Where's your head at Tom?

  • 90 Replies
  • 17475 Views
?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Where's your head at Tom?
« on: December 03, 2009, 02:35:19 PM »
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.


Which one is it Tom? You can't have it both ways you know.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2009, 03:10:16 PM »
Well, which one is it Tom?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #2 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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 03:20:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2009, 03:33:35 PM »
So you use unreliable Greek "patterns" to predict solar eclipses?
Testicle slamming doesn't belong in the upper fora.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2009, 03:36:22 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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 04:18:13 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2009, 04:44:00 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?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2009, 04:51:28 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, 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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 04:58:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2009, 04:56:34 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.


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.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 05:06:29 PM by The Earth is ROUND!!!!!!! »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2009, 05:05:22 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.

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.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2009, 05:32:07 PM »
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.

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

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

Quote
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.

It doesn't matter how the earth is laid out. As long as there are historic eclipse charts for both the Americas and Europe, the eclipse is predicable for both those locations.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 05:33:59 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #10 on: December 03, 2009, 06:22:18 PM »
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.

So what you're saying is, you accept the math Einstein did in order to determine how the Earth rotates around the sun, but you deny the theory itself? I'm glad we got a look into how the mind of Tom Bishop thinks.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #11 on: December 03, 2009, 06:39:26 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?

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #12 on: December 03, 2009, 06:45:48 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?
Quote from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #13 on: December 03, 2009, 06:53:57 PM »
Quote
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?

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

Quote
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?

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."

?

Mookie89

  • 1327
  • Artilles is a goddess
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #14 on: December 03, 2009, 10:04:55 PM »
Didn't you just say that the Greeks used math to back up their science?

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, for the simple fact that they didn't use the scientific method in order to conclude that they came from mud. If they used the scientific method, they would never have come to that conclusion in the first place.

Quote
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."

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 from: Tom Bishop
Ugh ugh! Ugh nug nug ugh!

It's fourteen French social dances past the hour.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2009, 11:21:12 PM »
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.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2009, 01:44:55 AM »
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.


I'm not sure what point you are making here, Tom.

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

Rotherham said that moon produces it's own light, which you disagree with.   Why don't you reject Rowbotham?

James believes there is a huge ice wall, holding the atmosphere in, which you disagree with. Why don't you reject Jame's rantings?

Inconsistency, you see.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 02:31:34 AM by Moon squirter »
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17933
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2009, 09:30:03 AM »
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.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #18 on: December 04, 2009, 10:04:08 AM »

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."

Yes, do you know why Copernicus wrote that? Because at the time, you could be executed by the church authorities for expressing a view contrary to church doctrine, which had the Earth at the centre of the Universe. Copernicus was so careful about this, hence the wording - he even left instructions for some of his works only to be published after his death because he feared church action against him.

And for the record Tom, you are still utterly wrong about solar eclipse predictions. I can only conclude you don't know enough about the subject to be able to understand why you're wrong.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #19 on: December 04, 2009, 10:04:56 AM »
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.


Why is Greek science such a problem for you?  Much of it is a historical curiosity and has not relevance today.  

Every civilization has it's pluses and minuses.   Just take the pluses and move on (i.e. don't bore us with the minuses, they're history).
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #20 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.
Obviously, the Maths can't be argued with, but choosing which hypotheses you agree with isn't a sin. Because I believe Einstein was accurate about some things, do I have to agree with everything a German scientist says?

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2009, 10:29:06 AM »
Actually tom is using some and ditching some, which to be honest is perfectly reasonable.

If your friend came up to you (assuming you have a friend) and said "I had a great sandwich for lunch, then flew to your house with my mind to give you half" and he had half a sandwich with him and his car was parked on the street, you wouldn't believe that he flew over with his mind, would you?
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2009, 10:41:38 AM »
No, he's saying that trusting them due to their success with other fields doesn't mean they should be trusted for other things.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2009, 10:45:01 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.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #24 on: December 04, 2009, 10:47:02 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?

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #25 on: December 04, 2009, 10:53:52 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.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5167
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2009, 10:56:19 AM »
Schrodinger's planet?
« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 11:26:35 AM by SupahLovah »
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

Eddy Baby

  • Official Member
  • 9986
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2009, 10:58:09 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]

Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2009, 11:34:25 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]

You aren't understanding him.  The parametric equations can be used to predict the alignment of the sun moon and earth as functions of time, s(t), m(t) and e(t).  Their orbits are described by these parametric equations, so calculating the alignment of the 3 is a matter of solving for the times where they align.  The second part of the problem is what portions of the Earth will be able to view this event, which will be described by the path of the shadow of the moon as it passes across the earth.  The path of the eclipse can be shown on a map of the flat earth, however, as the map of the flat earth, which has a distorted relationship of the southern continents, cannot accurately depict the orientation of the southern continents, when the path of visibility of the eclipse is plotted it will not match with the path of travel of the sun, or if the path of travel of the sun is plotted the accounts of the eclipse will not match what is observed.  On a spherical map of the earth the rotation of the earth can be used to clarify which portions of the Earth will be facing the sun between ti and tf between the start and end of the eclipse and the path of the shadow mapped onto the earth via the sun's normal observed path.
"We know that the sun is 93 million miles away and takes up 5 degrees of the sky.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Where's your head at Tom?
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2009, 01:48:21 PM »
Thankyou IAS. That clarifies what I was trying to say.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.