A challenge to flat earth belief

Next year 2017 on the 21st of August there will be a total solar eclipse that will be seen across a large part of the USA. In fact astronomical events like comets have been accurately predicted by astronomers for many hundreds of years. There is a website that lists all future predictions:-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_astronomical_events

The fact that these predictions are accurately  made is contrary to many the flat earth fundamental beliefs.The challenge to people who believe in a flat earth, and all that entails is to answer the following:

Do you believe the even will take place on 21st Aug 2017 as predicted?
How was the event predicted?
What were the laws that formed the basis for the calculations used for the prediction?
How is it that all these events, like eclipses and transits can be accurately calculated many years into the future?
Does the fact that these events can be accurately predicted point to the methodolgy used being true and robust?
How can a system be false if it has been shown to provide correct results?

Using flat earth methodology can any forum member accurately predict some future astronomical event as well as providing all calculations? I'm sure people such as Jora and Sandokhan who are fond of scientific calculations could give it a go.

Specifically about the 2017 solar eclipse, how can flat earth beliefs explain the area and the path of the eclipse west to east that the USA that will experience.

http://www.eclipse2017.org/2017/path_through_the_US.htm

It would be good if people could address these specific points.

Do you believe the even will take place on 21st Aug 2017 as predicted?

Yep.

How was the event predicted?

They probably used a saros, and past recorded eclipses, because half of maths and physics is not making life hard for yourself.
I mean seriously. People have been predicting eclipses since ancient times, because there's a set time before the Sun, moon and Earth are in basically the same position again. Have the knowledge of what occurs in one saros, and I think you'd be basically sorted. That's a little over 18 years. Have a record of what eclipses happened in that time, and there you go.

What were the laws that formed the basis for the calculations used for the prediction?

Observation of when eclipses occurred.

How is it that all these events, like eclipses and transits can be accurately calculated many years into the future?

Because they're repetitive, and happen like clockwork.

Does the fact that these events can be accurately predicted point to the methodolgy used being true and robust

Yep.

How can a system be false if it has been shown to provide correct results?

It's not false, it just doesn't need to be related to RET.

If you want to predict an eclipse with the RE model, then you'll need to model the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Fun bit of polar coordinates, except then you need to throw in the rotation of the moon about the Earth, which would need to happen in three dimensions. Send them off spinning, and you'd need to be able to detect when they were all in a straight line, which is not easy. Yes, a straight line has certain properties, but it's not something there's an easy formula to test: you'd more or less have to check them at each individual point. Have fun with that. You'd have to have a formula for the angle with respect to some axis between the Sun and Earth, and another formula for the angle between the Earth and moon with respect to some parallel axis, and constantly plug in values until it looks like they're equal.
Finding the coordinates of the Earth and especially moon will be horrific enough. Plug it into another to find the angles? Good luck.

And when you do find a straight line, you need to figure out what type. And if you want to predict a solar eclipse, then you have to factor in the rotation of the Earth too, and good luck with that. You do have to do that with a lunar eclipse, but to a lesser extent; you just need to know where it'll be night. A solar eclipse is much more geography-specific.

No one in their right mind is going to calculate that when they can just look at a few simple records.

Obviously now we have computers do the hard calculations for us, lending us much more accuracy.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 01, 2016, 03:46:35 PM

Do you believe the even will take place on 21st Aug 2017 as predicted?

Yep.

Quote

How was the event predicted?

They probably used a saros, and past recorded eclipses, because half of maths and physics is not making life hard for yourself.
I mean seriously. People have been predicting eclipses since ancient times, because there's a set time before the Sun, moon and Earth are in basically the same position again. Have the knowledge of what occurs in one saros, and I think you'd be basically sorted. That's a little over 18 years. Have a record of what eclipses happened in that time, and there you go.

Quote

What were the laws that formed the basis for the calculations used for the prediction?

Observation of when eclipses occurred.

Quote

How is it that all these events, like eclipses and transits can be accurately calculated many years into the future?

Because they're repetitive, and happen like clockwork.

Quote

Does the fact that these events can be accurately predicted point to the methodolgy used being true and robust

Yep.

Quote

How can a system be false if it has been shown to provide correct results?

It's not false, it just doesn't need to be related to RET.

If you want to predict an eclipse with the RE model, then you'll need to model the rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Fun bit of polar coordinates, except then you need to throw in the rotation of the moon about the Earth, which would need to happen in three dimensions. Send them off spinning, and you'd need to be able to detect when they were all in a straight line, which is not easy. Yes, a straight line has certain properties, but it's not something there's an easy formula to test: you'd more or less have to check them at each individual point. Have fun with that. You'd have to have a formula for the angle with respect to some axis between the Sun and Earth, and another formula for the angle between the Earth and moon with respect to some parallel axis, and constantly plug in values until it looks like they're equal.
Finding the coordinates of the Earth and especially moon will be horrific enough. Plug it into another to find the angles? Good luck.

And when you do find a straight line, you need to figure out what type. And if you want to predict a solar eclipse, then you have to factor in the rotation of the Earth too, and good luck with that. You do have to do that with a lunar eclipse, but to a lesser extent; you just need to know where it'll be night. A solar eclipse is much more geography-specific.

No one in their right mind is going to calculate that when they can just look at a few simple records.

But you know as well as I do that it's not just the relative position of the sun, moon and the earth that's being calculated...it's the other planets, comets, and the positions of the other 118 moons in the solar system. To make such an accurate calculation can not just be done by just " looking back" it requires the use of established underlying principles to make the calculation. Your downplaying of the achievements that led to our current understanding and ability to predict the position of any planetary body in the solar system demonstrates little understanding. Being able to infer the position of a previously unknown body, as in the case of Neptune by Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier requires a true grasp of the governing principles as well as a high level of mathematical ability.
In fact le Verrier used only mathematics to accurately predict the position of Neptune, using principles that were underpinned by both Kepler and Newton.
The question again is how can such accurate predictions be made on  a complex system like the solar system that rely on Newton and Kepler if flat earth belief maintains both Kepler and Newton are wrong?

Obviously now we have computers do the hard calculations for us, lending us much more accuracy.

Much of the work to establish planetary positions was made long before the invention of the electronic calculator. All people like Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier, Edmond Halley or John Couch Adams had were pen and paper and And understanding of the governing laws. But that aside when using a computer, the algorithms used have to adhere to some underlying principals, like those discovered by Newton and Kepler.
The problem how can flat earth people continue to discredit their work when time and time again provides correct results?

Jane states in her first post on this topic...

"No one in their right mind is going to calculate that when they can just look at a few simple records"

Note her use of the word simple!

Firstly, where did these records originally come from? Did they materialise out of thin air?And how were these records first produced? What was the understanding that made these 'simple' recrods possible? Certinally not DET!

The existence of the planet Neptune was not made not by simply looking up records! A mathematical prediction of its position was made based on the works of both Kepler and Newton. When astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle pointed his telescope at the calculated position....the rest is history.

Your constant evading of the question, by either the use of smoke screens or in this case deliberately down playing the intellectual achievements of the past is staggering. It either comes from a genuine poor grasp of the subject or a deliberate strategy to mislead.

You also fail to address what is the core question, how can these accurate predictions be made and shown to be true,  if Newton and Kepler and all what they established is not also true?

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781461455646-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1380904-p174602935

For those interested in history/ mathematics/ astronomy you can have a read at how, according to Jane, these simple calculations were done.

I asked referring to astronomical predictions based on both Newton and Kepler the following:-

How can a system be false if it has been shown to provide correct results?

Jane responded

It's not false, it just doesn't need to be related to RET

Now I'm puzzled by this response it either shows a complete lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt of derailment. Why do I say that?

If accurate and true celestial predictions are made about the position of any body in the solar system they are made using a combination of the understanding of Kepler and Newton, tempered with a pinch of Einstien.....laws and thoughts that are directly opposed to flat earth thinking and theory.

How can even, according to Jane, simple calculations be made about the relative positions of the Sun earth and moon if the Sun is, according to FE belief, only 600 meters in diameter as was claimed on this forum, or as the flat earth wiki states is a paltry 32 miles in diameter?

Something is not quite right.....

If the eclipse happens as predicted next August it blows out the water the notion of any flat earth model being true .....as the 'simple calculations used' can only be true if gravity exists and the solar system operates is according to the earth being a sphere and the sun being 93 million or so miles away....etc....etc...no dark sun required...

Three posts worth of personal attacks is pushing it Nightsky.

A question: the heliocentrical planetary system is based on which law of gravity?

Is it, by any chance, the hypothesis put forward by the London Royal Society (attractive gravity) after 1750 (official chronology)?

Then, you are going to have to explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

While you are at it, you might explain the accelerating rate of precession, which defies the accepted laws of orbital mechanics.

A question: the heliocentrical planetary system is based on which law of gravity?

Is it, by any chance, the hypothesis put forward by the London Royal Society (attractive gravity) after 1750 (official chronology)?

Then, you are going to have to explain the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox.

While you are at it, you might explain the accelerating rate of precession, which defies the accepted laws of orbital mechanics.

I think not chum.... The onus is clearly on YOU.  You constantly cry foul when Kepler and Newton are mentioned. Their work and thinking has been demonstrated time and time again to be true and accurate. All the predictions made, like next years eclipse, are made using their work.

If you say they are wrong...prove it.

You could also try to answer my questions at the start of he post rather than getting tangled up in yet more meaningless verbiage.

Three posts worth of personal attacks is pushing it Nightsky.

Why don't you try and stick to the question? Or is that just too difficult?....  which means rather than going for the topic you go for me!

While you are at it can you demonstrate where I have 'attacked' the person rather than debated their beliefs.

Three posts worth of personal attacks is pushing it Nightsky.

I've just read through my posts again and fail to see any 'attacking' what I see is debate. It is of course far easier to cry foul than offer a valid contrary view. I've not used any abusive language that is often used by many of the people here, even on occasion moderators.

If you say they are wrong...prove it.

Certainly.

Here is the total fraud, hoax, fakery committed by Johannes Kepler: he falsified the entire data on Mars, no elliptical orbit was ever observed:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680


Their work and thinking has been demonstrated time and time again to be true and accurate.

Not here, on this flat earth.

Here are the words used to describe Kepler's monumental fraud:

''He fudged things.''

''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical.


Does it get any better than this?

With Newton, it does.


Here is the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox, which nullifies the RE scenario:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215


Your message is null and void given the fact that NEWTON DISMISSED THE LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AS PURE NONSENSE.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?



As I said, there is no better advocate than Newton for the ether pressure theory.


A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.


'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.


"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"



"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."


His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.



Recently it was discovered that Newton COPIED HIS LAWS OF MOTION from indian sutras.


https://archive.org/stream/thevaiasesikasut00kanauoft#page/n7/mode/2up

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13

In the absence of all other forces gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18

Newton's laws of motion copied from the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra.


Jesuit missionaries brought back the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra decades before Newton's time.



Kepler fudged his entire set of data.

Newton copied his laws of motion from Indian sutras.

If you say they are wrong...prove it.

Certainly.

Here is the total fraud, hoax, fakery committed by Johannes Kepler: he falsified the entire data on Mars, no elliptical orbit was ever observed:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680


Their work and thinking has been demonstrated time and time again to be true and accurate.

Not here, on this flat earth.

Here are the words used to describe Kepler's monumental fraud:

''He fudged things.''

''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical.


Does it get any better than this?

With Newton, it does.


Here is the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox, which nullifies the RE scenario:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215


Your message is null and void given the fact that NEWTON DISMISSED THE LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AS PURE NONSENSE.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?



As I said, there is no better advocate than Newton for the ether pressure theory.


A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.


'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.


"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"



"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."


His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.



Recently it was discovered that Newton COPIED HIS LAWS OF MOTION from indian sutras.


https://archive.org/stream/thevaiasesikasut00kanauoft#page/n7/mode/2up

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13

In the absence of all other forces gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18

Newton's laws of motion copied from the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra.


Jesuit missionaries brought back the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra decades before Newton's time.



Kepler fudged his entire set of data.

Newton copied his laws of motion from Indian sutras.

You keep on saying the same things over and over again....but how does he keep coming up with the correct answers, and you don't?

If you say they are wrong...prove it.

Certainly.

Here is the total fraud, hoax, fakery committed by Johannes Kepler: he falsified the entire data on Mars, no elliptical orbit was ever observed:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680


Their work and thinking has been demonstrated time and time again to be true and accurate.

Not here, on this flat earth.

Here are the words used to describe Kepler's monumental fraud:

''He fudged things.''

''It has nothing in common with the computations from which it was supposedly generated.''

''He was claiming that those positions came from the earlier theory,'' Dr. Donahue said. ''But actually all of them were generated from the ellipse.''

“After detailed computational arguments Donahue concluded the results
reported by Kepler . . . were not at all based on Brahe’s observational data; rather
they were fabricated on the basis of Kepler’s determination that Mars’s orbit was
elliptical.


Does it get any better than this?

With Newton, it does.


Here is the double forces of attractive gravitation paradox, which nullifies the RE scenario:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215


Your message is null and void given the fact that NEWTON DISMISSED THE LAW OF ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY AS PURE NONSENSE.

In a 1675 letter to Henry Oldenburg, and later to Robert Boyle, Newton wrote the following:


[Gravity is the result of] “a condensation causing a flow of ether with a corresponding thinning of the ether density associated with the increased velocity of flow.”


I. Newton, letters quoted in detail in The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science by Edwin Arthur Burtt

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/


Forty two years later, in 1717-1718, at the age of 75, Newton inserted what are called the "middle Queries" into the Opticks treatise.


Newton, Opticks, Query 21 (after discussing the aetherial medium for the propagation of light, he described his thoughts on the mechanism for gravity):

Is not this Medium much rarer within the dense Bodies of the Sun, Stars, Planets and Comets, than in the empty celestial Spaces between them?  And in passing from them to great distances, does it not grow denser and denser perpetually, and thereby cause the gravity of those great bodies towards one another, and of their parts towards the Bodies; every Body endeavouring to go from the denser parts of the Medium towards the rarer?

In the official chronology of history, the middle queries were added in the last edition of Opticks, when Newton was 75 years old.


But wait, it gets even better.


Newton, Opticks, Query 19:

Doth not the Refraction of Light proceed from the different density of this athereal Medium in different places, the Light receding always from the denser parts of the Medium? And is not the density thereof greater in free and open Spaces void of Air and other grosser Bodies, than within the Pores of Water, Glass, Crystal, Gems, and other compact Bodies?



As I said, there is no better advocate than Newton for the ether pressure theory.


A second gravity-ether hypothesis was proposed by Newton to Robert Boyle in February 1679:

The gradient extended to Earth's centre:

'from ye top of ye air to ye surface of ye earth and again from ye surface of ye earth to ye centre thereof the aether is insensibly finer and finer.'

Any body suspended in this aether-gradient would ‘endeavour' to move downwards.


'Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region... in this way if the conatus of the aether whirling about the Sun to recede from its centre be taken for gravity, the aether in receding from the Sun could be said to descend.'

In other words, the larger the surface of body, the greater the force of gravity acting upon it. After condensing, this gravity ether descends into the bowels of the earth to be refreshed, and then arises until it ‘vanishes again into the aetherial spaces'.


"THIS GRAVITY ETHER DESCENDS"



"Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend."


His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.



Recently it was discovered that Newton COPIED HIS LAWS OF MOTION from indian sutras.


https://archive.org/stream/thevaiasesikasut00kanauoft#page/n7/mode/2up

The force on a body is the resultant of gravity and the work done against it. V.S 5.1.13

In the absence of all other forces gravity exists. V.S 5.1.7

Action is opposed by an equivalent opposite reaction - V.S 5.1.16-18

Newton's laws of motion copied from the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra.


Jesuit missionaries brought back the Naya Vaiseshika Sutra decades before Newton's time.



Kepler fudged his entire set of data.

Newton copied his laws of motion from Indian sutras.

Ok I'll tell you what...you make a prediction of some future celestial event using your version of celestial mechanics. Post it here along with all your workings and if it turns out to be true and accurate, I'll not only eat my hat, but I'll eat your turban.

Also answer me these two simple question....do you believe the eclipse will happen next year on the 21st August?

Can you tell me how this date and area to be affected was calculated?

Because the entire heliocentrical system was set up from the very beginning, mass/diameters/distances to the Sun, TO MATCH the failed nonlinear ordinary differential equations put forward by Newton and his followers.

Here is the proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

Newton's fake law of attractive gravity and Kepler's fake elliptical orbits lead directly to the biggest mess of them all: the three body problem paradox.


We have at our disposal the Gauss Easter formula which proves that the faked RE orbital equations work ONLY for a period/interval of 300 years.


Here is another proof that Newton's faked equations are completely bogus.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

No one can explain the ACCELERATING RATE OF PRECESSION, it defies newtonian mechanics.

Because the entire heliocentrical system was set up from the very beginning, mass/diameters/distances to the Sun, TO MATCH the failed nonlinear ordinary differential equations put forward by Newton and his followers.

Here is the proof:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1774581#msg1774581

Newton's fake law of attractive gravity and Kepler's fake elliptical orbits lead directly to the biggest mess of them all: the three body problem paradox.


We have at our disposal the Gauss Easter formula which proves that the faked RE orbital equations work ONLY for a period/interval of 300 years.


Here is another proof that Newton's faked equations are completely bogus.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776082#msg1776082

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776108#msg1776108

No one can explain the ACCELERATING RATE OF PRECESSION, it defies newtonian mechanics.

You keep making reference to the same old links to the same old unverified data.

Let's deal with some reality.

Based on the laws you cast doubt on how can you explain how they successfully make accurate predictions time and time again?

Going back to the question at the start of the thread.

Do you believe that the solar eclipse will take place on the 21st August 2017.... Either yes or no, that's all that is required.

??

I've read you post several times and considered your blunt blunderbuss approach to debate.

Firstly you rubbish and discredit the opposing view. The 'Proof' and I use that world with tounge in cheek are links to flat earth literature. Secondly you throwing in irrelevant issues like Gauss Easter calculations in an effort to throw up farther confusion in an already confused situation.

The question I will ask you once more is, how can the current main stream methods of calculating celestial movements be wrong when they keep providing correct and accurate answers and predictions.

Again do you believe the eclipse will occour next year as predicted?

How can it be that Sandokhan places himself above the likes of Newton and Kepler who between them are revered names in the world of science and mathematics. It's not that I am trying to argue from a 'position of authority' it's a genuine question as so many other scientific principles operate on the basis of them being correct.

But you know as well as I do that it's not just the relative position of the sun, moon and the earth that's being calculated...it's the other planets, comets, and the positions of the other 118 moons in the solar system. To make such an accurate calculation can not just be done by just " looking back" it requires the use of established underlying principles to make the calculation. Your downplaying of the achievements that led to our current understanding and ability to predict the position of any planetary body in the solar system demonstrates little understanding. Being able to infer the position of a previously unknown body, as in the case of Neptune by Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier requires a true grasp of the governing principles as well as a high level of mathematical ability.
In fact le Verrier used only mathematics to accurately predict the position of Neptune, using principles that were underpinned by both Kepler and Newton.
The question again is how can such accurate predictions be made on  a complex system like the solar system that rely on Newton and Kepler if flat earth belief maintains both Kepler and Newton are wrong?

You asked about eclipses. I answered about eclipses. Neptune has nothing to do with eclipses or, for that matter, transits, and has nothing to do with the post I was responding to. How am I meant to respond to an argument you didn't even give?

Firstly, where did these records originally come from?

From looking at the sky.

The existence of the planet Neptune was not made not by simply looking up records!

No one was talking about Neptune.

You also fail to address what is the core question, how can these accurate predictions be made and shown to be true,  if Newton and Kepler and all what they established is not also true?

That's exactly what I did answer. People noticed that celestial events happens like clockwork, noticed that they repeated, and there you go. That's all I said. People were predicting eclipses accurately long before Newton and Kepler.

Now I'm puzzled by this response it either shows a complete lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt of derailment. Why do I say that?

If accurate and true celestial predictions are made about the position of any body in the solar system they are made using a combination of the understanding of Kepler and Newton, tempered with a pinch of Einstien.....laws and thoughts that are directly opposed to flat earth thinking and theory.

Except none of the calculations you ask for require any knowledge of Kepler, Newton, Einstein, or fricking Galileo for that matter. That was the whole point of what I explained. Instead of going off on rants directed at some fantasy version of me you've concocted, maybe take the time to respond to my actual posts. You can predict eclipses with no more than your eyes and zero understanding of the Solar System, if you've got a few records to draw from, and said records just take about eighteen years of history.

I think not chum.... The onus is clearly on YOU.  You constantly cry foul when Kepler and Newton are mentioned. Their work and thinking has been demonstrated time and time again to be true and accurate. All the predictions made, like next years eclipse, are made using their work.

No it's not. Google a saros, for starters. Using Kepler and Newton is like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. What's the point?!

??

I've read you post several times and considered your blunt blunderbuss approach to debate.

Firstly you rubbish and discredit the opposing view. Th 'Proof' and I use that world with tounge in cheek is links to flat earth literature. Second ally you throwing in irrelevant issues like Gauss Easter calculations in an effort to throw up farther confusion in an already confused situation.

The question I will ask you once more is, how can the current main stream methods of calculating celestial movements be wrong when they keep providing correct and accurate answers and predictions.

Again do you believe the eclipse will occour next year as predicted?

How can it be that Sandokhan places himself above the likes of Newton and Kepler who between them are revered names in the world of science and mathematics. It's not that I am trying to argue from a 'position of authority' it's a genuine question as so many other scientific principles operate on the basis of them being correct.

Because Sandokhan, like Heiwa, and İntikam put themselves in the top 1% IQ bracket, and we all know the validity of self-assessment in this area.

A very bright bloke once said that “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know.”^[1]

Then another pretty bright bloke admitted "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."^[2]

Nobody would ever accuse that trio of "sins" like that, no never.

I've also seen it put like this:
Person A: He is a self-made man.
Person B: Yes, I have heard him say that many times, and he certainly worships his creator.

Fits this trio perfectly!


[1] Yes, it was Albert Einstein.

[2] This one was Isaac Newton.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 02, 2016, 12:27:14 AM

But you know as well as I do that it's not just the relative position of the sun, moon and the earth that's being calculated...it's the other planets, comets, and the positions of the other 118 moons in the solar system. To make such an accurate calculation can not just be done by just " looking back" it requires the use of established underlying principles to make the calculation. Your downplaying of the achievements that led to our current understanding and ability to predict the position of any planetary body in the solar system demonstrates little understanding. Being able to infer the position of a previously unknown body, as in the case of Neptune by Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier requires a true grasp of the governing principles as well as a high level of mathematical ability.
In fact le Verrier used only mathematics to accurately predict the position of Neptune, using principles that were underpinned by both Kepler and Newton.
The question again is how can such accurate predictions be made on  a complex system like the solar system that rely on Newton and Kepler if flat earth belief maintains both Kepler and Newton are wrong?

You asked about eclipses. I answered about eclipses. Neptune has nothing to do with eclipses or, for that matter, transits, and has nothing to do with the post I was responding to. How am I meant to respond to an argument you didn't even give?

Quote from: Nightsky on November 02, 2016, 01:03:05 AM

Firstly, where did these records originally come from?

From looking at the sky.

Quote

The existence of the planet Neptune was not made not by simply looking up records!

No one was talking about Neptune.

Quote

You also fail to address what is the core question, how can these accurate predictions be made and shown to be true,  if Newton and Kepler and all what they established is not also true?

That's exactly what I did answer. People noticed that celestial events happens like clockwork, noticed that they repeated, and there you go. That's all I said. People were predicting eclipses accurately long before Newton and Kepler.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 02, 2016, 01:52:40 AM

Now I'm puzzled by this response it either shows a complete lack of understanding or a deliberate attempt of derailment. Why do I say that?

If accurate and true celestial predictions are made about the position of any body in the solar system they are made using a combination of the understanding of Kepler and Newton, tempered with a pinch of Einstien.....laws and thoughts that are directly opposed to flat earth thinking and theory.

Except none of the calculations you ask for require any knowledge of Kepler, Newton, Einstein, or fricking Galileo for that matter. That was the whole point of what I explained. Instead of going off on rants directed at some fantasy version of me you've concocted, maybe take the time to respond to my actual posts. You can predict eclipses with no more than your eyes and zero understanding of the Solar System, if you've got a few records to draw from, and said records just take about eighteen years of history.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 02, 2016, 02:26:57 AM

I think not chum.... The onus is clearly on YOU.  You constantly cry foul when Kepler and Newton are mentioned. Their work and thinking has been demonstrated time and time again to be true and accurate. All the predictions made, like next years eclipse, are made using their work.

No it's not. Google a saros, for starters. Using Kepler and Newton is like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. What's the point?!

Regarding Neptue I'll leave that to one side for the moment.

In regard to cracking walnuts, I think your understanding of planetary orbits needs a refresher. If I remember correctly an understanding of Kepler laws is required to fully understand variations such as Milankovitch cycles, Apsidal precession and perturbation. I'll need to go check up on that area my self as it has been a wee while since I covered that stuff. The earth moon sun cycles are NOT as simple as you lead others to believe....there are other bodies out there all doing their own things which have an effect on our own orbit.
It's not clockwork.

Regarding Neptune that was to demonstrate how an understanding of planetary movement combined with mathematics can make verifiable and accurate predictions. Predictions which fly in the face of flat earth belief and dogma.

In regard to cracking walnuts, I think your understanding of planetary orbits needs a refresher. If I remember correctly an understanding of Kepler laws is required to fully understand variations such as Milankovitch cycles, Apsidal precession and perturbation. I'll need to go check up on that area my self as it has been a wee while since I covered that stuff. The earth moon sun cycles are NOT as simple as you lead others to believe....there are other bodies out there all doing their own things which have an effect on our own orbit.
It's not clockwork.

You're conflating knowing what happens, and knowing why it happens. You don't need to know the latter to know the former. Saros periods are a known fact. After one occurs, the Sun, moon and Earth are in basically the same configuration that they were at the start.

Quote from: Nightsky on November 02, 2016, 05:48:40 AM

In regard to cracking walnuts, I think your understanding of planetary orbits needs a refresher. If I remember correctly an understanding of Kepler laws is required to fully understand variations such as Milankovitch cycles, Apsidal precession and perturbation. I'll need to go check up on that area my self as it has been a wee while since I covered that stuff. The earth moon sun cycles are NOT as simple as you lead others to believe....there are other bodies out there all doing their own things which have an effect on our own orbit.
It's not clockwork.

You're conflating knowing what happens, and knowing why it happens. You don't need to know the latter to know the former. Saros periods are a known fact. After one occurs, the Sun, moon and Earth are in basically the same configuration that they were at the start.

No you are wrong plain and simple.... To make an accurate calculation of say the eclipse due next year and know precisely the where and the when and its full extent...accurately requires much more than you imagine.

All your method would give is knowing on that day an eclipse would be happening somewhere.

The earth sun and moon do not exist in a closed system. Go check it out.

All I've ever seen sandokhan do is copy-paste stuff. I wonder if he can think for himself.

No you are wrong plain and simple.... To make an accurate calculation of say the eclipse due next year and know precisely the where and the when and its full extent...accurately requires much more than you imagine.

All your method would give is knowing on that day an eclipse would be happening somewhere.

The earth sun and moon do not exist in a closed system. Go check it out.

A saros period goes down to the hour. If you know a day's 24 hours, then you can generally determine where an eclipse would be visible, from where the last eclipse did.
I'm not claiming they are in a closed system, I'm just using observed fact.

Bonus question:

How is it then possible to calculate the precise arrival of a comet in highly elliptical orbits? According to the mentions of Newton and Kepler, you'd have to take into account the effects other planetary bodies would have on a comet with highly elliptical orbits. If Newton and Kepler were wrong, howcome attributing our predictions with the laws, turn out to be so precise? Basing these predictions solely on observations and repeating the events would likely make the predictions miss target by weeks/months/years (depending on which comet).

Quote from: Nightsky on November 02, 2016, 06:13:46 AM

No you are wrong plain and simple.... To make an accurate calculation of say the eclipse due next year and know precisely the where and the when and its full extent...accurately requires much more than you imagine.

All your method would give is knowing on that day an eclipse would be happening somewhere.

The earth sun and moon do not exist in a closed system. Go check it out.

A saros period goes down to the hour. If you know a day's 24 hours, then you can generally determine where an eclipse would be visible, from where the last eclipse did.
I'm not claiming they are in a closed system, I'm just using observed fact.

But as I said to be accurate it's not as simple as you are claiming....
But that's the rub....if predictions are shown to be true and accurate then it points to the underlying principal being true also. I can understand why you are reluctant to agree that the various underlying scientific laws, Kepler and Newton are true.....it would kinda loose you your credibility on this site as a fence sitter.

Bonus question:

How is it then possible to calculate the precise arrival of a comet in highly elliptical orbits? According to the mentions of Newton and Kepler, you'd have to take into account the effects other planetary bodies would have on a comet with highly elliptical orbits. If Newton and Kepler were wrong, howcome attributing our predictions with the laws, turn out to be so precise? Basing these predictions solely on observations and repeating the events would likely make the predictions miss target by weeks/months/years (depending on which comet).

Indeed, that's the very point I've been trying to make...its the fundamentals of what's called science....you have a theory based on observations....you make a prediction based on your theories......it works out....you get excited.....your not there yet....other people repeat your experiments over a period or time and agree with you....home run.
Here on this site that don't work as FE theory is all based on conspiracy and sheeps intestines.

Besides Sandokhan there is literally not one single flat-earther on this thread.  What exactly are you arguing against?