Author Topic: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model (Read 15558 times)

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #105 on:** February 12, 2018, 03:30:02 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 10, 2018, 07:06:57 PM

I said: "can anybody produce a genuine flat earth model that predicts eclipses? " I do not see how that implies what you said.

The reason I asked is that being able to make accurate predictions is an important criterion in evaluating a theoretical model. As far as I know there is no flat earth model that can predict eclipses or anything else.

A flat earth model would do far more than assert that the earth is flat. It would give a size for the earth, distance from the sun moon and stars, their size, how much light they emit, etc. It would have all the details filled in such that one could calculate future movements of heavenly bodies. Its success at doing this would be one indicator of its strength as a model. By comparing it against other models, one could determine whether it was as good as they are.

I have not really looked hard since that is not my area of interest, but I have not come across any fleshed out flat earth models that one could evaluate this way. But if there were one, I would have expected it to come up in the discussion by now.

I see. I think you're confused. I don't think the models you are referring to are being used to predict eclipses, so much as they are being used to explain why eclipses occur.

Jaynek · « **Reply #106 on:** February 12, 2018, 05:54:29 AM »

Quote from: WholeFoodsTrad on February 12, 2018, 03:30:02 AM

I see. I think you're confused. I don't think the models you are referring to are being used to predict eclipses, so much as they are being used to explain why eclipses occur.

These are both factors in evaluating a theoretical model. One looks at explanatory power and predictive power. Starting with the same group of observations, how well does one's model explain all (or most of them)? That's the explanatory power. How accurately does the model predict future events? That's the predictive power. The Ptolemaic model could predict things like eclipses and star positions.

When the Copernican model was first introduced, the dominant model was the Ptolemaic one, so they were in competition with each other. At first, most scientists did not switch over to the Copernican because it was not any better at explaining or predicting. Also the Ptolemaic was more intuitive. From the perspective of scientists, a heliocentric model was not superior until the development of Newtonian physics gave it more explanatory power.

At the time of Galileo, the majority of scientists still preferred geocentric models. The Ptolemaic was still a major contender and Tycho Brahe had introduced his. This is something to keep in mind when one encounters the common misconception that the Church is opposed to science.

happenby · « **Reply #107 on:** February 12, 2018, 11:01:53 AM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 05:54:29 AM

These are both factors in evaluating a theoretical model. One looks at explanatory power and predictive power. Starting with the same group of observations, how well does one's model explain all (or most of them)? That's the explanatory power. How accurately does the model predict future events? That's the predictive power. The Ptolemaic model could predict things like eclipses and star positions.

When the Copernican model was first introduced, the dominant model was the Ptolemaic one, so they were in competition with each other. At first, most scientists did not switch over to the Copernican because it was not any better at explaining or predicting. Also the Ptolemaic was more intuitive. From the perspective of scientists, a heliocentric model was not superior until the development of Newtonian physics gave it more explanatory power.

At the time of Galileo, the majority of scientists still preferred geocentric models. The Ptolemaic was still a major contender and Tycho Brahe had introduced his. This is something to keep in mind when one encounters the common misconception that the Church is opposed to science.

Please listen: Phases and eclipses are figured independently of the shape the of earth. There are working flat earth models that make a lot more sense than the global models when one considers that something is always out of kilter with the globe model because the 4 way movement of earth never lines up in the same position relative to any celestial body. And how could it? With earth moving 67,000 mph around the sun, 500,000 mph through space, another million mph in another big bang trajectory, and spinning 1000 mph, there's no way millions of stars each with their own movements, can re-line up again as they do year after year.

Jaynek · « **Reply #108 on:** February 12, 2018, 12:42:53 PM »

Quote from: happenby on February 12, 2018, 11:01:53 AM

Please listen: Phases and eclipses are figured independently of the shape the of earth. There are working flat earth models that make a lot more sense than the global models when one considers that ...

Yes we already established there are ways to predict eclipses by their timing without a model, but the Ptolemaic model was used to predict eclipes, among other things. Are there flat earth models that can predict anything?

happenby · « **Reply #109 on:** February 12, 2018, 12:53:40 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 12:42:53 PM

Yes we already established there are ways to predict eclipses by their timing without a model, but the Ptolemaic model was used to predict eclipes, among other things. Are there flat earth models that can predict anything?

The prediction of eclipses is already a working model no one contests. How eclipses work is another matter.

Jaynek · « **Reply #110 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:15:35 PM »

Quote from: happenby on February 12, 2018, 12:53:40 PM

The prediction of eclipses is already a working model no one contests. How eclipses work is another matter.

Perhaps you could rephrase that. I cannot understand it.

Was it an answer to my question about flat earth models that can predict anything? It does not have to be eclipses. It could be star positions.

happenby · « **Reply #111 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:22:03 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 01:15:35 PM

Perhaps you could rephrase that. I cannot understand it.

Was it an answer to my question about flat earth models that can predict anything? It does not have to be eclipses. It could be star positions.

Yes, the flat earth model predicts phases because its nothing more than a mathematical-by-observation problem. And yes, star positions are also predicted within the flat earth model.

Jaynek · « **Reply #112 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:29:34 PM »

Quote from: happenby on February 12, 2018, 01:22:03 PM

Yes, the flat earth model predicts phases because its nothing more than a mathematical-by-observation problem. And yes, star positions are also predicted within the flat earth model.

Could you link to a detailed flat earth model that does this?

happenby · « **Reply #113 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:39:10 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 01:29:34 PM

Could you link to a detailed flat earth model that does this?

Its the same as the way all science calculate phases.

Jaynek · « **Reply #114 on:** February 12, 2018, 01:51:56 PM »

Quote from: happenby on February 12, 2018, 01:39:10 PM

Its the same as the way all science calculate phases.

Then its not part of the flat earth model.

happenby · « **Reply #115 on:** February 12, 2018, 02:30:33 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 01:51:56 PM

Then its not part of the flat earth model.

You are mistaken again. Still, with regard to models, flat earthers agree on one thing: earth is not a globe.

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #116 on:** February 13, 2018, 10:29:18 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on February 12, 2018, 05:54:29 AM

These are both factors in evaluating a theoretical model. One looks at explanatory power and predictive power. Starting with the same group of observations, how well does one's model explain all (or most of them)? That's the explanatory power. How accurately does the model predict future events? That's the predictive power. The Ptolemaic model could predict things like eclipses and star positions.

When the Copernican model was first introduced, the dominant model was the Ptolemaic one, so they were in competition with each other. At first, most scientists did not switch over to the Copernican because it was not any better at explaining or predicting. Also the Ptolemaic was more intuitive. From the perspective of scientists, a heliocentric model was not superior until the development of Newtonian physics gave it more explanatory power.

At the time of Galileo, the majority of scientists still preferred geocentric models. The Ptolemaic was still a major contender and Tycho Brahe had introduced his. This is something to keep in mind when one encounters the common misconception that the Church is opposed to science.

Yeah, I see what you mean. No Jayne, Flat Earth does not have the equivalent of NASA, Government and Media Promotion and University research behind it, for the past what thousand years in The West at least (i don't know, isn't really a big area of interest to me honestly, but perhaps will be when someone like Robert Sungenis decides to promote a book about it). So, our theoretical models are a little "thin" or maybe downright "anorexic."

Moreover, the "models" which have been theorized in the past, with a Flat Earth Cosmology are simply not promoted anymore, so they are hard to find and maybe understand. So, our theorizing is mostly "home grown" and as such, may at times seem to be a little "unsophisticated," "crude" or "amishy" (as in w/out the benefit of much modern technology/funding)

Of course, I'd rather be simple and honest, than elaborate and false. So, I'll stick with Flat Earth, even if our "researchers" are "under-funded" and "under-trained" ;D

Still, that's the beauty of Traditional Catholicism: always having to do it on the cheap, but somehow still managing to survive. No wonder so many Trads are attracted to Flat Earth 8)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #117 on:** February 13, 2018, 11:04:01 PM »

.
I have a 1609 Catholic Bible that infallibly defines "A firmament" (Genesis 1:6, "And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters") as follows:
.
"Chap. 1. Ver. 6. A firmament. By this name is here understood the whole space between the earth, and the highest stars. The lower part of which divideth the waters that are upon the earth, from those that are above in the clouds."
.
Consequently, the firmament is not any solid or hard material but rather it is the zone or space between the earth and the highest stars which modern man would call the atmosphere and outer space. The water that is divided is the separation between liquid water as it occurs on the surface of the earth and vaporous water as it occurs in clouds in the sky. The ancient Bible authors had no way of understanding that the principal limit of water vapor is the earth's atmosphere. But today, we know that even in outer space, water can exist albeit in a very sparse and expanded form, with much distance between each water molecule without confines of ambient air pressure.
.

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #118 on:** February 13, 2018, 11:34:10 PM »

Anyway Jayne, I think the Globe Earth Theory for an Eclipse of The Sun is that the Massive Stationary Sun is eclipsed by the Earth orbiting Moon, which passes between The Sun and Tiny Sun orbiting Earth.

On The Flat Earth, My Theory and I think it may be the general thinking (I really don't know) is that the Stationary Earth is orbited by a relatively small Sun and Moon, that every so often block our view of one of them. Although, some people think there is a third "dark" object that causes that.

Wondering how that might look, I took a flashlight and a coaster into a dark room. I held the flashlight pointing towards me on low beam, at full arm's length and held the coaster at the joint (elbow), with my other hand, blocking the flashlight 1/2 from my field of view, when held directly in front of me. I then swung my arm to the right and left, trying to crudely simulate the difference in "eclipse" that I would experience, if I kept my head facing forward and followed the flashlight with my eyes and not my head. I found that the flashlight was "eclipsed" by the coaster anywhere from 100% to 0%, depending on the position of my arm. That is what I expected to find.

So, I would expect that Eclipses of The Sun would look different, from various locations on Earth, when viewed at exactly the same time, with the observer facing directly into The Sun. However, it also seems to me that the observers angle of view would be different, depending on their location on Earth at the time of a particular eclipse. So, that might actually compensate, to one degree or another, for the different locations of the viewers. So, in that case, I'm not sure what to expect; they may see the same thing or they may not.

In any case, having been a Flat Earth'er for a while, it occurs to me that our belief that we have to know "everything" is based on a false view of Science. All we really need to do is observe, enjoy and submit to The Order that God has Created.

WholeFoodsTrad · « **Reply #119 on:** February 27, 2018, 08:18:27 PM »

What's amazing though is that The Chinese have been Flat Earther's for thousands of years!!!!

Author Topic: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model (Read 15558 times)

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

Jaynek

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

happenby

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

Jaynek

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

happenby

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

Jaynek

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

happenby

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

Jaynek

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

happenby

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

Jaynek

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

happenby

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

Neil Obstat

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model

WholeFoodsTrad

Re: The Moon's Phases On A Flat Earth Model