Equatorial Coordinate System

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
While you're noting things, you may wish to note what you cited.

Done and dusted.
You are clearly wrong but can't admit it. Seen any elephants recently?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Done and dusted.
You are clearly wrong but can't admit it. Seen any elephants recently?

His main MO is to try to keep threads going without posting ANYTHING substantial.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Are you unable to read the conversation?

Yeah, didn't think so. I suggest you read up on the things you say you disagree with. It can come in handy sometimes to know what it is you are saying is wrong.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yeah, didn't think so. I suggest you read up on the things you say you disagree with. It can come in handy sometimes to know what it is you are saying is wrong.

All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy. Some of the information presented on this web site is based on data originally published in:

Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035
Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE)
Five Millennium Catalog of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE)

Permission is freely granted to reproduce this data when accompanied by an acknowledgment:

"Eclipse Predictions by Fred Espenak, NASA GSFC Emeritus"

https://eclipses.gsfc.nasa.gov/solar.html[/quote]

You see, KZ?
Asked and answered.

Now, the only question:
Where did Freddie get his intel?

Hint: It rhymes with "sorrow."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[quote]All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy. Some of the information presented on this web site is based on data originally published in:

Fifty Year Canon of Solar Eclipses: 1986 - 2035
Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses: -1999 to +3000 (2000 BCE to 3000 CE)
Five Millennium C ...[text shortened]... is intel?

Hint: It rhymes with "sorrow."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saros_(astronomy)[/b]

None of this post addresses my question, which is how you think scientists predict eclipses.

Hint: "I don't know" is a valid answer.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
None of this post addresses my question, which is how you think scientists predict eclipses.

Hint: "I don't know" is a valid answer.

And, clearly, you don't.
Stay on topic: you'll eventually see.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And, clearly, you don't.
.

You clearly don't know (ignorance by choice rather than misfortune) and don't even have a clue. Most of the rest of us here know or at least have a clue.

Originally posted by humy
You clearly don't know (ignorance by choice rather than misfortune) and don't even have a clue. Most of the rest of us here know or at least have a clue.

So you claim.
Follow the links, and most especially, the second one.
It's calculations, alright: lots of math.
But decidedly and emphatically NOT the calculations you assume.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So you claim.
Follow the links, and most especially, the second one.
It's calculations, alright: lots of math.
But decidedly and emphatically NOT the calculations you assume.

It's funny, you trying to show the calculations are based on a flat Earth, but the images you provided shows the projections as they really are, wrapped around a round Earth but eclipses on a flat earth will ALWAYS be circular not mis-shapen like we see now. Another proof that Earth is ROUND.

I know you read my posts even though your poor feelings are hurt so bad you refuse to answer them.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But decidedly and emphatically NOT the calculations you assume.

So you keep saying. But you are a little short on details.
You've got nothing.
You watched a YouTube video by some nut case and believed every word.
Hilarious.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you keep saying. But you are a little short on details.
You've got nothing.
You watched a YouTube video by some nut case and believed every word.
Hilarious.

What's hilarious--- more sad, really--- is your shortsighted perspective on two accounts.
One, you actually believe You Tube incapable of broadcasting truth.
Two, your inability to learn has blinded you to the fact that neither one of the links I provided are from You Tube.
These links are from NASA and your beloved (yet seriously flawed) source for all your 'knowledge,' Wikipedia.

Sad.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you keep saying. But you are a little short on details.
You've got nothing.
You watched a YouTube video by some nut case and believed every word.
Hilarious.

Since Freaky won't talk to me, ask him this: Why are the outer regions of the eclipses so badly shaped, since they are projected on a spherical shape. If they were projected on a flat surface the shapes would be a lot more round or eliptical at least. Ask him why he thinks he now has evidence for a flat Earth?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One, you actually believe You Tube incapable of broadcasting truth.

I never suggested any such thing. What I don't do is believe just anything I see in a random YouTube video (unlike you).

Two, your inability to learn has blinded you to the fact that neither one of the links I provided are from You Tube.
I never suggested in any way that you posted links to a YouTube video.

These links are from NASA and your beloved (yet seriously flawed) source for all your 'knowledge,' Wikipedia.

Sad.
Yet neither link supports your case.
SAD.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never suggested any such thing. What I don't do is believe just anything I see in a random YouTube video (unlike you).

[b]Two, your inability to learn has blinded you to the fact that neither one of the links I provided are from You Tube.
I never suggested in any way that you posted links to a YouTube video.

These links are from NASA and ...[text shortened]... rce for all your 'knowledge,' Wikipedia.

Sad.
Yet neither link supports your case.
SAD.[/b]

You realize--- or at least you should--- that words have specific meaning, right?
The way you use them, one would think they mean something completely different than the normative use employed by everyone else speaking the language.
If you wish for others to understand your points, you'll necessarily need to use the same definitions as the rest of mankind.

Both links completely eradicated your claims now, and in the same degree they destroyed your "orbital dynamics" claim previously: you have literally no connection to the reality of the topic.
None.

NASA doesn't lay claim to eclipse predictions, relegating the same to some guy named Fred.
Fred doesn't predict eclipses, relying instead on an ancient Chaldean calendar for the same, based on the Saros method, which--- again--- completely rejects your claims altogether.

Are you sure you understand how debates, logic, reason work?
Or are you simply content to demonstrate the exact opposite?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You realize--- or at least you should--- that words have specific meaning, right?
The way you use them, one would think they mean something completely different than the normative use employed by everyone else speaking the language.

Given that you are the flat earther not me, it seems obvious that the problem is your reading comprehension and not my use of words.

If you wish for others to understand your points,
Oh I am quite sure they do. It is you that is having difficulties.

Both links completely eradicated your claims
No they didn't.
Sorry, but posting a link then making wild claims about it does not constitute 'eradication'. The contents at the referenced links have to be relevant and make your case.
They do not.

NASA doesn't lay claim to eclipse predictions, relegating the same to some guy named Fred.
On that page, apparently yes. So far, that is all you have been able to demonstrate.

Fred doesn't predict eclipses, relying instead on an ancient Chaldean calendar for the same, based on the Saros method, which--- again--- completely rejects your claims altogether.
But which claim is sadly unsubstantiated by the provided links.
Care to try again?

Are you sure you understand how debates, logic, reason work?
Sure. You post a link, make a wild unsubstantiated claim about it, and I laugh in your face at your ridiculous antics.