Certainly our model predicts when the sun will appear and when it will disappear.
I have yet to see a convincing explanation as to how the sun would even set on a flat earth that does no invoke extreme levels of refraction from the supposed "aether". Anyway, the round earth or flat earth models are not necessary to make these predictions.
Take Lunar eclipse. teFirst let me staThere is no evidence that the shadow seen comes from the earth- rather it could come from any celestial body that moves between the earth and moon as it rotates
HAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAHA. SERIOUSLY? AN UNDETECTED CELESTIAL OBJECT THE APPARENT SIZE OF THE MOON WITH AN ATMOSPHERE? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
There's no way no one would have noticed a celestial object of that apparent size in the past thousands of years of astronomical observations.
Not only that, lunar eclipses wouldn't really work with the FE model. There is no atmosphere for the sun's light to pass through, so the moon would not appear red.
The Greek natural philosophers predicted Lunar Eclipses very easily without resorting to models relying on the magic of gravity at nd a sun centered universe. How was this possible? Of course by simply recording the patterns of such on charts and tables and then noting the regularity of such occurrences. By studying these patterns they, and we, can predict an eclipse and its aspects.
Again, neither the flat nor round earth models are necessary for this.
All occurring phenomena including the path of moving celestial bodies, including transit of planets can be shown to follow patterns.
From the Wiki on this subject, which apparently most hello centrists cannot be bothered to consult says the following
The Wiki is not terribly well made with quite a bit of information missing on several subjects *cough* aether *cough* and many people *cough* jroa *cough* don't accept what is in the Wiki and have their own ideas. We often like to get the information from people first hand, and they can send us to a wiki page if they believe it satisfactorily explains their position.
"Actually, NASA freely admits that they use ancient cycle charts for their eclipse predictions. The Saros Cycle and those cobby old ancient methods which simply look at past patterns in the sky to predict the next one is precisely how & why "modern theorist" predict the lunar eclipse today.
http://www.screencast.com/users/tbishop/folders/Jing/media/5fdaffdc-ba0f-45a2-b895-4026b6a5951f
Again, completely independent from the flat earth theory. In any case, these charts have probably been verified with mathematical models of a heliocentric solar system.
I find it laughable that hello-centrist send these "large argument" balloons up without taking the time to read and understand the theory of the flat earth. Rather than doing this- read, understand (which means taking time) and then debate particular aspects of the theory.
There are no "large argument balloons" anywhere on this thread. The argument here is that FET is not even a theory as it does not match the criterion for a scientific theory nor provide any useful predictions. Often, we do not understand FET fully
because it is never explained in a complete and satisfactorily way, and changes continually to provide ad-hoc solutions.