[Tom Bishop]

You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?

RE has one. FE?

I'm pretty sure that I just told you about five times now in this thread. Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn.

[ChrisTP]

You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?

RE has one. FE?

I'm pretty sure that I just told you about five times now in this thread. Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn.

How did you personally measure them?

[markjo]

You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?

If Mercury is in more or less the same orbital plane as Saturn, then yes.  Not knowing the FE geometry of the planets orbits relative to observers on the flat earth makes it hard for me to just take your word for it.

[stack]

You need an explanation for why Mercury might be able to get between the observer and the sun, but not Saturn?

RE has one. FE?

I'm pretty sure that I just told you about five times now in this thread. Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn.

Maybe you could be more specific and answer the other questions I had that you seemed to skip over:

The questions are not about the Helio model but about the FE model. That's why we're asking.

- Are the planets and Sun arranged and orbit over the flat earth like Thork's spirograph model?
- Or are they arranged in some other manner with different orbits?
- How high are the planets? Are they on the same plane as the FE Sun and Moon, higher or lower?

[Tom Bishop]

I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.

[stack]

I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.

If someone even whispers words like 'equinox' or 'solstice' or 'eclipse' or 'transit' you immediately launch into how modern astronomy is bunk/pattern-based drivel, there's no RE n- body solution, etc. Yet here you are saying you have never looked into the FE model as to how the planets are arranged, orbit, and how far they are away from earth? In other words all of those things are unknown to you as you've never looked into them? And without looking into it, how would you know that Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn as you stated?

It's really hard to regard with any sense of credibility your responses and ridicule of anything in the helio model when you admitted you don't know much about your own model.

[Tom Bishop]

I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.

No, I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET. If that is your interest, then I can only encourage you to pursue it. I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.

[stack]

I haven't looked into it. Feel free to write a study on the matter and contribute it to the projects forum.

No, I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET.

Then how would you know that Mercury is closer to the sun than Saturn as you stated?

[manicminer]

I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.

Close Tom, it was actually six until 1781. Saturn is the outermost of the bright planets. Uranus was discovered in 1781 and Neptune was discovered in 1846 after its position was mathematically calculated independently by astronomers from the UK and France.

Planetary distances have been measured very accurately now and these distances have since been confirmed mathematically.  We can predict positions for any time in the future. The distances that RET uses may not agree with what FET states but they have been shown to be correct observationally.  What else does a model or theory need to do to be accepted?

What I want and need as an observational astronomer is data that I can rely on.  I want to be able to point my telescope and know that I will find and see my target with the least possible effort.  I will accept any theory that allows me to do that successfully and consistently. 

[Tom Bishop]

Five planets can be seen with the naked eye. How do you figure that civilizations such as the Ancient Greeks saw six planets?

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_astronomy#The_Planets_in_Early_Greek_Astronomy

The book Kings Dethroned discusses the methods used to determine the distances to the planets and finds that the methods of triangulation are flawed. Take a look if you wish to learn more:

https://archive.org/details/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich

[manicminer]

Well Tom,  putting them in order from the Sun outwards you have:

1. Mercury
2. Venus
3. You are standing on it. (I know its cheating a bit to include Earth but it certainly is visible to the naked eye!)
4. Mars
5. Jupiter
6. Saturn.

Technically Uranus does shine just within naked eye visiblility but at mag 5.7 you need very good skies to see it.  Saturn is the outermost of the bright planets.

[Tom Bishop]

I provided a source that RET started with five planets, you provided none. Uranus was not discovered until 1781.

[manicminer]

I believe I stated that Uranus was discovered in 1781 didn't I Tom?  By Sir William Herschel at his home in Bath, England. That is well known. I visited the Herschel Museum myself last year.

After Uranus was discovered it was realised that the orbital path was being affected by another, at the time unknown planet.  The path of such a planet was calculated mathematically and Neptune was subsequently observed in 1846. Again I mentioned that.

It is very well known that there were five known planets visible in the sky up until 1781.  There are countless 'sources' that mention that.  Why should I feel the need to single out any of those when you can check for yourself?  I don't need to publish a bibliography with every post I put on here. I don't believe that it is necessary to allow your life to be controlled by skepticism as others here perhaps do. I recognise the point when there is enough evidence about to accept that something is known rather than 'alleged' or whatever you would call it.

The nature of the planets was somewhat of a mystery until the early 17th century. That's when the era of telescopic observational astronomy started. But then I'm sure you know that already Tom so it would be a waste of time me explaining about that again.

[markjo]

I provided a source that RET started with five planets, you provided none. Uranus was not discovered until 1781.

RET planetary orbits are irrelevant.  Do you have any sources that describe the planetary orbits from a Flat Earth perspective?

[Tom Bishop]

I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET. If that is your interest, then I can only encourage you to pursue it. I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.

[markjo]

I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET.

Yes, I understand that.  Do you know anyone who has focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET?

[stack]

I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET. If that is your interest, then I can only encourage you to pursue it. I believe that RET started off with five planets and some pretty wild distances and theories.

Would it be fair to say that the distance, size, arrangement, and orbits of the planets is unknown at this time to FET?

[AATW]

Why do you need to have studied it personally to provide a source?

The point above is a brilliant one. Neptune was discovered because when Uranus was discovered it was shown mathematically that another planet must be out there. This is such powerful evidence for the heliocentric model and Newton’s theories. Since when has FE ideas had any predictive power?

[Tom Bishop]

I have not focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET.

Yes, I understand that.  Do you know anyone who has focused on planetary dynamics and properties with FET?

I believe that I have already stated that I haven't looked into it. If you have an interest in the subject, feel free to research the topic for yourself.

Neptune was discovered because when Uranus was discovered it was shown mathematically that another planet must be out there. This is such powerful evidence for the heliocentric model and Newton’s theories.

Doubtful.

https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Perturbation_theory

The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1848 by J. Adams and U. le Verrier, based on the deviations in motion of the planet Uranus, represented a triumph of perturbation theory.

Perturbation Theory doesn't use the full laws of Newton. Read about perturbation theory here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns

[AATW]

Ha. You were doing quite well then until your source was your own Wiki.

More details from the real world here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune