. You are fond of pointing out that there is NO accurate flat earth map (because we won't pay Daniel to go make one, according to you) so if round earth maps work that well for eclipse predictions, it confirms they MUST be correct.
Lunar eclipses are irrelevant to this which is why I didn't mention them, but I see you brought them up in an attempt to look superior.
And I understand perfectly well what solar eclipses involve and how much of the planet can see them at a time. I travelled specifically to see one ten years ago. Have you seen one with your own eyes? If not, your zetetic system means you aren't supposed to believe they exist.

I trust their math. I don't trust their science.

The Greeks thought that animals spontaneously generated into existence from the environment.

But their science is derived off of what their math tells them.

Quote from: The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! on December 03, 2009, 06:22:18 PM

But their science is derived off of what their math tells them.

What mathematical equations did they use to determine that flies spontaneously generated from rotting meat and that frogs and newts spontaneously generated from mud?

They didn't use any math for that, it was an assumption that had no evidence to back it up (sounds kind of familiar). Why even ask such a stupid question?

Now answer my question, do you accept the math Einstein used in order to come to the conclusion on how the Earth rotated around the sun, but do not accept the actual theory itself?

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Didn't you just say that the Greeks used math to back up their science?

Einstein didn't conclude that the earth revolved around the sun. That was Copernicus.

The system of Copernicus was admitted by its author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following are his words:

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Oh my god, you are quite possibly the most dim-witted person I have ever met. I was speaking on behalf of the frog and newt statement. It never was and never will be considered science,

Whoever concluded it is beside the point. The point is, Einstein's math provided an even stronger case (the strongest possible one IMO) that the Earth rotated around the Sun.

Quote

Oh my god, you are quite possibly the most dim-witted person I have ever met. I was speaking on behalf of the frog and newt statement. It never was and never will be considered science,

Yes, actually, animals spontaneously generating from thin air was part of their science...

Quote

Whoever concluded it is beside the point. The point is, Einstein's math provided an even stronger case (the strongest possible one IMO) that the Earth rotated around the Sun.

What the hell are you talking about? Einstein never even studied the shape of the earth or its movement around the sun.

The Greeks revolutionised geometry and mathematics.  You simply cannot reject them by saying it was "part of there science".  That's irrational.

The system of Copernicus was admitted by its author to be merely an assumption, temporary and incapable of demonstration. The following are his words:

"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation. * * * Neither let anyone, so far as hypotheses are concerned, expect anything certain from astronomy, since that science can afford nothing of the kind, lest, in case he should adopt for truth, things feigned for another purpose, he should leave this science more foolish than he came. * * * The hypothesis of the terrestrial motion was nothing but an hypothesis, valuable only so far as it explained phenomena, and not considered with reference to absolute truth or falsehood."

Quote

The Greeks revolutionised geometry and mathematics.  You simply cannot reject them by saying it was "part of there science".  That's irrational.

I told you that I trusted their math. It's their science which was crap.

Besides telling people that frogs and newts spontaneously generated from mud Aristotile also went around telling people that men had a different number of teeth than women.

The Greeks also believed that sickness was a curse of the gods.

It was a truly backwards civilization.

Frankly, I'm with Tom on this.
If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on December 04, 2009, 10:17:03 AM

Frankly, I'm with Tom on this.
If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong.

See, you've fallen into Bishop's trap here. You have assumed that something he tells you is correct - but it isn't.
The only thing Bishop is correct about regarding solar eclipses is that the data and time of an eclipse can be predicted using the charts he refers to.
However, those charts ONLY predict when an eclipse will happen, NOT where it can be seen from. In order to do that, one must use the data about the eclipse in conjunction with an accurate map of the earth. This can be done perfectly using round earth maps. Given that flat earth maps are different from round earth maps, and the ability to predict eclipses shows round earth maps to be correct, it logically follows that the round earth must exist, or else the maps would not be accurate enough to predict eclipse viewing locations.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 04, 2009, 10:45:01 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on December 04, 2009, 10:17:03 AM

Frankly, I'm with Tom on this.
If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong.

See, you've fallen into Bishop's trap here. You have assumed that something he tells you is correct - but it isn't.
The only thing Bishop is correct about regarding solar eclipses is that the data and time of an eclipse can be predicted using the charts he refers to.
However, those charts ONLY predict when an eclipse will happen, NOT where it can be seen from. In order to do that, one must use the data about the eclipse in conjunction with an accurate map of the earth. This can be done perfectly using round earth maps. Given that flat earth maps are different from round earth maps, and the ability to predict eclipses shows round earth maps to be correct, it logically follows that the round earth must exist, or else the maps would not be accurate enough to predict eclipse viewing locations.

Are you saying that it would be impossible to predict the location of a solar eclipse on a Flat Earth?

Quote from: Eddy Baby on December 04, 2009, 10:47:02 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 04, 2009, 10:45:01 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on December 04, 2009, 10:17:03 AM

Frankly, I'm with Tom on this.
If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong.

See, you've fallen into Bishop's trap here. You have assumed that something he tells you is correct - but it isn't.
The only thing Bishop is correct about regarding solar eclipses is that the data and time of an eclipse can be predicted using the charts he refers to.
However, those charts ONLY predict when an eclipse will happen, NOT where it can be seen from. In order to do that, one must use the data about the eclipse in conjunction with an accurate map of the earth. This can be done perfectly using round earth maps. Given that flat earth maps are different from round earth maps, and the ability to predict eclipses shows round earth maps to be correct, it logically follows that the round earth must exist, or else the maps would not be accurate enough to predict eclipse viewing locations.

Are you saying that it would be impossible to predict the location of a solar eclipse on a Flat Earth?

No, it would be possible if you had an accurate map of the flat earth, but there isn't one. It is also possible to work out from this that there cannot be an accurate map of a flat earth because it would conflict with the round earth map, which has been proven by the eclipse prediction method to be correct. If the map can be proved to work, it follows that the round earth must also be correct. If the earth was flat, round earth maps would be useless to predict eclipses because they would be wrong.

If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong. [by which I meant becomes inaccurate for predicting the phenomenon]

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 04, 2009, 10:53:52 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on December 04, 2009, 10:47:02 AM

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 04, 2009, 10:45:01 AM

Quote from: Eddy Baby on December 04, 2009, 10:17:03 AM

Frankly, I'm with Tom on this.
If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong.

See, you've fallen into Bishop's trap here. You have assumed that something he tells you is correct - but it isn't.
The only thing Bishop is correct about regarding solar eclipses is that the data and time of an eclipse can be predicted using the charts he refers to.
However, those charts ONLY predict when an eclipse will happen, NOT where it can be seen from. In order to do that, one must use the data about the eclipse in conjunction with an accurate map of the earth. This can be done perfectly using round earth maps. Given that flat earth maps are different from round earth maps, and the ability to predict eclipses shows round earth maps to be correct, it logically follows that the round earth must exist, or else the maps would not be accurate enough to predict eclipse viewing locations.

Are you saying that it would be impossible to predict the location of a solar eclipse on a Flat Earth?

No, it would be possible if you had an accurate map of the flat earth, but there isn't one. It is also possible to work out from this that there cannot be an accurate map of a flat earth because it would conflict with the round earth map, which has been proven by the eclipse prediction method to be correct. If the map can be proved to work, it follows that the round earth must also be correct. If the earth was flat, round earth maps would be useless to predict eclipses because they would be wrong.

Quote from: Eddy Baby on December 04, 2009, 10:17:03 AM

If something accurately predicts phenomena, even if it assumes the Earth is the shape of a doughnut, is useful, and can be used unless it is proven to be wrong. [by which I meant becomes inaccurate for predicting the phenomenon]