Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Phases of Venus
« on: January 24, 2017, 03:52:17 AM »
So there are phases of Venus that are similar to the moon.  It changes from full to waning gibbous to new to waxing gibbous to full again.   It also changes its angular diameter through its phases.   When it's full it has the smallest angular diameter.    When it's new it has the largest angular diameter.  This is very explainable with the heliocentric model.   What is the flat earth model a explanation?

Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2017, 06:22:32 PM »
So there are phases of Venus that are similar to the moon.  It changes from full to waning gibbous to new to waxing gibbous to full again.   It also changes its angular diameter through its phases.   When it's full it has the smallest angular diameter.    When it's new it has the largest angular diameter.  This is very explainable with the heliocentric model.   What is the flat earth model a explanation?

Some "Flat Earthers" say that planets don't even exist.
Stick close to your P.C's and never go to sea
And You All may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Yes, Never, Never, Never go to sea
Just look out your windows,
Flat ! Flat ! Flat !
Is all that you shall see !

*

Offline SexWarrior

  • e
  • *
  • Posts: 5279
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2017, 11:19:22 AM »
Some "Flat Earthers" say that planets don't even exist.
Do they? That seems completely divorced from anything the members here would say.
<Parsifal> Jesus Christ
<Parsifal> Do I really have to write 6000-word sentences just to remove all ambiguity from everything I'm saying?

Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Elusive Rabbit

Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2017, 11:59:47 AM »
Some "Flat Earthers" say that planets don't even exist.

Some, maybe. Most of us don't, however. The planets exist.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #4 on: January 25, 2017, 12:08:12 PM »
Some "Flat Earthers" say that planets don't even exist.
Some, maybe. Most of us don't, however. The planets exist.

The OP was
So there are phases of Venus that are similar to the moon.  It changes from full to waning gibbous to new to waxing gibbous to full again.   It also changes its angular diameter through its phases.   When it's full it has the smallest angular diameter.    When it's new it has the largest angular diameter.  This is very explainable with the heliocentric model.   What is the flat earth model explanation?

Nobody has attempted to answer "What is the flat earth model explanation?"

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2017, 12:17:57 AM »
Yes, I would like to know the explanation as well.

*

Offline Rounder

  • *
  • Posts: 501
  • What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #6 on: January 26, 2017, 05:33:04 AM »
Nobody has attempted to answer "What is the flat earth model explanation?"

Yes, I would like to know the explanation as well.

Have a basic question?  Read the wiki for their basic answer.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1199
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #7 on: January 26, 2017, 07:30:09 AM »
Nobody has attempted to answer "What is the flat earth model explanation?"

Yes, I would like to know the explanation as well.

Have a basic question?  Read the wiki for their basic answer.
Did that, and the only mention of Venus seems to be
Quote
There is also a possibility that the Shadow Object is a known celestial body which orbits the sun; but more study would be needed to track the positions of Mercury, Venus and the sun's asteroid satellites and correlate them with the equations for the lunar eclipse before any conclusion could be drawn.
Doesn't seem to help, next suggestion?

Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #8 on: February 04, 2017, 02:40:03 PM »
The phases of Venus constitute an advanced topic in FET.

It is not covered in any FE wiki/faq.

This is very explainable with the heliocentric model.

But it is not. The Schroeter effect shows that the phases of Venus cannot be explained within the heliocentrical context.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #9 on: February 04, 2017, 04:08:36 PM »
The phases of Venus constitute an advanced topic in FET.

It is not covered in any FE wiki/faq.

This is very explainable with the heliocentric model.

But it is not. The Schroeter effect shows that the phases of Venus cannot be explained within the heliocentrical context.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

So, you seem to implying the Schroter effect is one of geometry.   Why don't we see the effect happening on Mercury then?  I've read many articles on the subject and have observed the effect myself.  To say that there are not any explanations is not true.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996JBAA..106...16M&ved=0ahUKEwj6gtjq6PbRAhVDzGMKHT55D6cQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFgMvq8cBoUnaK1xocWqg0S_5yWIA&sig2=k5bVretqtY8TZFUa-8KqmQ

Dr. Jones geostatic model only accounts for 2 days difference than the heliocentric model.  The observations are often 4 days earlier.   He has discredited other explanations based on heliocentric models because they don't account for all of the difference between observed and predicted.   Ironically, his model doesn't either.

Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #10 on: February 04, 2017, 06:45:46 PM »
A phase anomaly of Mercury was observed:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969JBAA...79..286J

A. Mallana makes several big assumptions in deriving his model (Venus middle atmosphere).

But there are great controversies concerning the composition of the venusian middle atmosphere:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999JE001085/pdf

http://www.issibern.ch/teams/venusso2/multimedia/pdf/Krasnopolsky_06.pdf

https://phys.org/news/2015-03-unexplained-layer-venus-atmosphere.html

Moreover, Mallana is going to have to explain the Ammizaduga Venus tables.

One day, in 1849, a certain archaeologist made an important discovery at Nineveh.

Once these tablets were brought to England, they wished they had never found them in the first place.


And that is because the Ammizaduga Venus tables show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.


http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."


If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged, confirming the findings of Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720184710/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html


Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #11 on: February 06, 2017, 12:59:21 AM »
I didn't  know that a Zetetic scientist could use ancient documents.  I though it had to presently observable.  Of course, I may be improperly assuming that you ascribe to the Zetetic method.

I have concluded that  Kepler's laws are observable.   Law one states that  the planets have elliptical orbits.  I have a observed small changes of sun's angular diameter  through out a 9 month period.   These changes correlate with the change in distance in the elliptical orbit.   This was part of a college astonomy course.   We took measurements both throughout a given day and throughout a 9 month period.

Keplers second laws states that planets speed up in their orbits when they are closer to the sun in their elliptical orbit.   This can be observed in the Solar Analemma pattern.   The spherical math and associated observation fits with Keplers 2nd law.   

Keplers 3rd law relates the orbit duration with the distance from the sun.   Casini's parallax observation was very close to Kepler's 3rd law prediction.   More recent radar measurement also confirm it.   Newtons gravitational constant works very nicely with Kepler's 3rd law.  I won't call this irrefutable, but the observations fit the laws and their predictions. 

So what is your explanation of the phases of Venus?



« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 01:03:21 AM by Flatout »

Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2017, 07:05:37 AM »
Kepler's "laws" are NOT observable.

In fact his laws were totally and absolutely faked by Kepler.

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

“But a close study of Kepler’s New Astronomy . . . shows that the plotted points
[he used] do not fall exactly on the ellipse (of course, measurements rarely fall
exactly on a theoretical curve because they usually have random error sources
incorporated into them.) Curtis Wilson (1968), however, carries error argument
further. The lack of precision inherent in the method . . . would have forced Kepler
to use the plotted points only as a guide to his theorizing . . .
“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."


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

The scholar, William H. Donahue, said the evidence of Kepler's scientific fakery is contained in an elaborate chart he presented to support his theory.

The discovery was made by Dr. Donahue, a science historian, while translating Kepler's master work, ''Astronomia Nova,'' or ''The New Astronomy,'' into English. Dr. Donahue, who lives in Sante Fe, N.M., described his discovery in a recent issue of The Journal of the History of Astronomy.

The fabricated data appear in calculated positions for the planet Mars, which Kepler used as a case study for all planetary motion. Kepler claimed the calculations gave his elliptical theory an independent check. But in fact they did nothing of the kind.


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

The Keplerian model leads directly to the three body problem paradox.

This means that the entire foundation of RE/Heliocentrical mechanics/astrophysics is based on extremely false premises.

Moreover, whoever set up the entire system, had to drastically modify the diameters of all the planets, and also their distances from the Earth/Sun in order to construct a system of differential equations which led directly to nonsensical results, i.e., the n-body problem paradox.

That is, the three body problem cannot be explained using the conventional approach: attractive gravity. A system consisting of a star (Sun), a planet (Earth), and a satellite of the planet (Moon) cannot be described mathematically; this fact was discovered long ago by Henri Poincare, and was hidden from public view.


Geocentric phases of Venus

"In fact, the only thing that Galileo's findings showed was that the epicycles in the Ptolemaic system were much larger than had previously been suspected.

As for the Tychonic model of Geocentrism, if one uses the same elliptical orbits of Kepler, the result is that two epicycles in the Ptolemaic system will translate into one ellipse, per planet, in the Tychonic system. Thus, around the sun, Mercury and Venus would each have a perigee and an apogee, and each locus of points along that polarity would show the respective phases of Mercury and Venus, as viewed from earth."

This is how, on a flat earth, we correctly explain the phases of Venus photograph:

http://s23.postimg.org/sfm8mp8p7/venus_phase1.jpg


Casini's parallax observation was very close to Kepler's 3rd law prediction. 

You haven't done your homework on Cassini at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1826955#msg1826955

Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2017, 09:04:06 AM »
Keplers second laws states that planets speed up in their orbits when they are closer to the sun in their elliptical orbit. 

You need to study the orbital Sagnac effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846510#msg1846510

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846706#msg1846706

By assuming the correctness of STR, modern astrophysics must also assume that the orbital velocity of the Earth around the Sun, in an elliptical orbit, must be a constant.


Ruderfer experiment (1961)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846721#msg1846721

in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.

Analysis of the spinning Mossbauer experiments is a natural step toward analysis of the
slightly more complex and much larger-scale Global Positioning System (GPS). This
system constitutes a large scale near-equivalent to the spinning Mossbauer experiments.
The transit time between the satellite and ground-based receivers is routinely measured.
In addition, the atomic clocks on the satellite are carefully monitored; and high precision
corrections are provided as part of the information transmitted from the satellites.
Because the satellites and the receivers rotate at different rates (unlike the Mossbauer
experiments), a correction for the motion of the receiver during the transit time is
required. This correction is generally referred to as a Sagnac correction, since it adjusts
for anisotropy of the speed of light as far as the receiver is concerned. Why is there no
requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit
time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely
canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.


Specifically, there is substantial independent experimental evidence that clock speed always affects the clock frequency and, as the GPS system shows, the spin velocity of the earth clearly affects the clock rate. This being the case, the null result of the rotating Mössbauer experiments actually implies that an ether drift must exist or else the clock effect would not be canceled and a null result would not be present.

A GPS satellite orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the entire system is orbiting the Sun, IS A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EXPERIMENT.


Given the very fact that these GPS satellites DO NOT record the orbital Sagnac effect, means that THE HYPOTHESES OF THE RUDERFER EXPERIMENT ARE FULFILLED.

Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.

However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus, ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.


Sagnac effect: total proof of the existence of ether

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846045#msg1846045

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1846888#msg1846888 (ether ring laser gyroscopes)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1847823#msg1847823 (linear/uniform motion Sagnac effect)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848154#msg1848154 (further proofs)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848476#msg1848476 (Sagnac effect the original set of ether Maxwell equations)

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1848776#msg1848776






Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
Re: Phases of Venus
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2017, 02:00:06 PM »
Your link for how genocentrism explains the phases of Venus just goes to a photo of the phases of Venus.   No explanation what so ever.  Please explain to me how the Ptolemaic model could ever show the full phase of Venus.

Saying that the Sagnac effect explains for the non-symmetric pattern of the top and bottom half of the Solar Analemma makes absolutely no sense at all.  Please explain.

As for numbers be faked.  I just did the math Mars and got 1.5 Au which is accurate.   Nothing hard there.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 02:04:23 PM by Flatout »