Taking prediction to the next level - Moon Phases & Libration 2015

tl;dr Moon calculator for 2015 http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4236

There are often arguments on this site about Round-Earthers being the ones that have all the predictions --Mars' retrograde, Venus transit, lunar / solar eclipse, etc. The Flat-Earthers argue anyone can make the same predictions and that the predictions are not reliant on a heliocentric round-earth model. The tables of data are what allows said predictions to be made. People have been recording positions of stars, constellations, planets, etc. for centuries and the repetition is apparent to anyone who has studied them enough.

It is also argued whether NASA is doing any real science. Tom Bishop used to argue that astronomy is not a real science. You make a theory about the gases that are on the planet Jupiter and no one can prove you wrong. So to him it was the most bogus science possible.

Well, here is a moon phase and libration calculator. You enter in a specific time in the year 2015 and it will show you exactly how the moon will be positioned.

Now perhaps NASA controls the moon... Yes... yes that's what is going on... not math or astronomy. No one can be that good at math and astronomy is bogus.

I took a random guess about which time of the year I might be able to bump this thread and hope someone can take a good picture of the moon. BTW I've loved looking at the Jupiter thread. It is spectacular to see members of this forum showing how accessible documenting our planetary neighborhood can be. But anyway, I don't have a camera so maybe someone could photograph the moon at the time of a prediction so we could see if it's accurate.

May 31, 2015 UTC 04:00


September 01, 2015 UTC 08:00


Feel free to add your own images. The calculator generates an image below. Copy the image address of that image and paste here after clicking mona lisa.

Oh and a nice little video

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">NASA | Moon Phases 2015, Northern Hemisphere

I am glad that somebody is posting this because what makes a good model for the universe is the ability to predict things.  Flat earthers can't even agree on what the planets and the Moon are, let alone make predictions using their model.

I challenge any and all flat earthers to make an accurate prediction about the position and/or phase of a planet or the Moon using the flat Earth model.  Please show your work and don't cheat by using the standard model.

I concur with mikeman that it's refreshing to see someone actually looking for usefulness in various models rather than endlessly bellyaching about how "what we're taught can't possibly be true, it just can't because I say so!"

So how do lunar librations work if the Moon isn't a sphere? Several FE proponents here deny that it is. If it's not a sphere, how does this happen? Not only does it happen, but it can be accurately predicted.

Some ascribe to the notion that eclipses aren't due to the relative position of the sun, earth and moon, but are, instead, due to other bodies of uncertain nature. If so, or if you think not, can anyone show how the path of a total or annular solar eclipse can be predicted, to within a second and certainly within a km, on a flat earth? If anyone can, then can they make their calculations or computer algorithms available? The USNO (US Naval Observatory) does; theirs is called the NOVAS package, and it's based on a spinning ellipsoidal earth and heliocentric solar system. It works very well.

The OP of this thread is arguing in favor of FE. The predictions of the moon, and of RET astronomy in general, are based on tables which log recurring phenomena. The fact that astronomical events can be predicted based on looking at patterns has nothing to do with the truth of a model. Aristotle was able to predict the Lunar Eclipse thousands of years into the future, and he believed that the earth was the center of the universe. The ancient Babylonians were similarly able to predict celestial events, and they believed in a planar earth.

It is no great feat to pick out a pattern in the heavens and predict when the next event will occur.

The OP of this thread is arguing in favor of FE. The predictions of the moon, and of RET astronomy in general, are based on tables which log recurring phenomena. The fact that astronomical events can be predicted based on looking at patterns has nothing to do with the truth of a model. Aristotle was able to predict the Lunar Eclipse thousands of years into the future, and he believed that the earth was the center of the universe. The ancient Babylonians were similarly able to predict celestial events, and they believed in a planar earth.

It is no great feat to pick out a pattern in the heavens and predict when the next event will occur.

You continually act like an ostrich towards mathematical modeling that can predict the position of the moon and other celestial bodies.  Is there a good reason for it or is it just out of convenience for you?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 03, 2015, 08:57:59 PM

The OP of this thread is arguing in favor of FE. The predictions of the moon, and of RET astronomy in general, are based on tables which log recurring phenomena. The fact that astronomical events can be predicted based on looking at patterns has nothing to do with the truth of a model. Aristotle was able to predict the Lunar Eclipse thousands of years into the future, and he believed that the earth was the center of the universe. The ancient Babylonians were similarly able to predict celestial events, and they believed in a planar earth.

It is no great feat to pick out a pattern in the heavens and predict when the next event will occur.

You continually act like an ostrich towards mathematical modeling that can predict the position of the moon and other celestial bodies.  Is there a good reason for it or is it just out of convenience for you?

Do you think there are mathematical models for RET? There is NO model under Round Earth Theory which predicts the Lunar Eclipse based on the geometric positions of the sun, moon and earth. This is even admitted by NASA. If you go to NASA's page about the Lunar Eclipse and scroll down to the how the eclipses are predicted links we see that the "modern" method of Lunar Eclipse prediction in the 2015 science facilities of NASA involves using ancient Childean methods!

Hi tom can you like me to the fe model of the solar system and earth moon system that shows the mechanics behind lunar eclipses and planets passing in front and behind the sun. Just so we can compare models. That would be great.

Do you think there are mathematical models for RET? There is NO model under Round Earth Theory which predicts the Lunar Eclipse based on the geometric positions of the sun, moon and earth. This is even admitted by NASA. If you go to NASA's page about the Lunar Eclipse and scroll down to the how the eclipses are predicted link we see that the "modern" method of Lunar Eclipse prediction in the 2015 science facilities of NASA involves using ancient Childean methods!

The fact that lunar/solar eclipses happen periodically can be beautifully explained in RE model.

The Sun/Earth orbital plane (the oval made as the Earth goes around the Sun each year) and the Earth/Moon orbital plane (our local oval) are not the same – the Earth/Moon plane is tilted slightly off the Sun/Earth plane by 5.2 degrees (small, but just enough). That is, the Moon spends some time above and some times below the Sun/Earth orbital plane, while sitting right in the plane only two times each orbit (where the two planes intersect). How do we know this? Simple. If the Earth/Moon plane were exactly in the Sun/Earth plane, there would be a total solar eclipse and total lunar eclipse every month because there would be a time each month (New Moon) when the Sun, Moon, and Earth made a straight line (Sun-Moon-Earth = solar eclipse) and a time each month (Full Moon) when the Sun, Earth, and Moon made a straight line (Sun-Earth-Moon = lunar eclipse). As the two planes are slightly off, the New Moon is simply “off the radar” of most people because it can’t be seen during the daytime. The Full Moon, on the other hand, is brilliantly bright most of the time because it only infrequently enters the Earth’s shadow.

The image below shows this very nicely.



How do you explain the periodical lunar/solar eclipses using FE model Tom?

Do you think there are mathematical models for RET? There is NO model under Round Earth Theory which predicts the Lunar Eclipse based on the geometric positions of the sun, moon and earth. This is even admitted by NASA. If you go to NASA's page about the Lunar Eclipse and scroll down to the how the eclipses are predicted link we see that the "modern" method of Lunar Eclipse prediction in the 2015 science facilities of NASA involves using ancient Childean methods!

Poppycock. The planetarium software on my phone and my laptop uses orbital elements and equations based on a heliocentric model of the solar system to predict the position of the moon and sun at any date and time you choose to go to. The method used by open-source planetaria  can be identified by anybody capable of reading code.

The NASA site makes no such admission, unsurprising as it is a section geared to explaining what Saros cycles are and how they are useful as a shortcut to identifying eclipses . I see your time over at tfes.org hasn't improved your comprehension and debating skills.


Edit: Corrected spelling mistake

Hi tom can you like me to the fe model of the solar system and earth moon system that shows the mechanics behind lunar eclipses and planets passing in front and behind the sun. Just so we can compare models. That would be great.

See http://wiki.tfes.org/The_Lunar_Eclipse

A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from wherever the moon is visible, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.

Total lunar eclipses come in clusters. There can be two or three during a period of a year or a year and a half, followed by a lull of two or three years before another round begins. When you add partial eclipses there can be three in a calendar year and again, it's quite possible to have none at all.

The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has provided equations for finding the time, magnitude, and duration of a Lunar Eclipse at the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

There is also a possibility that the Shadow Object is a known celestial body which orbits the sun; but more study would be needed to track the positions of Mercury, Venus and the sun's asteroid satellites and correlate them with the equations for the lunar eclipse before conclusion could be drawn.

Poppycock. The planetarium software on my phone and muy laptop uses orbital elements and equations based on a heliocentric model of the solar system to predict the position of the moon and sun at any date and time you choose to go to. The method used by open-source planetaria
 can be identified by anybody capable of reading code.

The NASA site makes no such admission, unsurprising as it is a section geared to explaining what Saros cycles are and how they are useful as a shortcut to identifying eclipses . I see your time over at tfes.org hasn't improved your comprehension and debating skills.

Go to NASA's official Lunar Eclipse page and scroll to the bottom in the reference links and try to find out how the eclipses were predicted. You will not see any statements or suggestions on that page or in those links that the eclipse is predicted based on any geometric RET system. You will only find references to ancient methods.

We see that the references are full of links such as:

Six Millennium Catalog of Lunar Eclipses: -2999 to +3000
Catalog of Lunar Eclipse Saros Series
Eclipses and the Saros
Periodicity of Lunar Eclipses

No other method is presented. NASA is candidly admitting that they need to use ancient methods for their astronomy. They are using a method from a society which believed that the earth was flat, no less.

And a model of the orbits of the planets tom?

And a model of the orbits of the planets tom?

The planets are of less interest, and therefore less studied, but we maintain a page on them here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets

Thanks, that's some pretty sophisticated stuff:

Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?
A. Pretty small.

 

Well that link is to a easily disprove hypothesis. Have you got a model that includes solar transits of mercury and Venus and then the movement behind the sun?

Well that link is to a easily disprove hypothesis. Have you got a model that includes solar transits of mercury and Venus and then the movement behind the sun?

Mercury and Venus also retrograde.

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 04, 2015, 10:41:05 AM

And a model of the orbits of the planets tom?

The planets are of less interest, and therefore less studied, but we maintain a page on them here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets

or too difficult to explain...

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 04, 2015, 10:48:19 AM

Well that link is to a easily disprove hypothesis. Have you got a model that includes solar transits of mercury and Venus and then the movement behind the sun?

Mercury and Venus also retrograde.

That's not what I asked. Show me a model that allows Venus and mercury to pass in front of and then behind the sun whole the other planets just move behind the sun.

In FET why don't  the sun, moon, and planets fall to the Earth?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 10:44:48 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 04, 2015, 10:41:05 AM

And a model of the orbits of the planets tom?

The planets are of less interest, and therefore less studied, but we maintain a page on them here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets

or too difficult to explain...

The planets rarely come up in discussion, except for occasional discussion on retrogrades. There is a misconception that Mercury and Venus do not retrograde. This misconception comes from the fact that under the Heliocentric model the paths of Mercury and Venus should not retrograde in the sky. But, in fact they do. A cursory Google search turns up numerous references and timetables for their retrograde.

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/lectures/copernicus.htm

[Copernius] had used a different type of epicycle to explain the motions of Mercury and Venus than were used for Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

The book Celestial Revolutionary: Copernicus, the Man and His Universe goes into some more detail how the Heliocentric model did not originally work, and Mercury and Venus had to be placed moving around different points than the other planets in order to produce the retrograde. This is a blow to the Round Earth Theory.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 10:57:06 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 04, 2015, 10:48:19 AM

Well that link is to a easily disprove hypothesis. Have you got a model that includes solar transits of mercury and Venus and then the movement behind the sun?

Mercury and Venus also retrograde.

That's not what I asked. Show me a model that allows Venus and mercury to pass in front of and then behind the sun whole the other planets just move behind the sun.

When the sun is in your area it would be difficult for a planet  orbiting the sun at a far distance from it to pass in front of the sun. Only those nearest to it could ever seem to pass in front of it. It is possible to see Jupiter travel behind the sun because there is more space over the night side of the earth where a far off planet could gain enough space and angle to align.

Care to put that down in a diagram because that makes absolutely no sense.

Care to put that down in a diagram because that makes absolutely no sense.

If a planet is orbiting the sun far from it then it would be difficult for the planet to intersect the path between you and the sun during the day when the sun is nearest to you.

But if the far away planet is over the night side of the earth there is more space for it to align behind the sun.

What's day or night on earth got to do with the orbits of the planets?

What's day or night on earth got to do with the orbits of the planets?

The planets are orbiting the sun. The sun is closer to you during the day than at night. Therefore, during the day there is a larger gap on the night side where Jupiter might get aligned behind the sun to an observer on the day side.

During the day Jupiter would not come between you and the sun because it is circling the sun at a far distance away from it.

Literally non of that works with observations. I actually think you have just strung words together and thrown a few astronomical ones in with it.

What angle to the earth do.they rotate around the Sun?

Literally non of that works with observations. I actually think you have just strung words together and thrown a few astronomical ones in with it.

What angle to the earth do.they rotate around the Sun?

The matter has not been studied and is presently unknown.

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 04, 2015, 11:46:18 AM

Literally non of that works with observations. I actually think you have just strung words together and thrown a few astronomical ones in with it.

What angle to the earth do.they rotate around the Sun?

The matter has not been studied and is presently unknown.

Why has no one ever studied it? Or has it been studied and shown to not fit with fe?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 04, 2015, 11:50:40 AM

Quote from: Pythagoras on January 04, 2015, 11:46:18 AM

Literally non of that works with observations. I actually think you have just strung words together and thrown a few astronomical ones in with it.

What angle to the earth do.they rotate around the Sun?

The matter has not been studied and is presently unknown.

Why has no one ever studied it? Or has it been studied Nd shown to not fit with fe?

There has not been a conversation to give us reason to study it. There are thousands of things we could study about the earth and the stars. We focus on the challenges presented to us.

Well the moon planets stars and the such seem to make up an awful lot of the questions hear and seems fe has no answer for them that stands up to scrutiny. Perhaps a re shifting of priorities?

What does fe socioty focus it's research studies on? Just out of interest?