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?
Perhaps if we got help instead of criticism some of these things would be better studied.
The criticism is one way of helping. If no one points out the flaws and weaknesses, you can't build a sound model. For instance, if your model can't explain a sunset, it's not an adequate model.
We typically just focus on the challenges presented to us. It is difficult to work up the motivation to study the mechanics of a plate tectonics on a Flat Earth if there is no one there to debate.
I can see that. It would be best to address known inadequacies like travel times and distances, sunrises, sunsets, and the apparent motion of the stars, before tackling something really difficult like plate tectonics on a flat earth. Plate tectonics will be a
doozie.
The bigger issue is that your model can explain
almost nothing adequately. It's fun to expound on ideas like this as a parlor game, but if you want to convince many others it's a viable model, especially the scientific community, it's going to have to explain
everything the spinning spherical earth in a heliocentric solar system already explains quite adequately - and do it better. Good luck!
As I said, you still seem to have a comprehension issue.
From INDEX TO FIVE MILLENNIUM CATALOG OF LUNAR ECLIPSES http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEcat5/LEcatalog.html
Predictions
Lunar eclipse predictions must take into account the enlargement of Earth's shadows. In this Catalog, Earth's penumbral and umbral shadow sizes have been calculated using Danjon's enlargement method.
The coordinates of the Sun used in the predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory [Bretagnon and Francou, 1988]. The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides. The revised value used for the Moon's secular acceleration is n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy, as deduced from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment (Chapront, Chapront-Touze, and Francou, 2002).
The largest uncertainty in the eclipse predictions is caused by fluctuations in Earth's rotation due primarily to tidal friction of the Moon. The resultant drift in apparent clock time is expressed as ΔT and is determined as follows:
pre-1950's: ΔT calculated from empirical fits to historical records derived by Morrison and Stephenson (2004)
1955-2006: ΔT obtained from published observations
Post-2006: ΔT is extrapolated from current values weighted by the long term trend from tidal effects
A series of polynomial expressions have been derived to simplify the evaluation of ΔT for any time from -1999 to +3000. The uncertainty in ΔT over this period can be estimated from scatter in the measurements.
I suggest you concentrate on the second paragraph.
The usage of "coordinates" in that paragraph mean astronomical coordinates of bodies in the sky as seen from earth, not the coordinates of a sun in a Round Earth solar system. Astronomers, ancient and modern, have a system of sky coordinates upon which they describe observations. Terms like "23 degrees West past Zenith" are used. A clue that they are talking about that is that they also mention "-25.858 arc-sec/cy*cy,". An arc-sec, or a minute of an arc, is 1/60th of a degree. Degrees are used to express the 180 degrees of sky we see overhead. Arc-secs are units of measurement used in astronomy to talk about sizes of bodies as seen from a point on earth, or the distances of bodies from the horizon or from zenith, or perhaps from each other. It's a measurement of degrees in the sky.
There are several problems with this argument.
An arc-sec is a
second of arc, which is 1/60 of a minute of arc, or 1/3600 of a degree. That's why it's called an arc-
sec instead of an arc-
min.
The secular acceleration n-dot = -25.858 arc-sec/cy
2 represents the change in the rate the Moon's moves along the ecliptic longitude. This means the average speed the Moon appears to move around the ecliptic is slowing (the negative sign means it's getting slower) by almost 26 arc-
seconds per cycle, each cycle.
Modern astronomical coordinates are typically referenced to the celestial equator and equinox of a specific epoch (an epoch is a specific date and time) and not a specific point in the sky as seen from earth. Planetary positions (and the Sun) are usually calculated using a coordinate system with its origin at the solar system barycenter (center of mass), which is close to or within the Sun. Calculated positions in barycentric coordinates can then be translated to other locations, such as geocentric, as needed. Geocentric coordinates can be translated to topocentric coordinates (your very own location), then rotated into your local altitude and azimuth as desired. There are a number of coordinate systems in use for current work; which is used depends on the problem at hand - whatever is easiest is usually selected because it's almost trivial to convert the results into other coordinate systems. I can't speak for the ancients; theirs were probably all topocentric using local level and maybe north.
That's the same page which mentioned that VSOP87 was used to predict eclipses. Maybe you don't understand my question. Where does it say that NASA uses primarily the Saros cycle to predict eclipses?
Actually, that page says "The coordinates of the Sun used in the predictions are based on the VSOP87 theory ". It says nothing of the Moon. Part of that page predicts the location of the sun during the lunar eclipse using that theory. But there are no observations to verify those predictions.
Yes it does. You must have missed "For the Moon, use has been made of the theory ELP-2000/82 of M. Chapront-Touze and J. Chapront [1983]", and "The Moon's coordinates are based on the ELP-2000/82 theory [Chapront-Touze and Chapront, 1983]. For more information, see: Solar and Lunar Ephemerides." as paraphrased in the quoted text.
What do you mean "no observations to verify those predictions"? Are you suggesting that no one can see the Sun while a lunar eclipse is in progress? This is ridiculous. People study the Sun every day (even when a lunar eclipse is in progress on the other side of the world), many using automated telescopes that would not be pointing at the Sun if it wasn't where it was expected.
Incidentally, VSOP is used for the long-range predictions. Many of the recent and soon-to-happen ones
use the JPL DE405 Ephemeris for the location of Sun, Earth, and Moon; it's quite accurate.
Here is an example; look at the lower left of the page for the reference to DE405. Other mathematical models and ephemerides can be used, giving similar results. Of the bunch, I think DE405 is the most precise, but don't quote me on that.
If these models were any good, it would be easy for you to look up an instance where the theory was put to the test and actually predicted something in the sky.
It's
very easy, and these are put to the test
all the time. Get a smartphone and the Sky Safari app (US$3 for the basic app, I think). If you don't have or want a smartphone, get Stellarium for your computer (it's free). You must have at least one or the other of these devices if you're here. Check it out for yourself; see where they predict the Sun, Moon, and planets are at any time. Compare with the sky at the time of the prediction. Compare again on other nights and/or other locations. Works
every time.
These programs can be used to accurately point telescopes to the Moon and planets. They're used for exactly that all the time.
[Edit] Moved parenthetic statement with cost for Sky Safari.