Question: How exactly do eclipses work with a flat earth?

Because they have an extensive chart of eclipses it must be ancient eclipse tables?  You understand how tenuous and grasping this sounds?  You understand that that is also completely contrary to the claims they explicitly make?  please provide some sort of concrete evidence that they are lying if this is what you believe.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes

The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone. The altitude and azimuth of the Moon at each of the events is given as well.

It says right here under the Notes section that the eclipse times come from The Astronomical Almanac, a publication which has come out yearly for over 200 years. I didn't read anything about the eclipses being predicted based on some computer model.

Quote

Quote

You are an incredible hypocrite by the way.  You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.

What is a shadow evidence of?

You have not even demonstrated it is a shadow. You are assuming it is.

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 05, 2015, 09:49:38 AM

There are a lot of little solar system models. Where have the predictions of that model been shown to match reality?

I don't see any section for "experiments or "observations" on that page.

The predictions are made by the astronomy applications that use the VSOP87 algorithms and the observations are made by the people who use said astronomy applications to help them find the planets in the night sky.

If you like, you can use VSOP87 in your own software and verify the accuracy of the algorithms yourself.
http://www.neoprogrammics.com/vsop87/source_code_generator_tool/
http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCode.asp?ID=464
http://www.mmto.org/~dclark/Reports/MountDoxygen/html/vsop87_8c_source.html
http://www.moshier.net/

So, as I am reading from you, no one has actually been able to predict anything with this model, yet we are supposed to take it as a source for unimpeachable predictions?

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

If this is caused by some third object, why does the shadow object only block out the light from the moon and not the stars?  If there were a third object, could it not be reasoned that we would see a section of sky that had an absence of stars in it? And would not this section of sky move through the night?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 03:23:53 PM

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

If this is caused by some third object, why does the shadow object only block out the light from the moon and not the stars?  If there were a third object, could it not be reasoned that we would see a section of sky that had an absence of stars in it? And would not this section of sky move through the night?

During the Lunar Eclipse the body moves between the sun and the moon, not between the moon and the observer. What is seen during the eclipse is a shadow projected upon the moon's surface. The body is not seen in the night sky "obscuring stars" because it is not in the night sky. It is in the day sky.

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

Then why do we not see some large object in the daytime sky?  I mean, if it were large enough to block the light from the sun, it should be large enough to see in the daytime sky.

Then why do we not see some large object in the daytime sky?  I mean, if it were large enough to block the light from the sun, it should be large enough to see in the daytime sky.

During the day the sun's light hits the atmosphere and washes out most celestial bodies in the sky. The stars and planets, for example, are generally not seen anywhere near the sun.

Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day.  SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 03:35:31 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 03:23:53 PM

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow. The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

If this is caused by some third object, why does the shadow object only block out the light from the moon and not the stars?  If there were a third object, could it not be reasoned that we would see a section of sky that had an absence of stars in it? And would not this section of sky move through the night?

During the Lunar Eclipse the body moves between the sun and the moon, not between the moon and the observer. What is seen during the eclipse is a shadow projected upon the moon's surface. The body is not seen in the night sky "obscuring stars" because it is not in the night sky. It is in the day sky.

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

How would some locations have a total eclipse and some only have a partial?

Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day.  SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?

The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!) and comes out of nowhere.

https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 03:52:15 PM

Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day.  SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?

The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.

https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html

Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?
And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse?  I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 03:52:15 PM

Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day.  SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?

The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.

https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html

Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?

It does.

And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse?  I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?

It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2015, 03:16:17 PM

Because they have an extensive chart of eclipses it must be ancient eclipse tables?  You understand how tenuous and grasping this sounds?  You understand that that is also completely contrary to the claims they explicitly make?  please provide some sort of concrete evidence that they are lying if this is what you believe.

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/LunarEclipse.php#notes

Quote

The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone. The altitude and azimuth of the Moon at each of the events is given as well.

It says right here under the Notes section that the eclipse times come from The Astronomical Almanac, a publication which has come out yearly for over 200 years. I didn't read anything about the eclipses being predicted based on some computer model.

The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model.  Are you disputing this?

Quote

Quote

Quote

You are an incredible hypocrite by the way.  You claim on the one-hand that there is no evidence for space-time warping because it has not been directly observed, and then on the other hand, you claim that the shadow object has evidence because you can observe it's shadow.

What is a shadow evidence of?

You have not even demonstrated it is a shadow. You are assuming it is.

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.

Citation required.  I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.

The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 04:15:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 03:52:15 PM

Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day.  SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?

The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.

https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html

Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?

It does.

Really?  didn't see the moon then not see the moon, then see the moon again in that video.  Do you have a video that shows such during a solar eclipse?

Quote

And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse?  I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?

It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.

So now 5-10 miles in diameter is much smaller than the 30 that the sun and moon are supposedly?  Yes smaller, but the object itself should be readily visible and much larger than anything else visible in the sky during solar eclipse.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 04:17:48 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 04:15:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 03:52:15 PM

Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day.  SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?

The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.

https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html

Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?

It does.

Really?  didn't see the moon then not see the moon, then see the moon again in that video.  Do you have a video that shows such during a solar eclipse?

Quote

Quote

And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse?  I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?

It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.

So now 5-10 miles in diameter is much smaller than the 30 that the sun and moon are supposedly?  Yes smaller, but the object itself should be readily visible and much larger than anything else visible in the sky during solar eclipse.

If you want to look at the stars during the Solar Eclipse and identify a patch of missing stars or lack thereof, go right ahead. It is a challenge I am simply not up to the task for. And like I said, it doesn't get dark enough to see the stars, making it a fruitless endeavor.

I'll ask again, if the shadow object moves between the moon and sun, how do different locations on earth see different amounts of eclipsed moon?

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 04:35:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 04:17:48 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 04:15:07 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 03:56:43 PM

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 03:52:15 PM

Yet the moon is routinely seen during the day.  SO why not this third large object that can blot out the moon?

The moon is not seen when it is near the sun. Have you ever seen a Solar Eclipse? It is invisible(!!) and comes out of nowhere.

https://rumble.com/v2zdjk-10-23-14-texas-partial-eclipse.html

Then why isn't the moon visable when it is away from the sun, disappear as it approaches the sun, then reappear as it gets further away?

It does.

Really?  didn't see the moon then not see the moon, then see the moon again in that video.  Do you have a video that shows such during a solar eclipse?

Quote

Quote

And where is this third object in the sky during the solar eclipse?  I mean, the sky darkens so we should now see it right?

It's only dark for a moment. It would be a challenge to find the missing patch of stars. It usually doesn't even get dark enough to see the stars. Furthermore the Shadow Object is not as large as the sun or the moon, but much smaller.

So now 5-10 miles in diameter is much smaller than the 30 that the sun and moon are supposedly?  Yes smaller, but the object itself should be readily visible and much larger than anything else visible in the sky during solar eclipse.

If you want to look at the stars during the Solar Eclipse and identify a patch of missing stars or lack thereof, go right ahead. It is a challenge I am simply not up to the task for. And like I said, it doesn't get dark enough to see the stars, making it a fruitless endeavor.

You would not be looking for stars, you would be looking for the object.  The brightness of the sun diminishes, the other object should be illuminated since the moon is between us and the sun, not the sun and the other object.  And the other object is 1/6th to 1/3rd the size of the sun and moon.  This object should become readily visible during a solar eclipse.  WHy hasn't it?

This shadow object must emit infra red. It would have been spotted by IR astronomers by now.
This idea is a bit shady Tom, think a better one.

Yes, but all asstronomers are in on The Conspiracy^TM and would never mention any discoveries before running it past The Government^TM.  Otherwise, they risk their million dollar paychecks and their families' lives.

This shadow object must emit infra red. It would have been spotted by IR astronomers by now.
This idea is a bit shady Tom, think a better one.

The flat earthers always forget about infrared dont they?

Yes, but all asstronomers are in on The Conspiracy^TM and would never mention any discoveries before running it past The Government^TM.  Otherwise, they risk their million dollar paychecks and their families' lives.

Do you honestly think that nobody but infrared astronomers have access to infrared cameras?  Infrared cameras are even used by the military and they are commercialy available.

Quote from: BJ1234 on January 10, 2015, 08:21:57 PM

Yes, but all asstronomers are in on The Conspiracy^TM and would never mention any discoveries before running it past The Government^TM.  Otherwise, they risk their million dollar paychecks and their families' lives.

Do you honestly think that nobody but infrared astronomers have access to infrared cameras?  Infrared cameras are even used by the military and they are commercialy available.

Guess you didn't notice the sarcasm in my post when I bolded ass, and put the ^TM after conspiracy and government.

The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model.  Are you disputing this?

The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...

But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.

Quote

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.

Citation required.  I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.

I already told you how it was demonstrated.  The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event.

Quote

The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.

The conclusion had already been established. You should have been there.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2015, 04:27:44 PM

The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model.  Are you disputing this?

The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...

But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.

Quote

Quote

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.

Citation required.  I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.

I already told you how it was demonstrated.  The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event.

Quote

Quote

The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.

The conclusion had already been established. You should have been there.

What about infrared signatures of the object? If it doesn't emit them, then what about radiation levels? If it doesn't emit them then it would block out the background cosmic radiation, it would certainly either emit x-rays or block out x-rays from space. I could go on poking holes if you'd like?

Oooor, how about when you come up with a batshit theory, remember what every flatearther seems to forget. "Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared "

By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?

What about infrared signatures of the object? If it doesn't emit them, then what about radiation levels? If it doesn't emit them then it would block out the background cosmic radiation, it would certainly either emit x-rays or block out x-rays from space. I could go on poking holes if you'd like?

Oooor, how about when you come up with a batshit theory, remember what every flatearther seems to forget. "Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared Infrared "

Infrared telescopes would only be relevant to this conversation if they could zoom out and see the entire sky. But they cannot. They are satellite dishes that focus on a tiny section of the sky. They're just like satellite dishes for TV. If they're not pointed exactly at the object in question, they don't work.

Considering the magnification of these sorts of telescopes, in this discussion it would be like searching for the shadow object with something a magnitude smaller than a coffee stirrer. 

Foot in mouth Tom, that image is a radio telescope.

Infrared detectors attached to ground based telescopes can detect the near-infrared wavelengths which make it through our atmosphere. The best location for ground based infrared observatories is on a high, dry mountain, above much of the water vapor which absorbs infrared. At these high altitudes, astronomers can study infrared wavelengths centered at 1.25, 1.65, 2.2, 3.5, 4.75, 10.5, 19.5 and 35 microns. Telescopes as well as our atmosphere emit infrared radiation which can complicate the observation of cosmic sources. Infrared telescopes are designed to limit the amount of this thermal emission from reaching the detectors. All ground based infrared detectors are cooled to extremely low temperatures to reduce their emission. In addition, astronomers making ground based observations measure both the emission from our atmosphere and from the object that they are observing. They then subtract the atmospheric emission from the infrared emission of a celestial object to get an accurate measurement.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/irastro_history.html

A sailor's life can depend on this.

 n Great Britain, The Nautical Almanac has been published annually by HM Nautical Almanac Office, ever since the first edition was published in 1767. [1] [2] In the United States of America, a nautical almanac has been published annually by the US Naval Observatory since 1852.[2] Since 1958, the USNO and HMNAO have jointly published a unified nautical almanac, for use by the navies of both countries.[2] Almanac data is now available online from the US Naval Observatory

By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?

That table was not generated by NOVAS as far as I can tell.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 10, 2015, 04:27:44 PM

The page on NOVAS clearly says that it is a computer model.  Are you disputing this?

The NOVAS computer model is mainly for star predictions. Since the stars are static, I don't really consider it much a feat to model where they are in the sky. A plastic sliding star chart can do that...

But in regards to the Lunar Eclipse, that is a little more complicated to predict, since it requires orbital dynamics. On NOVAS the link for the Lunar Eclipse predictions are three levels down, and that page says that the times come from the Astronomical Almanac, and also links us to another page for "more info" where we read that eclipses are predicted for 1500 to 2100, which is not something a geometric model, which can predict anything at any year, would state. The range of eclipses sounds more like some astronomer in the past computed those date ranges using the saros cycle.

It does not claim to be limited to stars. Why are you assuming it is?

Quote

Quote

The lunar eclipse has been demonstrated to be a shadow.

Citation required.  I know lots of people doing science in the real world could speak to this, but on your view, I am not sure how you can.

I already told you how it was demonstrated.  The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event.

Fascinating but this does not exclude every other possible explanation of a darkened area on the moon on your view. Try again.

Quote

Quote

The stars around its edges are not obscured during the event. We've extensively looked at this matter in the past.

I will wait for the thrilling conclusion to this point.

The conclusion had already been established. You should have been there.

Your conclusion is woefully inconclusive and you are not even committed enough to your cause to try and observe the shadow object. Your position is extremely unconvincing because of an astounding lack of observation and modelling so you will forgive me for trusting the USNO Over you.

Foot in mouth Tom, that image is a radio telescope.

Infrared detectors attached to ground based telescopes can detect the near-infrared wavelengths which make it through our atmosphere. The best location for ground based infrared observatories is on a high, dry mountain, above much of the water vapor which absorbs infrared. At these high altitudes, astronomers can study infrared wavelengths centered at 1.25, 1.65, 2.2, 3.5, 4.75, 10.5, 19.5 and 35 microns. Telescopes as well as our atmosphere emit infrared radiation which can complicate the observation of cosmic sources. Infrared telescopes are designed to limit the amount of this thermal emission from reaching the detectors. All ground based infrared detectors are cooled to extremely low temperatures to reduce their emission. In addition, astronomers making ground based observations measure both the emission from our atmosphere and from the object that they are observing. They then subtract the atmospheric emission from the infrared emission of a celestial object to get an accurate measurement.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/irastro_history.html

You would be incorrect. Infrared telescopes and radio telescopes can look very alike. The description on the Atacama Large Millimeter Array in Chile, which is an array of dishes, reads:

"54 dishes with 12-m diameter and 12 dishes with 7-m diameter, sensitive to wavelengths between radio and infrared."

Optical infrared telescopes do exit, but are not as common as dishes for observing infrared phenomena. But they too have the same problem of only being able to see a small section of the sky at a time. Look at the Gemini North Infrared Optical Telescope:



Only a pinprick of sky can be seen at once. The little red beam of sight is not my own.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 11:28:49 PM

By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?

That table was not generated by NOVAS as far as I can tell.

On the USNO NOVAS eclipse page, which is three levels down on the main page, under About the Data we read that

"The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone."

Next we read "More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal."

If we go to that page by the UNSO, the same organization that makes NOVAS, we read:

"You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses."

Knowing from Google that that date range is a reference to a well known table of eclipses, why would the USNO put this on their eclipse portal page if their data is generated by their superior geometric computer models? I clicked on that link for "more information" and it's basically telling me that it's using a table of eclipses which is plastered all over the internet in its program

It does not claim to be limited to stars. Why are you assuming it is?

I know it doesn't. But the lunar eclipse computer is three levels down, not really front and center. When I click on that link it tells me stuff about the data being the same as The Astronomical Almanac, a 200+ year old publication put out yearly, and links me to another UNSO page dedicated to the eclipse predictions, where I'm supposed to go for more information about the data predictions, which states that the USNO can predict a date range for eclipses which is identical to common eclipse tables which are known to use the Saros Cycle.

What else am I supposed to think?

The NOVAS program may be good for something, but as far as its ability to model orbital dynamics, the evidence is lacking.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 11, 2015, 04:59:25 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 10, 2015, 11:28:49 PM

By the way Rama, if we search for "1501 CE to 2100 CE" on Google we see that it's a common eclipse table. Why would this program be using a common table for the eclipses found all over the internet?

That table was not generated by NOVAS as far as I can tell.

On the USNO NOVAS eclipse page, which is three levels down on the main page, under About the Data we read that

"The times are the same as those published in The Astronomical Almanac, adjusted to the specified time zone."

Next we read "More information on eclipses can be found at the USNO Eclipse Portal."

If we go to that page by the UNSO, the same organization that makes NOVAS, we read:

"You can find information on eclipses for a range of years running from 1501 CE to 2100 CE inclusive. In this interval there are a total of 2881 eclipses made up of 1421 solar and 1460 lunar eclipses."

I should hope their information is consistent.

Knowing from Google that that date range is a reference to a well known table of eclipses, why would the USNO put this on their eclipse portal page if their data is generated by their superior geometric computer models?

They use matrix formulation not geometric models. Maybe the data from their eclipse portal page is generated by NOVAS or corroborated by NOVAS. There are often multiple methods to solve a problem contrary to what you appear to think.

I clicked on that link for "more information" and it's basically telling me that it's using a table of eclipses which is plastered all over the internet in its program

So everyone agrees the information is correct. Phew!

Quote

It does not claim to be limited to stars. Why are you assuming it is?

I know it doesn't. But the lunar eclipse computer is three levels down, not really front and center. When I click on that link it tells me stuff about the data being the same as The Astronomical Almanac, a 200+ year old publication put out yearly,

Their 200 year old publication. Relevance?

and links me to another UNSO page dedicated to the eclipse predictions, where I'm supposed to go for more information about the data predictions, which states that the USNO can predict a date range for eclipses which is identical to common eclipse tables which are known to use the Saros Cycle.

Maybe you need to research epoches?  The variables for prediction change periodically.

What else am I supposed to think?

The NOVAS program may be good for something, but as far as its ability to model orbital dynamics, the evidence is lacking.

That this system does not merely have a large database of charts. The Saros Cycle would simply not be capable of milli-arc second accuracy as it would be constrained by the resolution of the human eye. What NOVAS appears to do is take basic variables supplied by observation (where else could you get them?) and derive, mathematically, a large number of extraordinarily precise predictions. From lunar eclipses to the position of distant dwarf planets.

Is your hang up that their model relies to a certain degree on real world observations?  If so, then we are having a definitional issue of "model".