[blinkwithme]

I am a web developer and for a website I would need a formula that can compute the apparent position of Mars in the sky from any point on earth at any time between the years 1950 and 2050. The result doesn't have to be insanely accurate. A tolerance of 0.1° is absolutely fine.
This is not some condescending challenge or even trolling. I am seriously interested how these calculations would work on a flat earth.

best regards

[JCM]

The FE person to ask would be Mr. Tom Bishop.  Apparently, this project is as easy as just making a table and plot the positions for a while and figure out the pattern.  Ancient astronomers did it this way and were perfectly accurate so some believe.  This method can be used to predict eclipses, their duration, width, exact location on the earth, their direction as well.  So, just copy what the ancients were able to do with their eyes and parchment, a little math, should be easy.

[Dr David Thork]

Above is correct. You can get tables easily.

Here 9000 years for every single planet. You just need something called an ephemeris.
http://www.astro.com/swisseph/swepha_e.htm

[blinkwithme]

The provided calculations assume the earth is a sphere for which I already have the formulas. Yes, they do indeed work. But according to FE theories the sun is not the center of the solar system and the planets are not revolving around it. I was asking for how the motion - or in that case apparent motion - of a planet is described if the earth is stationary.

[Dr David Thork]

From your point on the ground you still have a declination, azimuth and direction.

And the tables are based on iteration, not calculation. there is nothing in those tables telling you what shape the earth is, so go ahead and use them.

[stack]

From your point on the ground you still have a declination, azimuth and direction.

And the tables are based on iteration, not calculation. there is nothing in those tables telling you what shape the earth is, so go ahead and use them.

I think it actually depends upon which flat earth model is used. So I'm not sure the cited ephemeris works with all of FE theory.

[blinkwithme]

These tables are calculated as if planets, including earth were revolving around the solar system barycenter by NASA JPL. Things like light travel time, precession or nutation are used to get the needed precision. Those things do not exist if the earth is stationairy and gravity works different.

I am not looking for tables that someone somehow made. I am actually looking for a mathematical model that describes the motion of the planets on a flat and stationairy earth which I then can use to calculate the apparent positions of said planets. Just a formula where I can plug in a date and a position on earth and it spits out the azimuth and declination. I googled for a while without any results but someone must have come up with a working model for this.
I understand there are different FE models but I am interested in the correct one that is able to describe this. Or the other way around, one that can describe this is most likely the correct one.

[stack]

I am not looking for tables that someone somehow made. I am actually looking for a mathematical model that describes the motion of the planets on a flat and stationairy earth which I then can use to calculate the apparent positions of said planets. Just a formula where I can plug in a date and a position on earth and it spits out the azimuth and declination.

I don't think such calculations exist for FE. I could be wrong. Maybe some FEr's can weigh in.

[Dr David Thork]

This guy made some fundamental errors discussed in a previous thread on this site (use the search function), but you can see he has made a decent start.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

For planets, look at the works of Ptolemy. You are interested in geocentric epicycles.


That's the shape you want.

The numbers you want for a geocentric ephemeris are a google away.
http://community.fortunecity.ws/roswell/jekyll/75/fm.html

[edby]

This guy made some fundamental errors discussed in a previous thread on this site (use the search function), but you can see he has made a decent start.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

For planets, look at the works of Ptolemy. You are interested in geocentric epicycles.


That's the shape you want.

The numbers you want for a geocentric ephemeris are a google away.
http://community.fortunecity.ws/roswell/jekyll/75/fm.html

Ptolemy requires a celestial sphere, however. FE is pre-Ptolemaic.

[Dr David Thork]

How is FE pre-Ptolemaic? He lived 2000 years ago. Samuel Rowbotham wasn't born until 1816 ... some 1700 years later. He wrote the founding book for this society called Earth Not A Globe.

Anyway, I provided geocentric numbers. That's where the stars are in relation to earth.

[Dr David Thork]

I am not looking for tables that someone somehow made. I am actually looking for a mathematical model that describes the motion of the planets on a flat and stationairy earth which I then can use to calculate the apparent positions of said planets.

There is no way you would be capable of writing a formula for that in round earth either.

Here is the maths.
http://stjarnhimlen.se/comp/ppcomp.html

Now make an FE version. Every bit as complicated. You don't understand the first thing about this project or its complexity. No one uses the formula because the 3 body problem is so fricking hard to solve.
Everyone iterates tables ... and I gave you the tables.

[Tom Bishop]

The provided calculations assume the earth is a sphere for which I already have the formulas. Yes, they do indeed work. But according to FE theories the sun is not the center of the solar system and the planets are not revolving around it. I was asking for how the motion - or in that case apparent motion - of a planet is described if the earth is stationary.

As Thork explains above, no one is solving the n-body problem. The prediction of the planets in modern astronomy has nothing to do with the shape of the earth or solving based on certain laws.

See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

[stack]

This guy made some fundamental errors discussed in a previous thread on this site (use the search function), but you can see he has made a decent start.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

For planets, look at the works of Ptolemy. You are interested in geocentric epicycles.


That's the shape you want.

The numbers you want for a geocentric ephemeris are a google away.
http://community.fortunecity.ws/roswell/jekyll/75/fm.html

My understanding is that in FET the celestial bodies are above the earth only. Not above, around and off to the side. At least that's what I gather from the wiki.

[blinkwithme]

I have the formula for those in the heliocentric model. They actually work but only if the earth is a sphere AND the sun is the center of the solar system.

In the ptolemaic system earth is considered a sphere.
The 3 body problem only exists if gravity works the way mainstream science describes it. But in a flat earth model gravity would have to work differently so the 3 body problem would not exist.

If these tables work and the earth is indeed flat then those tables must have been calculated somehow.
The idea is that if some FE model is correct there must be a way to describe the planets motion without gravity and therefore elliptical orbits around the sun.
I am aware that this is not an easy task and it took hundreds of years to come up with formulas to make accurate predictions using the heliocentric model.

edit:
If the planets in the FE model are indeed all above the plane then light and gravity has to work differently as celestial bodies do seem to go below the horizon. I think there has to be a working theory of gravity and electromagnetism first before I can get formulas for the motion of planets.

[Dr David Thork]

The 3 body problem only exists if gravity works the way mainstream science describes it. But in a flat earth model gravity would have to work differently so the 3 body problem would not exist.

When we look up, the planets are where they are. You still need the exact same maths whether you attribute the position to gravity or celestial gears or malevolent cosmic monkeys moving them.

Why are you insisting the stars and planets should appear some place else and that there should be different numbers? That is stupid. If the earth is flat, the numbers must work and the stars and planets are where we see them. End of. Round earth or flat, if Mars is in Aquarius, that's where Mars is. The same place.

[stack]

Why are you insisting the stars and planets should appear some place else and that there should be different numbers? That is stupid. If the earth is flat, the numbers must work and the stars and planets are where we see them. End of. Round earth or flat, if Mars is in Aquarius, that's where Mars is. The same place.

Perhaps because in GET the sphere may get in the way of me seeing Polaris, for example, based upon my coordinates. Yet in FET I should be able to see it from the same coordinates. So maybe Polaris is in a different place based upon earth shape models.

[blinkwithme]

The 3 body problem only exists if gravity works the way mainstream science describes it. But in a flat earth model gravity would have to work differently so the 3 body problem would not exist.

When we look up, the planets are where they are. You still need the exact same maths whether you attribute the position to gravity or celestial gears or malevolent cosmic monkeys moving them.

Why are you insisting the stars and planets should appear some place else and that there should be different numbers? That is stupid. If the earth is flat, the numbers must work and the stars and planets are where we see them. End of. Round earth or flat, if Mars is in Aquarius, that's where Mars is. The same place.

I am not insisting that they appear somewhere else. They are where they are. I wanna know where they are tomorrow or at any given date from any given location.
If I assume the planets including earth revolve in elliptical orbits around the sun, that the law of gravity as mainstream science understands it is true and the mathematics give me the correct positions of the planets in the sky then any FE system must be wrong. Those models are mutual exclusive.

Now it could be a huge coincidence that the numbers check out and it just seems that we are living on a sphere revolving around the sun. Therefore I was asking about a mathematical model of a flat earth that is able to describe the apparent motion of Mars - obviously without the current theory of gravity. My knowledge of astronomy is by far not good enough that's why I thought maybe there is a working theory of a flat earth that can do that.

[blinkwithme]

Why are you insisting the stars and planets should appear some place else and that there should be different numbers? That is stupid. If the earth is flat, the numbers must work and the stars and planets are where we see them. End of. Round earth or flat, if Mars is in Aquarius, that's where Mars is. The same place.

Perhaps because in GET the sphere may get in the way of me seeing Polaris, for example, based upon my coordinates. Yet in FET I should be able to see it from the same coordinates. So maybe Polaris is in a different place based upon earth shape models.

Light cannot travel in straight lines in a FE model. It must be curved for phenomena like sunsets or stars appearing to be under the horizon to work. That's why the calculations can become a bit complicated.

[Dr David Thork]

And I already gave you a model where someone has used this with bending light.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

Click on stars and then click the number 1 to get to the end. You'll see the bending.
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat+Earth+Dome+Model&state=-49-1Use--the--green--Sliders--to--change--the--Star--Position-6~70-1~95-11.2-1~60-136-2172.9-50-30-11-10-10-31-12-1