11 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadHalf right, fully wrong.
Eclipses are highly regular and thus predictable by merely using the record of previous eclipses and various equations derived from those. That is what he is getting at. He discovered that NASA does not use equations of planetary motion, but merely look up eclipses in a table (for eclipses by our moon, obviously they can't do that so easily for other ecli ...[text shortened]... onfident as he makes out.
2. he doesn't want the conversation to move on to his other nonsense.
I want the conversation to go exactly where it was headed before the current branch took a parallel path.
However--- stickler for detail that I am--- it became immediately obvious that those who think their perspective is based on some verifiable evidence somewhere, i.e., surely we know where the moon is going to be since we're able to predict eclipses, are having their assumptions exposed.
It gets better.
As has been established previously, NASA doesn't predict eclipses, but rather uses an ancient mathematical model which was established at a time when the general assumption was that the earth was the center around which everything else rotated--- kinda like it looks still today.
But, again, I'm the idiot for not only knowing the truth, but pointing it out to those who imagine themselves informed.
Once those who are insisting that our ability to predict eclipses is based on our understanding and mastery of calculations related to planetary motion/occupation in space come to the realization that that pillar of confidence is ill-founded, I will gladly resume the original conversation direction.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are the idiot for being the idiot. No more, no less.
But, again, I'm the idiot for not only knowing the truth, but pointing it out to those who imagine themselves informed.
You are correct that many highly regular things are often predicted using their regularity. This includes tides, eclipses, sunrise, sunset and more.
But look deeper into those eclipse formulas and ask yourself why they work. If the moon is going around the earth, then it is irrelevant whether or not the sun is going around the earth, or the earth/moon system is going around the sun. The equations will be essentially the same. Relativity at play. The very thing you don't understand.
Once those who are insisting that our ability to predict eclipses is based on our understanding and mastery of calculations related to planetary motion/occupation in space come to the realization that that pillar of confidence is ill-founded, I will gladly resume the original conversation direction.
Except it isn't ill founded.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEmono/reference/explain.html
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/beselm.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besselian_elements
Not only is a spherical earth part of the calculations (contradicting your flat earth beliefs) but the orbits of the sun, earth, moon systems ARE part of the equations.
11 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is simply not true, the equations for these calculated eclipses did NOT come from assuming the Earth is at the center but rather using Newtonian equations which do NOT assume this. If you just ever bother to study the very basic facts behind this, this would become obvious.
As has been established previously, NASA doesn't predict eclipses, but rather uses an ancient mathematical model which was established at a time when the general assumption was that the earth was the center around which everything else rotated
11 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI always giggle when you put your best foot forward... and then promptly place it right in your mouth.
You are the idiot for being the idiot. No more, no less.
You are correct that many highly regular things are often predicted using their regularity. This includes tides, eclipses, sunrise, sunset and more.
But look deeper into those eclipse formulas and ask yourself why they work. If the moon is going around the earth, then it is irrelevant whether or ...[text shortened]... ur flat earth beliefs) but the orbits of the sun, earth, moon systems ARE part of the equations.
Why don't you take a closer look at the sources you provided and see what they're really saying.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSee what he is doing here? He is not putting up scientific defenses, like 'see this site which has data XYZ that proves my point' or here is MY calculations based on Keplarian'. Only more and more blah blah blah designed specifically to see how long he can keep the chain going.
I always giggle when you put your best foot forward... and then promptly place it right in your mouth.
Why don't you take a closer look at the sources you provided and see what they're really saying.
"Why don't YOU take a closer look at the sources YOU provided and see what they are really saying'
In fact the last link clearly shows the shape the eclipse takes on a ROUND Earth, and nothing this troll can say will change that.
11 Jul 17
11 edits
I guess in this modern day of science and reason and were people often travel around the Earth and satellites orbit completely around the Earth taking pictures that clearly show it is round, there is no point in trying to reason with a modern day flat-earther. Unless he has just came from some primitive tribe completely cut off from modern civilizations and modern science, any modern day flat-earther has to be WAY out of it and surely impossible to reason with else he would have worked out a LONG time ago for himself from even the most basic modern day facts that the Earth is round.
11 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by humyThe way religious people, especially in the Abrahamic religions is they are taught (programmed) to resist and push back if they are challenged on religious grounds, resist to the death kind of thing.
I guess in this modern day of science and reason and were people often travel around the Earth and satellites orbit completely around the Earth taking pictures that clearly show it is round, there is no point in trying to reason with a modern day flat-earther. Unless he has just came from some primitive tribe completely cut off from modern civilizations and mod ...[text shortened]... t a LONG time ago for himself from even the most basic modern day facts that the Earth is round.
It is the same with Freaky, since it IS his religion and people trying to show what is really going on just makes him resist any efforts to educate him in real science, a vain effort.
He will never give actual science, only reiterate his idea that we, the entire scientific community is wrong, in a huge muli-cultural international conspiracy so vast that only he and his crowd have sussed out the true depths of the conspiracy, like he himself said, and of course it is not his thought just the words of his puppet masters he mouths, Earth is flat, the sun is a few thousand miles up and 40 miles across, the moon is closer but self illuminating, Antarctica goes around the rim of the flat Earth, NASA ALWAYS lies, nobody went to the moon, GPS works from ground stations because from their POV, to admit satellites exist blows the flat Earth conjecture out the window so no satellites.
And on and on etc., etc., etc.
Once he has that mind set there is no going back, he will go to his dying day mouthing the flat Earth mantra.
So it is in fact zero worth 'debating' him since there is no debate and no chance of anyone changing his mind.
It has already been pointed out for instance, if the moon was close to Earth people on one side of Earth, say Siberia, would see one side of the moon while people at the same time in say India, would see the backside but that kind of argument is simply ignored and every other objection to flatland. "Just answer my question, why can I see the bottoms of those buildings across the water' and a simple video a guy made showing not seeing the bottoms of buildings across a water gap to an island and then going up a hundred meters higher up a hill and all of a sudden the bottoms of the buildings are clearly shown, he goes, the rolling waves blocks the bottom of the buildings at the bottom of the hill even though the seas were very calm that day, doesn't matter, NOBODY can produce evidence of a round Earth he will accept.
11 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy don't you? If you think I am wrong, demonstrate it. Vague insinuations suggests you have nothing.
I always giggle when you put your best foot forward... and then promptly place it right in your mouth.
Why don't you take a closer look at the sources you provided and see what they're really saying.
Lets hear it. What have you got?
11 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI did, thus the entreaty to you to read what you're linking to before you post it.
Why don't you? If you think I am wrong, demonstrate it. Vague insinuations suggests you have nothing.
Lets hear it. What have you got?
It doesn't provide the support you suggest.
11 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo basically you've got nothing. Noted.
I did, thus the entreaty to you to read what you're linking to before you post it.
It doesn't provide the support you suggest.
From the first reference I gave:
The eclipse elements and predictions were derived from the DE200 and LE200 ephemerides (solar and lunar, respectively) developed jointly by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the U. S. Naval Observatory for use in the Astronomical Almanac for 1984 and thereafter. Unless otherwise stated, all predictions are based on center of mass positions for the Moon and Sun with no corrections made for center of figure, lunar limb profile or atmospheric refraction.
Essentially supporting what I said, and contradicting your claims.
Wish to dispute it? Provide a reference for the creation of the DE200 and LE200 ephemerides showing that they did NOT take orbital parameters into account as well as the spherical nature of the bodies in question.
And by 'reference' I do not mean 'YouTube nutcase'.