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

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:22:07 AM

Alpha has not responded back to my challenge of showing where the predictions of these models have met reality. All I'm seeing is "people would have noticed" and "go try it yourself".

That is not evidence. If you read deep enough into these types of models there is often always an excuse that the predictions are not accurate because of some celestial reason with perturbations in gravity, or a similar cop out.

I'm afraid I am done here.

Uh, Tom, there are photos that people have posted on this forum before of actual differences in libration. Why not user the search function? If I can find them so can you.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 07:43:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:22:07 AM

Alpha has not responded back to my challenge of showing where the predictions of these models have met reality. All I'm seeing is "people would have noticed" and "go try it yourself".

That is not evidence. If you read deep enough into these types of models there is often always an excuse that the predictions are not accurate because of some celestial reason with perturbations in gravity, or a similar cop out.

I'm afraid I am done here.

Uh, Tom, there are photos that people have posted on this forum before of actual differences in libration. Why not user the search function? If I can find them so can you.

The conversation has moved on to another subject. Please try to keep up.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:51:06 AM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 07:43:58 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:22:07 AM

Alpha has not responded back to my challenge of showing where the predictions of these models have met reality. All I'm seeing is "people would have noticed" and "go try it yourself".

That is not evidence. If you read deep enough into these types of models there is often always an excuse that the predictions are not accurate because of some celestial reason with perturbations in gravity, or a similar cop out.

I'm afraid I am done here.

Uh, Tom, there are photos that people have posted on this forum before of actual differences in libration. Why not user the search function? If I can find them so can you.

The conversation has moved on to another subject. Please try to keep up.

I thought you were done here? Especially as your avatar says you're not on this forum any more.

It was claimed that RET had predictive models, but as typical, nothing could be predicted.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 09:28:05 AM

It was claimed that RET had predictive models, but as typical, nothing could be predicted.

We do Tom:

NASA Lunar Eclipse Web Site

Can you now please post me a link to a similar flat earth eclipse prediction site?  Thanks.

Did you bother reading this thread?

There is nothing much else for me to do here except to leave. Goodbye.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 11, 2015, 09:32:45 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 09:28:05 AM

It was claimed that RET had predictive models, but as typical, nothing could be predicted.

We do Tom:

NASA Lunar Eclipse Web Site

Can you now please post me a link to a similar flat earth eclipse prediction site?  Thanks.

Did you bother reading this thread? That is a Flat Earth prediction website. NASA admits that they are using methods created by the Ancient Babylonians, a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat!

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f

Did you bother reading this thread? That is a Flat Earth prediction website. NASA admits that they are using methods created by the Ancient Babylonians, a civilization of people who believed that the earth was flat!

http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f

Alpha has not responded back to my challenge of showing where the predictions of these models have met reality. All I'm seeing is "people would have noticed" and "go try it yourself".

That is not evidence. If you read deep enough into these types of models there is often always an excuse that the predictions are not accurate because of some celestial reason with perturbations in gravity, or a similar cop out.

I'm afraid I am done here.

Alpha has not responded back to my challenge of showing where the predictions of these models have met reality. All I'm seeing is "people would have noticed" and "go try it yourself".

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:22:07 AM

Alpha has not responded back to my challenge of showing where the predictions of these models have met reality. All I'm seeing is "people would have noticed" and "go try it yourself".

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 06:55:11 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 05:56:06 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:22:07 AM

Alpha has not responded back to my challenge of showing where the predictions of these models have met reality. All I'm seeing is "people would have noticed" and "go try it yourself".

Alpha gave you just that, you refuse to listen. Instead of quoting yourself, explain why what Alpha posted was not correct.

This has nothing to do with Lunar libration, but it seems like you might not be specifically looking for libration predictions. Look through this thread for some first hand predictions of Jupiter moon positions. There are even a few pics from different people that were taken on the same nights, to confirm the predictions further! I stopped short though, winter weather did not make for good viewing conditions. This is only ONE form of predictions which can be made with the RE model. I will be awaiting your response.

He just claimed that people would have noticed and that I should go do it myself. That is not evidence that the models match reality.

A paper was linked that said something about the position of Mars being predicable, but then again that paper came from NASA. Of course that is something a fake space agency would claim. It would look odd if they said that they were having trouble prediction the position of Mars, having sent space craft there. This particular piece of evidence is totally invalid off the bat.

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study.

"I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

A "polished study" isn't required for something that's so basic. I have a telescope mount, I align it, I select Vega on my controller, and it points to it every time. What more of a prediction do you need for God's sakes? This isn't something you write a paper about, it's something anyone can do. So if you're going to deny it, we're going to continue to ask you to try it yourself, perfectly justified.

And you also can't just throw a few days worth of photographic evidence into the trash just because it isn't in the format you'd like, either.

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

A "polished study" isn't required for something that's so basic. I have a telescope mount, I align it, I select Vega on my controller, and it points to it every time. What more of a prediction do you need for God's sakes? This isn't something you write a paper about, it's something anyone can do. So if you're going to deny it, we're going to continue to ask you to try it yourself, perfectly justified.

And you also can't just throw a few days worth of photographic evidence into the trash just because it isn't in the format you'd like, either.

Yes, well, I made an observation and it proved you wrong. And I tried it myself and I was justified. So do you understand why the need for proper evidence from an unconnected and unbiased source is needed?

Secondly, and as I've mentioned, the prediction for the positions of stars is not really in dispute, which is why those comments keep getting ignored. The stars are static against the sky and are trivial to model. A plastic star chart models their positions perfectly well. We are talking about a model which predicts the position of bodies into the future based on orbital mechanics. This is where the Round Earth model fails. There is no such model which can meet reality.

Finally, whether a computerized geometric model of the solar system accurately predicts the position of celestial bodies and the orbital mechanics involved in three dimensions is in no way "basic". It is not above the need to be verified with experiments and observations. I don't know why anyone would believe that. That's one of the first things it needs for acceptance.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:55:43 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

A "polished study" isn't required for something that's so basic. I have a telescope mount, I align it, I select Vega on my controller, and it points to it every time. What more of a prediction do you need for God's sakes? This isn't something you write a paper about, it's something anyone can do. So if you're going to deny it, we're going to continue to ask you to try it yourself, perfectly justified.

And you also can't just throw a few days worth of photographic evidence into the trash just because it isn't in the format you'd like, either.

Yes, well, I made an observation and it proved you wrong. And I tried it myself and I was justified. So do you understand why the need for proper evidence from an unconnected and unbiased source is needed?

Secondly, and as I've mentioned, the prediction for the positions of stars is not really in dispute, which is why those comments keep getting ignored. The stars are static against the sky and are trivial to model. A plastic star chart models their positions perfectly well. We are talking about a model which predicts the position of bodies into the future based on orbital mechanics. This is where the Round Earth model fails. There is no such model which can meet reality.

Finally, whether a computerized geometric model of the solar system accurately predicts the position of celestial bodies and the orbital mechanics involved in three dimensions is in no way "basic". It is not above the need to be verified with experiments and observations. I don't know why anyone would believe that. That's one of the first things it needs for acceptance.

If you are going to try to disprove my Jupiter predictions, then I would like an equivalent form of photographic evidence. As for telescope mounts, just look up a video on how they work. I'd like to know how you disprove the alignment of mounts.

As for stars: I used Vega as an example, a telescope mount with a Go-To controller can track any celestial body, including planets. You can get one and try it yourself for less than $200. Just get a cheap finder scope to align.

If you're referring to Space Engine in that last part, I posted that for FE'ers to use as a guide for what the RE model is. I am not using it as evidence. However it can show you the effectiveness of the RE model, and how ridiculous the FE model is in comparison.

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 08:05:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:55:43 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

A "polished study" isn't required for something that's so basic. I have a telescope mount, I align it, I select Vega on my controller, and it points to it every time. What more of a prediction do you need for God's sakes? This isn't something you write a paper about, it's something anyone can do. So if you're going to deny it, we're going to continue to ask you to try it yourself, perfectly justified.

And you also can't just throw a few days worth of photographic evidence into the trash just because it isn't in the format you'd like, either.

Yes, well, I made an observation and it proved you wrong. And I tried it myself and I was justified. So do you understand why the need for proper evidence from an unconnected and unbiased source is needed?

Secondly, and as I've mentioned, the prediction for the positions of stars is not really in dispute, which is why those comments keep getting ignored. The stars are static against the sky and are trivial to model. A plastic star chart models their positions perfectly well. We are talking about a model which predicts the position of bodies into the future based on orbital mechanics. This is where the Round Earth model fails. There is no such model which can meet reality.

Finally, whether a computerized geometric model of the solar system accurately predicts the position of celestial bodies and the orbital mechanics involved in three dimensions is in no way "basic". It is not above the need to be verified with experiments and observations. I don't know why anyone would believe that. That's one of the first things it needs for acceptance.

If you are going to try to disprove my Jupiter predictions, then I would like an equivalent form of photographic evidence. As for telescope mounts, just look up a video on how they work. I'd like to know how you disprove the alignment of mounts.

As for stars: I used Vega as an example, a telescope mount with a Go-To controller can track any celestial body, including planets. You can get one and try it yourself for less than $200. Just get a cheap finder scope to align.

If you're referring to Space Engine in that last part, I posted that for FE'ers to use as a guide for what the RE model is. I am not using it as evidence. However it can show you the effectiveness of the RE model, and how ridiculous the FE model is in comparison.

Sigh. The Go-To controller is using well known astronomical tables. In astronomy everything is predicted by looking recurring patterns in the sky, including the eclipses, positions of the moon, and paths of planets. If you know the pattern they come in, you can predict when the next one will occur. This is the modus operandi in astronomical predictions, and it has been this way for thousands of years. This is how Aristotle did it, this is how the Babylonians did it, this is how they all did it.

What we are talking about is the ability for a geometric model of the solar system, using orbital mechanics, being able to predict the position of celestial bodies into the future. This has not shown to be possible. It has not been demonstrated. Not at all. You would think, that after putting all of this effort into modeling the solar system, that someone would think to put their model to the test.

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

I'm a little surprised you'd ask for something like this because the general attitude around here is to scoff at such.

A paper was linked that said something about the position of Mars being predicable, but then again that paper came from NASA. Of course that is something a fake space agency would claim. It would look odd if they said that they were having trouble predicting the position of Mars, having sent space craft there. This particular piece of evidence is totally invalid off the bat.

Scoff at that if you want to, but, in fact, every time I use my (surprisingly inexpensive) telescope to automatically slew to a solar system object I am conducting exactly that experiment. It never fails[nb]Except for one of the first times I used it; the alignment was messed up and it couldn't find anything else, either. After resetting the mount and and repeating the alignment procedure, it worked fine. I probably aligned on the wrong star on the initial attempt; if you do that, all bets are off.[/nb]. This doesn't warrant publishing a paper.

Better, yet - you don't have to take my word, or any published author's word, that it works - you can try it for yourself, which is the Zetetic way, isn't it? Have you tried this? If not, what are you afraid of?

With this logic, you can just claim anything is just an observation of recurring patterns. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Of course, the mathematics to create those astronomical tables used in the GoTo controller take into account orbital mechanics, since that would be the only way to accurately predict the position of any celestial body. But you're not going to accept that.

I'd like to bring up space engine again, because it is based on orbital mechanics to make predictions on the positions of celestial bodies.

I think what you don't realize is that the only way to predict the position of planets is to use gravitational formulas- there's no other way. Try to do the math yourself.

Also, learn to have some respect. "Sigh." Disgusting.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

I gave you a published study. In the same post:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 06, 2015, 01:57:03 PM

I'm a little surprised you'd ask for something like this because the general attitude around here is to scoff at such.

Your (not unexpected) reply:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:05:25 PM

A paper was linked that said something about the position of Mars being predicable, but then again that paper came from NASA. Of course that is something a fake space agency would claim. It would look odd if they said that they were having trouble predicting the position of Mars, having sent space craft there. This particular piece of evidence is totally invalid off the bat.

Continuing with the very next paragraph after the reference:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 06, 2015, 01:57:03 PM

Scoff at that if you want to, but, in fact, every time I use my (surprisingly inexpensive) telescope to automatically slew to a solar system object I am conducting exactly that experiment. It never fails[nb]Except for one of the first times I used it; the alignment was messed up and it couldn't find anything else, either. After resetting the mount and and repeating the alignment procedure, it worked fine. I probably aligned on the wrong star on the initial attempt; if you do that, all bets are off.[/nb]. This doesn't warrant publishing a paper.

Better, yet - you don't have to take my word, or any published author's word, that it works - you can try it for yourself, which is the Zetetic way, isn't it? Have you tried this? If not, what are you afraid of?

Note the last paragraph before the footnote.

You won't take a published paper as an answer (even though you asked for exactly that). You won't take anyone else's personal experience as an answer. That leaves only you to verify for yourself. Are you afraid to try to test these things you say don't work?

Are you telling me with a straight face that these people went to great lengths to make these geometric models which model celestial dynamics, that they published all sorts of details about them over many papers which describe the theory, how they work, and how they are designed, but neglected to publish anything showing that the model was able to predict things in reality?

Come on, you know better than that. That is the absolute first thing that would be done for these models to gain acceptance. If you have faith that these predictive and superior RET models exist, then you will keep looking for these papers. If none are found we must conclude that they simply do not exist.

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 08:53:48 PM

With this logic, you can just claim anything is just an observation of recurring patterns. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Of course, the mathematics to create those astronomical tables used in the GoTo controller take into account orbital mechanics, since that would be the only way to accurately predict the position of any celestial body. But you're not going to accept that.

I'd like to bring up space engine again, because it is based on orbital mechanics to make predictions on the positions of celestial bodies.

I think what you don't realize is that the only way to predict the position of planets is to use gravitational formulas- there's no other way. Try to do the math yourself.

Also, learn to have some respect. "Sigh." Disgusting.

Where does this space engine program claim to make accurate celestial predictions? I've just read that "Millions of galaxies, trillions of stars, countless planets - all available for exploration. You can land any planet, moon or asteroid and watch alien landscapes and celestial phenomena. You can even pilot starships and atmospheric shuttles."

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 11, 2015, 10:22:39 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

I gave you a published study. In the same post:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 06, 2015, 01:57:03 PM

I'm a little surprised you'd ask for something like this because the general attitude around here is to scoff at such.

Your (not unexpected) reply:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:05:25 PM

A paper was linked that said something about the position of Mars being predicable, but then again that paper came from NASA. Of course that is something a fake space agency would claim. It would look odd if they said that they were having trouble predicting the position of Mars, having sent space craft there. This particular piece of evidence is totally invalid off the bat.

Continuing with the very next paragraph after the reference:

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 06, 2015, 01:57:03 PM

Scoff at that if you want to, but, in fact, every time I use my (surprisingly inexpensive) telescope to automatically slew to a solar system object I am conducting exactly that experiment. It never fails[nb]Except for one of the first times I used it; the alignment was messed up and it couldn't find anything else, either. After resetting the mount and and repeating the alignment procedure, it worked fine. I probably aligned on the wrong star on the initial attempt; if you do that, all bets are off.[/nb]. This doesn't warrant publishing a paper.

Better, yet - you don't have to take my word, or any published author's word, that it works - you can try it for yourself, which is the Zetetic way, isn't it? Have you tried this? If not, what are you afraid of?

Note the last paragraph before the footnote.

You won't take a published paper as an answer (even though you asked for exactly that). You won't take anyone else's personal experience as an answer. That leaves only you to verify for yourself. Are you afraid to try to test these things you say don't work?

The published paper you linked to about Mars from nasa.gov was invalid for reasons already stated.

Are you telling me with a straight face that these people went to great lengths to make these geometric models which model celestial dynamics, that they published all sorts of details about them over many papers which describe the theory, how they work, and how they are designed, but neglected to publish anything showing that the model was able to actually predict things in reality?

Come on, you know better than that. That is the absolute first thing that would be done for these models to gain acceptance. If you have faith that these predictive and superior RET models exist, then you will keep looking. If no papers are found we must conclude that they simply do not exist, and that these models are not so proven after all.

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 08:05:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:55:43 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

A "polished study" isn't required for something that's so basic. I have a telescope mount, I align it, I select Vega on my controller, and it points to it every time. What more of a prediction do you need for God's sakes? This isn't something you write a paper about, it's something anyone can do. So if you're going to deny it, we're going to continue to ask you to try it yourself, perfectly justified.

And you also can't just throw a few days worth of photographic evidence into the trash just because it isn't in the format you'd like, either.

Yes, well, I made an observation and it proved you wrong. And I tried it myself and I was justified. So do you understand why the need for proper evidence from an unconnected and unbiased source is needed?

Secondly, and as I've mentioned, the prediction for the positions of stars is not really in dispute, which is why those comments keep getting ignored. The stars are static against the sky and are trivial to model. A plastic star chart models their positions perfectly well. We are talking about a model which predicts the position of bodies into the future based on orbital mechanics. This is where the Round Earth model fails. There is no such model which can meet reality.

Finally, whether a computerized geometric model of the solar system accurately predicts the position of celestial bodies and the orbital mechanics involved in three dimensions is in no way "basic". It is not above the need to be verified with experiments and observations. I don't know why anyone would believe that. That's one of the first things it needs for acceptance.

If you are going to try to disprove my Jupiter predictions, then I would like an equivalent form of photographic evidence. As for telescope mounts, just look up a video on how they work. I'd like to know how you disprove the alignment of mounts.

As for stars: I used Vega as an example, a telescope mount with a Go-To controller can track any celestial body, including planets. You can get one and try it yourself for less than $200. Just get a cheap finder scope to align.

If you're referring to Space Engine in that last part, I posted that for FE'ers to use as a guide for what the RE model is. I am not using it as evidence. However it can show you the effectiveness of the RE model, and how ridiculous the FE model is in comparison.

Sigh. The Go-To controller is using well known astronomical tables. In astronomy everything is predicted by looking recurring patterns in the sky, including the eclipses, positions of the moon, and paths of planets. If you know the pattern they come in, you can predict when the next one will occur. This is the modus operandi in astronomical predictions, and it has been this way for thousands of years. This is how Aristotle did it, this is how the Babylonians did it, this is how they all did it.

What we are talking about is the ability for a geometric model of the solar system, using orbital mechanics, being able to predict the position of celestial bodies into the future. This has not shown to be possible. It has not been demonstrated. Not at all. You would think, that after putting all of this effort into modeling the solar system, that someone would think to put their model to the test.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 08:37:14 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 08:05:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:55:43 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:41:46 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:35:01 PM

Quote from: Jet Fission on January 11, 2015, 07:18:52 PM

So you decide to skip more than half of Alpha's post explaining how these predictions are confirmed on a daily basis as well as by himself with a telescope mount (I also own a telescope mount, like many other people on this forum which would confirm these basic facts), sunset/sunrise predictions, and my own findings on the positions of Jupiter's moons. You just decided to skip all of it. Stop being ridiculous.

Real evidence is required. Like a published study. "I proved that last week" is automatically thrown out as invalid around here.

A "polished study" isn't required for something that's so basic. I have a telescope mount, I align it, I select Vega on my controller, and it points to it every time. What more of a prediction do you need for God's sakes? This isn't something you write a paper about, it's something anyone can do. So if you're going to deny it, we're going to continue to ask you to try it yourself, perfectly justified.

And you also can't just throw a few days worth of photographic evidence into the trash just because it isn't in the format you'd like, either.

Yes, well, I made an observation and it proved you wrong. And I tried it myself and I was justified. So do you understand why the need for proper evidence from an unconnected and unbiased source is needed?

Secondly, and as I've mentioned, the prediction for the positions of stars is not really in dispute, which is why those comments keep getting ignored. The stars are static against the sky and are trivial to model. A plastic star chart models their positions perfectly well. We are talking about a model which predicts the position of bodies into the future based on orbital mechanics. This is where the Round Earth model fails. There is no such model which can meet reality.

Finally, whether a computerized geometric model of the solar system accurately predicts the position of celestial bodies and the orbital mechanics involved in three dimensions is in no way "basic". It is not above the need to be verified with experiments and observations. I don't know why anyone would believe that. That's one of the first things it needs for acceptance.

If you are going to try to disprove my Jupiter predictions, then I would like an equivalent form of photographic evidence. As for telescope mounts, just look up a video on how they work. I'd like to know how you disprove the alignment of mounts.

As for stars: I used Vega as an example, a telescope mount with a Go-To controller can track any celestial body, including planets. You can get one and try it yourself for less than $200. Just get a cheap finder scope to align.

If you're referring to Space Engine in that last part, I posted that for FE'ers to use as a guide for what the RE model is. I am not using it as evidence. However it can show you the effectiveness of the RE model, and how ridiculous the FE model is in comparison.

Sigh. The Go-To controller is using well known astronomical tables. In astronomy everything is predicted by looking recurring patterns in the sky, including the eclipses, positions of the moon, and paths of planets. If you know the pattern they come in, you can predict when the next one will occur. This is the modus operandi in astronomical predictions, and it has been this way for thousands of years. This is how Aristotle did it, this is how the Babylonians did it, this is how they all did it.

What we are talking about is the ability for a geometric model of the solar system, using orbital mechanics, being able to predict the position of celestial bodies into the future. This has not shown to be possible. It has not been demonstrated. Not at all. You would think, that after putting all of this effort into modeling the solar system, that someone would think to put their model to the test.

Just how much memory do you think a Go-To controller has? Do you even have the tiniest idea of how much it would take to store the positions of all celestial body for even a week, yet alone centuries?

Sorry, but Go-To controllers run entirely on models which take several orders of magnitude less memory to store.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 10:47:39 PM

Are you telling me with a straight face that these people went to great lengths to make these geometric models which model celestial dynamics, that they published all sorts of details about them over many papers which describe the theory, how they work, and how they are designed, but neglected to publish anything showing that the model was able to predict things in reality?

Come on, you know better than that. That is the absolute first thing that would be done for these models to gain acceptance. If you have faith that these predictive and superior RET models exist, then you will keep looking for these papers. If none are found we must conclude that they simply do not exist.

I'm not suggesting they neglected to publish such, I'm saying that even if handed to you on a silver platter, you would simply say "they're lying". If you care that much, go find them yourself. You might try writing the USNO and asking for the validation test results for NOVAS.

I have a better way of validating the predictions: see for myself. Professional observatories will do the same thing in their normal course of business; if it didn't work, we'd hear about it. Interesting side note: one of my colleagues filed the bug report against NOVAS that is in their list of known issues, so their problems are disseminated. If NOVAS couldn't locate the Sun, Jupiter, the Moon, or any other major solar-system object using a considered-reliable ephemeris, it would be very well known by a lot of people, very soon. Whether it was the ephemeris or NOVAS at fault would quickly come to light.

C'mon... aren't you supposed to be all about "see for yourself"? Well, see for yourself! I have. Why won't you?