[manicminer]

If my understanding is correct, FE theory has it that all the planets orbit around the Sun, above the plane of the Earth surface. That is what seems to be implied in the Wiki page at least. That being the case, why then do not all the planets show a retrograde motion?

Further, if the diagram in the Wiki page is accurate then should not all the planets show a distinct phase pattern similar to the Moon?

Lastly, again based on the diagram contained in the Wiki, how is it possible for Mars through to Neptune to be visible on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun, while Mercury and Venus are never visible opposite the Sun in the sky?

[rodriados]

If my understanding is correct, FE theory has it that all the planets orbit around the Sun, above the plane of the Earth surface. That is what seems to be implied in the Wiki page at least. That being the case, why then do not all the planets show a retrograde motion?

Further, if the diagram in the Wiki page is accurate then should not all the planets show a distinct phase pattern similar to the Moon?

Lastly, again based on the diagram contained in the Wiki, how is it possible for Mars through to Neptune to be visible on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun, while Mercury and Venus are never visible opposite the Sun in the sky?

It's simple. The closer a planet orbits the Sun, the faster is its orbiting speed, and thus, the planet takes less time to complete a trip around the Sun.

Earth is the third planet around the Sun, after Mercury and Venus. All others are further from the Sun than us. Since we take less time to complete a trip around the Sun, the Earth "overtakes" the planets further than us every year.

If it were a car race, imagine we were the leader overtaking the last racer. In our perspective, after overtaking them, they would look like they were going backwards until we reach them back next lap.

As Mercury and Venus are closer than us, then we are the last racer in their perspective, so we present a retrograde motion in their perspective. For us, they always appear close to the Sun because they can't be further than us.

[manicminer]

I know all that... what you describe is the classic heliocentric model that astronomers use today. Indeed if you plot the position of Mercury and Venus against the stars on a day to day basis you will get nice curves which match their orbital paths very nicely.  Mercury always closer to the Sun than Venus as you would expect.

I am targeting these questions at the FE supporters who remain adamant that the heliocentric model is not true. Their Wiki states explicitly that the Earth is not a planet.  In case there is any dispute about that, here is a quote of what the Wiki currently states:

The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve.

So I am trying to understand how they have reached the conclusions that they have about planetary motion.

[rodriados]

I know all that... what you describe is the classic heliocentric model that astronomers use today. Indeed if you plot the position of Mercury and Venus against the stars on a day to day basis you will get nice curves which match their orbital paths very nicely.  Mercury always closer to the Sun than Venus as you would expect.

I am targeting these questions at the FE supporters who remain adamant that the heliocentric model is not true. Their Wiki states explicitly that the Earth is not a planet.  In case there is any dispute about that, here is a quote of what the Wiki currently states:

The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve.

So I am trying to understand how they have reached the conclusions that they have about planetary motion.

Ah, okay. If you wish to know how the FE theorists explain it, then I'm afraid you'll get no answer at all. If you do get something, I think it'll be denying this motion actually exists.

[manicminer]

If FE theorists are going to make claims that go against the mainstream heliocentric model then they had better have compelling and verifiable evidence to back up those claims.  Up to now I have not seen any of that evidence.  Just the claims.

The statement that is contained in the FW Wiki and that I have quoted above cannot produce the observed planetary motions that we see in the real sky. So why should we believe it?

[rodriados]

If FE theorists are going to make claims that go against the mainstream heliocentric model then they had better have compelling and verifiable evidence to back up those claims.  Up to now I have not seen any of that evidence.  Just the claims.

You don't worry about it, neither have anyone else! You can show them all evidences of the true shape of the Earth and they won't accept it. On the other hand they can make a bunch of hollow claims and they grab it without a question.

The statement that is contained in the FW Wiki and that I have quoted above cannot produce the observed planetary motions that we see in the real sky. So why should we believe it?

It looks like they think the burden of proof is on us. They forget they are the ones making wild claims.

[manicminer]

From what I can tell in general, FET is based on very lose and superficial claims which are down to false interpretations. For example in FE Wiki, under the FAQ page that they are so fond of making reference to..

The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the Sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world.

Of course the world looks flat from our point of view.  That proves nothing.  The bottoms of the clouds are flat. Again that proves nothing in favour of FET and how the movement of the Sun provides evidence of a flat Earth I have no idea.  All statements made without any foundation or any real explanation.

[spherical]

Based on the size of the planet and our own minuscule size over it, the tinny part we can see will always looks flat, no matter if Earth is flat or oblate spherical, also, the bottom of the clouds are flat since they are literally SIT over a cushion of warm atmosphere, it is like foam floating over water, and that, would not differ from happen on Flat Earth or oblate spherical one.   The FE statement about this is the same as saying:  "Oh, this car runs on gasoline, using an Otto engine, over four rubber tires, so for unquestionable truth, it is a Ford".   I would like to read how a FET believe the bottom of clouds should be on a RE.... round?

[rodriados]

Based on the size of the planet and our own minuscule size over it, the tinny part we can see will always looks flat, no matter if Earth is flat or oblate spherical, also, the bottom of the clouds are flat since they are literally SIT over a cushion of warm atmosphere, it is like foam floating over water, and that, would not differ from happen on Flat Earth or oblate spherical one.   The FE statement about this is the same as saying:  "Oh, this car runs on gasoline, using an Otto engine, over four rubber tires, so for unquestionable truth, it is a Ford".   I would like to read how a FET believe the bottom of clouds should be on a RE.... round?

They don't have that much "evidence" of it being a Ford. I would say it is more like "Oh, this car has four rubber tires, so it is unquestionably a Ford! And all those saying it is a Chevy is part of a worldwide conspiracy!"

You can show them the car brand right in front of them, they'll claim it doesn't prove anything because, of course, someone may have put a Chevy brand on a Ford car.