Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy

  • 77 Replies
  • 23743 Views
?

Ali

  • 237
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2011, 03:39:36 PM »
anti moon? So why you can see stars around the moon while it is partialy covered by the "anti moon" ?

Most likely due to the fact that materials absorb some frequency of light, but not others. The anti-moon most likely only can absorb moonlight. (as far as we know)

That's pure theory. You are the pack constantly baying for "proof". Carry on....

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43178
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #61 on: May 06, 2011, 05:57:45 PM »
anti moon? So why you can see stars around the moon while it is partialy covered by the "anti moon" ?

Most likely due to the fact that materials absorb some frequency of light, but not others. The anti-moon most likely only can absorb moonlight. (as far as we know)

That's pure theory speculation. You are the pack constantly baying for "proof". Carry on....

Fixed.  A theory has a body of supporting evidence.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #62 on: May 08, 2011, 09:35:15 PM »
Quote
Tom, please show me where the the Saros cycle alone can be used to predict the path of an eclipse.

Look at the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. He tells you how to do it towards the end of the chapter.

Quote
Also, please show me an FE model that demonstrates the the principles of solar and lunar eclipses.  You keep talking about how they occur, but you have yet to show how they work in an FE context.  I wonder why that is.  ::)

Why do I need to draw a pretty picture to convey the idea that a body passes between the sun and the moon every so often to cause the eclipse?
« Last Edit: May 08, 2011, 09:37:03 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #63 on: May 08, 2011, 11:11:14 PM »
Quote
Tom, please show me where the the Saros cycle alone can be used to predict the path of an eclipse.

Look at the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. He tells you how to do it towards the end of the chapter.

Quote
Also, please show me an FE model that demonstrates the the principles of solar and lunar eclipses.  You keep talking about how they occur, but you have yet to show how they work in an FE context.  I wonder why that is.  ::)

Why do I need to draw a pretty picture to convey the idea that a body passes between the sun and the moon every so often to cause the eclipse?
becuase then you can show us a geometric representation of the phenonmenon.  a diagram can show us other affects, and a model to base predictions off of.


furthermore, i dont own EnaG, so may you post another way for me to get the read?
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #64 on: May 08, 2011, 11:22:55 PM »
Agreeing with the premises is, in a sense, validating them, not invalidating them.
Incorrect. See also: proof by contradiction.

this is a mathematical law, it is Boolean and as such relies on a true or false statement, it allows for no deviance. please show me the relevance in the context you have used it.

Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #65 on: May 08, 2011, 11:24:53 PM »
If you refer to BK. 1 Ch. 4 of the Almagest

That the earth too is sensibly spherical.  For it is not possible for all observers on earth to see the sun, moon , and the rest of the stars rising and setting at the same times; rather, those living in the east invariably see them rise and earlier, but those in the west later.  For we find that the appearances of eclipses, and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers and especially those of the moon, that occur at the same time are not recorded by all observers at the same hours; that is to say, at hours at equal intervals from noon. Instead, the hours recorded by the more easternly observers are always later than those by the more westernly observers. And since the difference in the hours is found to be proportional to the distances of the regions, one might reasonably suppose that the surface of the earth is spherical; it is the uniformity of its convexity, taken as a whole, that always produces occulations in proportion to successive distances. Were its shape different, this would not result, as one might see from the following considerations as well.

If it were concave, the stars would appear to rise earlier for more westernly observers. If it were planar, they would rise and set for all observers on the earth at the same times.

How was this verified exactly? Ptolemy couldn't telephone someone who lived a few thousand km away and ask them if they were watching the lunar eclipse while he was. Nor did accurate clocks exist at the time, making it questionable whether he actually had anything to back the claim that distance was proportional to time difference. Given Ptolemy's fraudulence I am inclined to believe invented this information, and probably much more.

Another point Ptolemy didn't acknowledge, though Tom Bishop pointed it out, is that all these observations are consistent with a flat earth and the near-circular orbits of the heavenly bodies about the north pole. Even if these observations had something backing them up it wouldn't prove anything.

Where is the north pole on a disc? And how can you have a north pole without a south pole? What generates the magnetic force, and why does it only affect the north pole?

Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #66 on: May 08, 2011, 11:44:51 PM »
Quote
Tom, please show me where the the Saros cycle alone can be used to predict the path of an eclipse.

Look at the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. He tells you how to do it towards the end of the chapter.

Quote
Also, please show me an FE model that demonstrates the the principles of solar and lunar eclipses.  You keep talking about how they occur, but you have yet to show how they work in an FE context.  I wonder why that is.  ::)

Why do I need to draw a pretty picture to convey the idea that a body passes between the sun and the moon every so often to cause the eclipse?

Because the sun & moon are just 3000 miles above us, if something came between them, we’d know what it was, so please, draw a picture of how this happens, and don’t refer me to Rowbothams fantasy tale if inaccuracies and lies, it’s no more a book of scientific evidence than the bible

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2011, 05:34:01 AM »
What good is the word of a fraud?

http://www.newsfinder.org/site/readings/the_time_of_ptolemy

    "Probably the most disturbing accusation against Ptolemy is that his figures were intentionally skewed and doctored to fit his hypotheses. A study of Ptolemy's figures was done in 1977, and the findings were that most of his data was fraudulent. For more on this subject, one should refer to the book by R. Newton, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Russell_Newton

    Robert Russell Newton, also R. R. Newton (July 7, 1918 - June 2, 1991) was an American physicist, astronomer, and historian of science.

    Newton was Supervisor of the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University. Newton was known for his book The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (1977). In Newton's view, Ptolemy was "the most successful fraud in the history of science". Newton showed that Ptolemy had predominantly obtained the astronomical results described in his work The Almagest by computation, and not by the direct observations that Ptolemy described.
So, Tom Bishop, are you going to accept that your explanation of the movement of the planets, including the retrograde motion, was based on a fraud and you have no explanation for the paths the planets take?

This is FE "theory" at its peak: use and denounce the very same work or data. Just believe nobody will remember when you used what you are now denouncing, and vice-versa.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43178
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #68 on: May 09, 2011, 06:36:00 AM »
Quote
Tom, please show me where the the Saros cycle alone can be used to predict the path of an eclipse.

Look at the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. He tells you how to do it towards the end of the chapter.

He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.

Quote
Also, please show me an FE model that demonstrates the the principles of solar and lunar eclipses.  You keep talking about how they occur, but you have yet to show how they work in an FE context.  I wonder why that is.  ::)

Why do I need to draw a pretty picture to convey the idea that a body passes between the sun and the moon every so often to cause the eclipse?

To show that it's possible in a FE system.  Is that really an unreasonable request?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18025
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #69 on: May 11, 2011, 09:37:05 PM »
Quote
He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.

Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the time interval of when it would occur again was predictable.

You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.

Quote
To show that it's possible in a FE system.  Is that really an unreasonable request?

Yes, it is an unreasonable request. Do I need to draw a bird in the sky to convey the idea that birds exist? Do I need to draw a picture of a witch to convey the idea that people once believed in the existence of witches?

Your imagination is good enough to visualize simple ideas.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2011, 07:48:02 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #70 on: May 11, 2011, 09:39:00 PM »
It's not an unreasonable request. RE can predict eclipses, why can't you show us how FET does it if it's possible. Unless of course it isn't possible, then we can safely assume you cant back yourself up Tom.

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #71 on: May 11, 2011, 10:54:50 PM »
Quote
He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.

Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the pattern of when it would occur was predictable.

You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.

Quote
To show that it's possible in a FE system.  Is that really an unreasonable request?

Yes, it is an unreasonable request. Do I need to draw a bird in the sky to convey the idea that birds exist? Do I need to draw a picture of a witch to convey the idea that people once believed in the existence of witches?

Your imagination is good enough to visualize simple ideas.

1. then how do they predict the location of the eclipse?  there is a reason they can tell you where one sees the solar eclipse and only a partial eclipse...
2. we have enough imagination, but a diagram would be nice, so we can see how it moves, the path, and what it seems to follow, if any, and we can draw some connection between other parts of the system
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #72 on: May 12, 2011, 03:10:17 AM »
2. we have enough imagination, but a diagram would be nice, so we can see how it moves, the path, and what it seems to follow, if any, and we can draw some connection between other parts of the system
This is why I think Tom is afraid of drawing any such diagram, it'll support one observation and then contradict others - sending us into an uproar, and sending Tom back into his huddled fetal position.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #73 on: May 12, 2011, 07:42:12 AM »
Quote
Tom, please show me where the the Saros cycle alone can be used to predict the path of an eclipse.

Look at the Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. He tells you how to do it towards the end of the chapter.

Quote
Also, please show me an FE model that demonstrates the the principles of solar and lunar eclipses.  You keep talking about how they occur, but you have yet to show how they work in an FE context.  I wonder why that is.  ::)

Why do I need to draw a pretty picture to convey the idea that a body passes between the sun and the moon every so often to cause the eclipse?
becuase then you can show us a geometric representation of the phenonmenon.  a diagram can show us other affects, and a model to base predictions off of.


furthermore, i dont own EnaG, so may you post another way for me to get the read?

  Here is ENaG,
   http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

?

vhu9644

  • 1011
  • Round earth supporter
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #74 on: May 12, 2011, 06:03:05 PM »
thanks
people i respect: Ski, Oracle, PizzaPlanet, Wendy

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 43178
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #75 on: May 13, 2011, 06:55:15 AM »
Quote
He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.

Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the time interval of when it would occur again was predictable.

You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.

I brought up the prediction of an eclipse's path because it's a prediction that RET can make, but FET doesn't seem to be able to.  Sounds like a point in RET's favor to me.

Quote
To show that it's possible in a FE system.  Is that really an unreasonable request?

Yes, it is an unreasonable request. Do I need to draw a bird in the sky to convey the idea that birds exist? Do I need to draw a picture of a witch to convey the idea that people once believed in the existence of witches?

I'm not asking you to prove the existence of birds, witches or lunar eclipses.  I'm asking you to show me how lunar eclipses work in FET.  Again, I don't think that it's an unreasonable request.


Your imagination is good enough to visualize simple ideas.

Apparently it isn't, otherwise I wouldn't be asking. 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #76 on: May 13, 2011, 12:04:30 PM »
Quote
He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.

Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the time interval of when it would occur again was predictable.

You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.

I brought up the prediction of an eclipse's path because it's a prediction that RET can make, but FET doesn't seem to be able to.  Sounds like a point in RET's favor to me.

The predictions of lunar eclipses in real science goes even further: anyone who looks carefully enough will see that the full moon is almost never perfect; at its fullest point in the lunar month a small strip of the moon, either on the side pointing to the North or the side pointing to the South relative to the observer, is not lighted. When that strip is negligible there is a strong possibility of a lunar eclipse, and never else.

This way you can predict the possibility of an eclipse even with just a hand held, small telescope, without any tables or knowledge of previous eclipses, and without careful, painstaking measurements of the exact position of the Sun and the Moon.

In this way you can make predictions that the FE'ers will never be able to match, and you will demolish Tom Bishop's tables and the anti-moon "hypothesis". And all of it with not much more than Galileo had, 400 years ago.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17990
Re: Conclusive Proof From Ptolemy
« Reply #77 on: May 21, 2011, 03:39:49 AM »
Quote
He talks about the time, magnitude and duration of lunar eclipses, but not their path.

Wait, where did I say anything on the first page about the path of the eclipse being predictable? I said that the time interval of when it would occur again was predictable.

You're the one who brought up the prediction of the eclipse's path, seemingly out of your own petard.

I brought up the prediction of an eclipse's path because it's a prediction that RET can make, but FET doesn't seem to be able to.  Sounds like a point in RET's favor to me.

Dur hur
Yes, thank you for teaching us elementary school physics.  Now, teach us to think - you may surprise even your jaded mind.
So long and thanks for all the fish