The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Flatout on March 21, 2017, 01:37:50 AM
-
I've been watching Venus and Mars nightly for nearly a year when the weather allows. It's been very neat to watch the phases of Venus change. I've also been comparing their angular diameter changes. I've watch Venus grow almost 6 times in size. Mars has shrunk about 5.5 times since this time 1 year ago. What is TFES explanation for this size change? I couldn't find anything in the Wiki. The principles of perspective would suggest a significant change in distance (6 times the distance) from the earth.
-
So am I to take the lack of response to mean that TFES has no explanation for the changing angular diameter of Venus and Mars?
-
What about this event can only happen if the earth were a globe?
-
What about this event can only happen if the earth were a globe?
Take a look at this link and see the position of the planets. Venus is close and at the largest that I've observed over the last year. Mars is opposite us in the orbit and has been getting smaller for about 8 months by my observations.
http://www.theplanetstoday.com
I've been trying to figure out what the flat earth explanation could be. The planets would have to orbit above the earth daily, change their orbital speed at times to explain for the retrograde motion compared to the stars, and increase their height by 5 or 6 times through out their individual cycles.
-
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets).
I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
-
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets).
I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
The observed angular diameter change fits with the heliocentric model. What is the flat earth explanation?
-
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets).
I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
Obviously the diagram in that explanation doesn't work. The orbit of the planet around the sun would have to be much larger for it to be out of the spot light and observable at night. What is the orbital distance between the Sun and Venus in your model? What is its orbital period?
-
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets).
I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
The observed angular diameter change fits with the heliocentric model. What is the flat earth explanation?
The explanation is that the observed angular change fits with the flat earth model.
-
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets).
I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
The observed angular diameter change fits with the heliocentric model. What is the flat earth explanation?
The explanation is that the observed angular change fits with the flat earth model.
How does an observed angular diameter change of 5x fit with model? Please explain.
If you can tell me orbital period and orbital diameter of Venus around the sun, I'll plot it out and see if it fits. Maybe you've already done this since you say it works.
Secondly, you must not ascribe to the firmament model. For Venus to have a large enough orbit to be out of the light of the sun its orbit would have to go outside of the dome.....or the dome would have to be quite a bit larger than the flat earth map.
-
How does an observed angular diameter change of 5x fit with model? Please explain.
The angular change happened, and the earth was still flat underneath it. I don't see any sort of explanation for why it could only happen on a globe earth and none other.
If you can tell me orbital period and orbital diameter of Venus around the sun, I'll plot it out and see if it fits. Maybe you've already done this since you say it works.
Why should we care enough to know that if it's not going to tell us whether the earth is a globe or not? Do we have to know what the temperature of uranus is too?
-
Tom, I would say that if your model cannot account for some basic observations that a person can make from their back yard with a telescope, then the model maybe suspect. Secondly, If there is an unwillingness to account for the observation then the driving force behind a your model may not be derived from observation.
-
Tom, I would say that if your model cannot account for some basic observations that a person can make from their back yard with a telescope, then the model maybe suspect.
Account for what? You have not told us why it can't happen on a Flat Earth.
Secondly, If there is an unwillingness to account for the observation then the driving force behind a your model may not be derived from observation.
You have not provided any explanation for why this can't happen on an earth that is not round. Why should we bother coming up with a figure for this particular property of Venus anymore than the temperature of Uranus?
-
Tom, I would say that if your model cannot account for some basic observations that a person can make from their back yard with a telescope, then the model maybe suspect.
Account for what? You have not told us why it can't happen on a Flat Earth.
Secondly, If there is an unwillingness to account for the observation then the driving force behind a your model may not be derived from observation.
You have not provided any explanation for why this can't happen on an earth that is not round. Why should we bother coming up with a figure for this particular property of Venus anymore than the temperature of Uranus?
I'm not saying it isn't possible. I'm asking for an explanation. I can't find one. You have stated that it is possible but have given no explanation. I find that my observations fit within the heliocentric model. You say they fit with flat earth model. I'm asking how? The name of this forum is Flat Earth Q & A. You state that the heliocentric model is false. What is an alternative model that fits with the observations being discussed?
-
I find that my observations fit within the heliocentric model. You say they fit with flat earth model. I'm asking how?
As I explained, the angular change happened, and the earth was still flat underneath it.
-
I find that my observations fit within the heliocentric model. You say they fit with flat earth model. I'm asking how?
As I explained, the angular change happened, and the earth was still flat underneath it.
So, you don't know why it happens?
-
So, you don't know why it happens?
Why should it matter any more than should the temperature of Uranus matter?
This is not really a topic of discussion. If you can show that this is some kind of round earth proof, we would look into it. When we are asked what puts the sun into motion, for example, the standard reply is that the mechanism is presently unknown to us, but the motion is apparent. We base knowledge on empiricism here, not wild theories.
-
So, you don't know why it happens?
Why should it matter any more than should the temperature of Uranus matter?
This is not really a topic of discussion. If you can show that this is some kind of round earth proof, we would look into it. When we are asked what puts the sun into motion, for example, the standard reply is that the mechanism is presently unknown to us, but the motion is apparent. We base knowledge on empiricism here, not wild theories.
Ok, so Tom, let's change the narrative a bit.
Say a person out of genuine curiosity asks you a question about an observation, for instance an observed change of angular size of a celestial object, right? Can you just answer what causes this instead of saying "that's not important". Obviously, it's important to this person and he or she is asking what he believes to be an authority on the subject, namely the people who are supposed to be able to answer this.
Forget about hostility, this is a genuine question. I mean, if you don't know simply just say "I/we don't know". There's nothing wrong with that. But you can't say "I fail to see why this is important". An observation has been made and someone is asking for an explanation from the very people who are supposed to be able to answer.
Let's even assume flatout were undecided on the shape of the earth or the model that describes our solar system. He now knows how one model explains that particular phenomenon, he's seeking an explanation in regards to another model.
I'd like to know this too to be honest.
-
If you don't have anything relevant to the topic of the earth's shape, then I don't see the purpose of continuing. It is a waste of time to try and figure out the why this and why that for every countless thing that happens in the universe.
-
If you don't have anything relevant to the topic of the earth's shape, then I don't see the purpose of continuing. It is a waste of time to try and figure out the why this and why that for every countless thing that happens in the universe.
But the topic is about the change in angular size of Venus and Mars, can we agree on this much?
-
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here (http://wiki.tfes.org/Planets).
I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
The observed angular diameter change fits with the heliocentric model. What is the flat earth explanation?
The explanation is that the observed angular change fits with the flat earth model.
Tom, you stated that the observations fit with the flat earth model. Someone must have then done some modeling to determine if it could be said that "the angular change fits with the flat earth model". I'm just curious about the model.
-
If you don't have anything relevant to the topic of the earth's shape, then I don't see the purpose of continuing. It is a waste of time to try and figure out the why this and why that for every countless thing that happens in the universe.
But the topic is about the change in angular size of Venus and Mars, can we agree on this much?
And if someone makes a topic about the temperature of Uranus, do we have to investigate Uranus?
Tom, you stated that the observations fit with the flat earth model. Someone must have then done some modeling to determine if it could be said that "the angular change fits with the flat earth model". I'm just curious about the model.
The current model of this phenomenon was already explained to you. The angular change happened and the earth remained flat underneath it.
-
If you don't have anything relevant to the topic of the earth's shape, then I don't see the purpose of continuing. It is a waste of time to try and figure out the why this and why that for every countless thing that happens in the universe.
But the topic is about the change in angular size of Venus and Mars, can we agree on this much?
And if someone makes a topic about the temperature of Uranus, do we have to investigate Uranus?
Tom, you stated that the observations fit with the flat earth model. Someone must have then done some modeling to determine if it could be said that "the angular change fits with the flat earth model". I'm just curious about the model.
The current model of this phenomenon was already explained to you. The angular change happened and the earth remained flat underneath it.
Are referring to the link about retrograde motion?
-
Tom is obviously tap-dancing like the late, great Gregory Hines. I think you can assume that he has no explanation for what causes the change in angular diameter of Venus and Mars in FET. Maybe someone else can propose an explanation, but you are wasting your breath questioning Tom. He has become the swordless knight in the FE crusade.
-
Are referring to the link about retrograde motion?
No. The present model was just explained. Can't you read?
-
Are referring to the link about retrograde motion?
No. The present model was just explained. Can't you read?
No, Tom. An observation from your perspective is not a model. A model explains an observation and has the ability to create a prediction for future observational testing. You haven't provided a model, an explanation, or a prediction of future observation.
-
No, Tom. An observation from your perspective is not a model. A model explains an observation and has the ability to create a prediction for future observational testing. You haven't provided a model, an explanation, or a prediction of future observation.
That's not true. It predicts that the angular change will happen while the earth remains flat beneath it.
-
What predicts it? Please use your model to tell us the future time in which Mars will be at max angular size? Please explain your reasoning with your flat earth model.
-
What predicts it? Please use your model to tell us the future time in which Mars will be at max angular size? Please explain your reasoning with your flat earth model.
To predict the future time when Mars would be at its max angular size one need only consult historical charts and table observations which have shown when it has been its max size in the past and then find the pattern to be able to predict when it will be its max size again. This is precisely how modern astronomers predict the occurrences of the sky, and how astronomers have been doing it for thousands of years.
Geometric models of the solar system have not been shown to predict anything with accuracy, which is blamed on "perturbations in gravity" and the like. In fact, if we go to NASA's website and see how they are predicting the lunar eclipse on their lunar eclipse predicting website we will find that they are using an ancient method of pattern finding to find when the next eclipse will occur. That is basically how things are predicted in astronomy.
-
Tom, making observations and predictions based on observational periods is not a model. Tycho Brahe, who was brilliant at observation, never did generate a model that accurately fit with his own observations. That didn't happen until Kepler who was Brahe's student. Secondly, the naked eye is unable to resolve angular diameter smaller than one arc minute. Galileo was first to notice the changing angular diameter of Mars via a telescope. That didn't happen until the early 1600s. Your statement that we have been able to to predict the change in angular diameter of Mars for 1000's of years is absolutely false.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of a model. Observations are not models. Periodic observations over hundreds of years are not models. Models are explanations for the historical observations. A model is tested for its accuracy by using it to make predictions. If the predictions do not line up with the periodic observations then it needs to be adjusted. The models of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe all had errors. Some large and some small. It wasn't until Kepler proposed elliptical orbits that the modeling began to accurately fit with the periodic observations.
Lastly, are you able to look at the Java Script for the predictions for the upcoming eclipse? If you are, you will see that it's not pulling from a historical record.
-
Tom, you seem to make these definitive claims about what astronomers do without knowing what astronomers do. There are significant discussions across the Internet by amateur astronomers about the free ORSA software. Amateurs are using it to accurately create back yard predictions of planets and newly found comets. It's not being done with historical period data. Rather, by creating orbital models. Look up ORSA for yourself. It's free software. Many are making incredibly accurate predictions with it that include comets, satellites, and planets. Secondly, through observation and modeling astronomers have found new planets that were never acknowledge by those 1000s of years ago.
-
Tom, making observations and predictions based on observational periods is not a model. Tycho Brahe, who was brilliant at observation, never did generate a model that accurately fit with his own observations. That didn't happen until Kepler who was Brahe's student.
No. There has never been an orbital model which could predict things with accuracy.
Secondly, the naked eye is unable to resolve angular diameter smaller than one arc minute. Galileo was first to notice the changing angular diameter of Mars via a telescope. That didn't happen until the early 1600s. Your statement that we have been able to to predict the change in angular diameter of Mars for 1000's of years is absolutely false.
I didn't make the statement that we have been able to predict the change in angular diameter of mars for thousands of years. Please read more carefully next time.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of a model. Observations are not models. Periodic observations over hundreds of years are not models. Models are explanations for the historical observations. A model is tested for its accuracy by using it to make predictions. If the predictions do not line up with the periodic observations then it needs to be adjusted. The models of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe all had errors. Some large and some small. It wasn't until Kepler proposed elliptical orbits that the modeling began to accurately fit with the periodic observations.
Kepler never created an orbital model which could predict the location of things in the sky. I don't know what you are talking about, but it is nonsense. The only way astronomers predict occurrences in the sky is with the pattern finding method.
Lastly, are you able to look at the Java Script for the predictions for the upcoming eclipse? If you are, you will see that it's not pulling from a historical record.
It is possible to make a Javascript to predict the date of a next celestial event based on the pattern of occurrence. But this would be a pattern-based model, and not a geometric or orbital based model. Orbital based models would be more of a proof of mechanism for the matter of RET, but orbital models have never been accurate enough to match prediction to observation.
-
Tom, you seem to make these definitive claims about what astronomers do without knowing what astronomers do. There are significant discussions across the Internet by amateur astronomers about the free ORSA software. Amateurs are using it to accurately create back yard predictions of planets and newly found comets. It's not being done with historical period data. Rather, by creating orbital models. Look up ORSA for yourself. It's free software. Many are making incredibly accurate predictions with it that include comets, satellites, and planets. Secondly, through observation and modeling astronomers have found new planets that were never acknowledge by those 1000s of years ago.
Please show us where some of these predictions have met reality.
-
Tom, making observations and predictions based on observational periods is not a model. Tycho Brahe, who was brilliant at observation, never did generate a model that accurately fit with his own observations. That didn't happen until Kepler who was Brahe's student.
No. There has never been an orbital model which could predict things with accuracy.
Secondly, the naked eye is unable to resolve angular diameter smaller than one arc minute. Galileo was first to notice the changing angular diameter of Mars via a telescope. That didn't happen until the early 1600s. Your statement that we have been able to to predict the change in angular diameter of Mars for 1000's of years is absolutely false.
I didn't make the statement that we have been able to predict the change in angular diameter of mars for thousands of years. Please read more carefully next time.
You seem to be struggling with the concept of a model. Observations are not models. Periodic observations over hundreds of years are not models. Models are explanations for the historical observations. A model is tested for its accuracy by using it to make predictions. If the predictions do not line up with the periodic observations then it needs to be adjusted. The models of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe all had errors. Some large and some small. It wasn't until Kepler proposed elliptical orbits that the modeling began to accurately fit with the periodic observations.
Kepler never created an orbital model which could predict the location of things in the sky. I don't know what you are talking about, but it is nonsense. The only way astronomers predict occurrences in the sky is with the pattern finding method.
Lastly, are you able to look at the Java Script for the predictions for the upcoming eclipse? If you are, you will see that it's not pulling from a historical record.
It is possible to make a Javascript to predict the date of a next celestial event based on the pattern of occurrence. This is a pattern-based model, and not a geometric or orbital based model. Orbital based models would be more of a proof of mechanism for the matter of RE vs FE, but orbital models have never been accurate enough to match prediction to observation.
You might want to run that by with some of your developer friends, TextWarrior for instance.
Other than that, please keep up the defense. This thread is becoming my favorite thread as well. You rarely get to see someone make such a fool of himself, repeatedly. :)
-
You might want to run that by with some of your developer friends, TextWarrior for instance.
You don't think it's possible to make a javascript that can repeat a pattern?
Other than that, please keep up the defense. This thread is becoming my favorite thread as well. You rarely get to see someone make such a fool of himself, repeatedly. :)
What defense? The RE side consists solely of claiming that there are accurate orbital models when there are not.
-
You might want to run that by with some of your developer friends, TextWarrior for instance.
You don't think it's possible to make a javascript that can repeat a pattern?
Other than that, please keep up the defense. This thread is becoming my favorite thread as well. You rarely get to see someone make such a fool of himself, repeatedly. :)
What defense? The RE side consists solely of claiming that there are accurate orbital models when there are not.
Of course there aren't. The minute prediction of the coming solar eclipse and detailed information about where it can be observed is a proof of your [Citation needed] claim.
-
Of course there aren't. The minute prediction of the coming solar eclipse and detailed information about where it can be observed is a proof of your [Citation needed] claim.
Just go to NASA's Eclipse Web Site (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) -> Resources (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/resource.html) -> Eclipses and the Soros (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html) where we read:
"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
That is the only method given for finding the eclipse on that entire website. The modern astronomers at NASA are not using orbital models. They are using a method created thousands of years ago by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat.
-
Of course there aren't. The minute prediction of the coming solar eclipse and detailed information about where it can be observed is a proof of your [Citation needed] claim.
Just go to NASA's eclipse website (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) -> Resources -> Eclipses and the Soros (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html) where we read:
"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
That is the only method given for finding the eclipse on that entire website. The modern astronomers at NASA are not using orbital models. They are using a method created thousands of years ago by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat.
I see.
-
Just go to NASA's Eclipse Web Site (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse.html) -> Resources (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/resource.html) -> Eclipses and the Soros (https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsaros/SEsaros.html) where we read:
"The periodicity and recurrence of eclipses is governed by the Saros cycle, a period of approximately 6,585.3 days (18 years 11 days 8 hours). It was known to the Chaldeans as a period when lunar eclipses seem to repeat themselves, but the cycle is applicable to solar eclipses as well."
That is the only method given for finding the eclipse on that entire website. The modern astronomers at NASA are not using orbital models. They are using a method created thousands of years ago by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat.
at the bottom of that resources pages is a bit that says, "All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy." if you follow the links to the espenak's 50 year canon of solar eclipses, for example, you will get here (https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19870014944). on page a-5 of the appendix begins a section titled "modern eclipse prediction." he explains at the end of this section that details of the actual calculations can be found in the explanatory supplement to the astronomical almanac (https://archive.org/details/131123ExplanatorySupplementAstronomicalAlmanac). those calculations can be found starting on page 450.
you'll also notice that the soros cycle lasts 18 years, not 18,000. babylonian eclipse tables won't tell you when any 21st century eclipses will occur. or where. whoops, wasn't thinking about the cycle correctly. incidentally, the espenak text does explain in the appendix that the cycles aren't accurate forever and have limitations.
-
One of the limitations of the Saros cycle is that it doesn't predict where on the earth the eclipses will visible.
-
Tom, you seem to make these definitive claims about what astronomers do without knowing what astronomers do. There are significant discussions across the Internet by amateur astronomers about the free ORSA software. Amateurs are using it to accurately create back yard predictions of planets and newly found comets. It's not being done with historical period data. Rather, by creating orbital models. Look up ORSA for yourself. It's free software. Many are making incredibly accurate predictions with it that include comets, satellites, and planets. Secondly, through observation and modeling astronomers have found new planets that were never acknowledge by those 1000s of years ago.
Please show us where some of these predictions have met reality.
Here is one example. There is a link to the results in the video.
https://youtu.be/pnu7zit_LhQ
-
So, Tom. If "no" model can accurately predict future events then why did you say that the observations fit with flat earth model. Is your flat earth model horse pucky too?
-
The plane of the solar system is the line on which all planets revolve around the sun. This plane, save for a few differences in inclination, is the same for every planet including Venus and Mars.
If the sun traces a circle over the central northern hub, the orbits of Mercury and Venus would be tilted at an angle to the surface - Mars and the outer planets would share this angle, tracing larger circles "behind" or "below" the Flat Earth disc - they would vanish below the horizon and become invisible for certain periods of the year.
This is not the case.
We see them shrink away and their angular diameters become smaller. Unless a planet is behind the sun in their orbit, they are always visible from somewhere on the Earth.
These orbital motions cannot be explained by the Flat Earth models.
Venus and Mercury have both been observed transiting (passing in front of) the sun on many occasions for hundreds of years. They also exhibit motion that can only be explained by them orbiting the sun, like the Earth. If this were a flat Earth, then at certain points both Venus and Mercury would have to pass close to the Earth's surface, underneath the sun in the Flat Earth "yin yang" day-might model. They would cast shadows like a partial eclipse with every orbit and, like the sun and moon, would also be visible at all times from all latitudes.
This is not the case.
Incidentally, the atmosphere of Uranus is one of the most dynamically interesting places in the solar system, partly because of its extreme inclination of the plane of the ecliptic - it rolls like a ball on the plane of the solar system rather than spinning like a top as the rest of the planets do, including Earth.
The temperature at Uranus' poles, where the same points are exposed to 42 years of constant light followed by 42 years of constant darkness cause extreme fluctuations in temperature. The rotation of the spherical earth is one of the reasons that the surface of the earth doesn't heat up to extremes and bake in the light of the sun - in the Flat Earth yin yang model, the surface of the earth would be exposed to sunlight at all times and would receive hideous amounts of energy, boiling away the seas and the atmosphere. Its spherical rotation helps it avoid the kinds of extremes Uranus is subjected to.
That, Tom, is how the temperature of Uranus is relevant to this argument.