11 Jul '17 09:40>
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.