[OrigamiBoy]

Thanks for the answers.

However I never got any answer for the initial question. I will describe it again. Hope its clear this time.

The question - for those who believe in the FE : If the Earth is flat how come there is pretty good amateur recordings of the planets showing that the planets are spherical ?

I am interested in the FE theory not because I want to debunk it but more because I want to look at every aspect of it and understand it.

The Earth is not a planet. So whatever other planets might look like is completely irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.

Are you kidding me? What other planets look like is completely relevant to the shape of the earth. It just would not logical sense if literally every other planet is round but the earth is flat. Sure, its possible, in my short time so far on this forum, you guys have proven to me that a flat earth is theoretically possible. Theoretically, not practically. So far I have only seen flat-earthers explaining how a flat earth is possible, but there is no proof that the earth is flat. The only things they seem to bring up is the horizon, which has already been debunked to death. I would love to see some real proof that NASA is faking their pictures, some real evidence the earth is ACTUALLY flat. Just because something can exist does not mean it does exist. Saying NASA fakes all their pictures and photos is a huge claim, you cant make a claim that big with no evidence, and so far I have not seen any evidence.

[juner]

Thanks for the answers.

However I never got any answer for the initial question. I will describe it again. Hope its clear this time.

The question - for those who believe in the FE : If the Earth is flat how come there is pretty good amateur recordings of the planets showing that the planets are spherical ?

I am interested in the FE theory not because I want to debunk it but more because I want to look at every aspect of it and understand it.

The Earth is not a planet. So whatever other planets might look like is completely irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.

Are you kidding me? What other planets look like is completely relevant to the shape of the earth. It just would not logical sense if literally every other planet is round but the earth is flat. Sure, its possible, in my short time so far on this forum, you guys have proven to me that a flat earth is theoretically possible. Theoretically, not practically. So far I have only seen flat-earthers explaining how a flat earth is possible, but there is no proof that the earth is flat. The only things they seem to bring up is the horizon, which has already been debunked to death. I would love to see some real proof that NASA is faking their pictures, some real evidence the earth is ACTUALLY flat. Just because something can exist does not mean it does exist. Saying NASA fakes all their pictures and photos is a huge claim, you cant make a claim that big with no evidence, and so far I have not seen any evidence.

The person you are lashing out at is a round earth proponent. One who has actually read the FAQ/wiki, unlike yourself, and is just providing a helpful response. You, on the other hand are just ranting. So, either discuss the topic, or take it to Angry Ranting.

[OrigamiBoy]

Thanks for the answers.

However I never got any answer for the initial question. I will describe it again. Hope its clear this time.

The question - for those who believe in the FE : If the Earth is flat how come there is pretty good amateur recordings of the planets showing that the planets are spherical ?

I am interested in the FE theory not because I want to debunk it but more because I want to look at every aspect of it and understand it.

The Earth is not a planet. So whatever other planets might look like is completely irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.

Are you kidding me? What other planets look like is completely relevant to the shape of the earth. It just would not logical sense if literally every other planet is round but the earth is flat. Sure, its possible, in my short time so far on this forum, you guys have proven to me that a flat earth is theoretically possible. Theoretically, not practically. So far I have only seen flat-earthers explaining how a flat earth is possible, but there is no proof that the earth is flat. The only things they seem to bring up is the horizon, which has already been debunked to death. I would love to see some real proof that NASA is faking their pictures, some real evidence the earth is ACTUALLY flat. Just because something can exist does not mean it does exist. Saying NASA fakes all their pictures and photos is a huge claim, you cant make a claim that big with no evidence, and so far I have not seen any evidence.

The person you are lashing out at is a round earth proponent. One who has actually read the FAQ/wiki, unlike yourself, and is just providing a helpful response. You, on the other hand are just ranting. So, either discuss the topic, or take it to Angry Ranting.

Mr junker Sir, I really hate to break it to you but, some people (me) don't actually agree with what the wiki says(crazy right?) and some of my posts might show it. Just because we don't agree with the wiki, does not mean we haven't read it. I know this is a hard concept to wrap your head around.

[juner]

Thanks for the answers.

However I never got any answer for the initial question. I will describe it again. Hope its clear this time.

The question - for those who believe in the FE : If the Earth is flat how come there is pretty good amateur recordings of the planets showing that the planets are spherical ?

I am interested in the FE theory not because I want to debunk it but more because I want to look at every aspect of it and understand it.

The Earth is not a planet. So whatever other planets might look like is completely irrelevant to the shape of the Earth.

Are you kidding me? What other planets look like is completely relevant to the shape of the earth. It just would not logical sense if literally every other planet is round but the earth is flat. Sure, its possible, in my short time so far on this forum, you guys have proven to me that a flat earth is theoretically possible. Theoretically, not practically. So far I have only seen flat-earthers explaining how a flat earth is possible, but there is no proof that the earth is flat. The only things they seem to bring up is the horizon, which has already been debunked to death. I would love to see some real proof that NASA is faking their pictures, some real evidence the earth is ACTUALLY flat. Just because something can exist does not mean it does exist. Saying NASA fakes all their pictures and photos is a huge claim, you cant make a claim that big with no evidence, and so far I have not seen any evidence.

The person you are lashing out at is a round earth proponent. One who has actually read the FAQ/wiki, unlike yourself, and is just providing a helpful response. You, on the other hand are just ranting. So, either discuss the topic, or take it to Angry Ranting.

Mr junker Sir, I really hate to break it to you but, some people (me) don't actually agree with what the wiki says(crazy right?) and some of my posts might show it. Just because we don't agree with the wiki, does not mean we haven't read it. I know this is a hard concept to wrap your head around.

The reality is that if you had read the FAQ/wiki prior, and paid any attention in threads, you’d have known who you were replying to and why. Instead, you go on a rant in reply to someone who most certainly doesn’t believe the wiki either, but has read it. I’m not sure why you’re struggling with this, but I suppose it isn’t surprising. Anyway, I pointed that out so you didn’t waste time trying to argue with someone that agrees with you. No need to have any further discussion on it in this thread as it will derail the topic. I’ll ask that if you continue to post, please stay on topic and if you want to continue to discuss your lack of awareness then make a new thread in a more appropriate forum. Thanks!

[TheRealJunker]

I'm doing God's work Junker.
Don't ban me now.
(That'd be too easy, I haven't even said anything out of the ordinary, and last I checked, you don't ban people for having an account that doesn't say anything bad. Figure that one out.)

[juner]

I'm doing God's work Junker.
Don't ban me now.
(That'd be too easy, I haven't even said anything out of the ordinary, and last I checked, you don't ban people for having an account that doesn't say anything bad. Figure that one out.)

Maybe check rule 8. Your alts are now permanently banned. If it happens again, your alt(s) and main account will be banned as well, JohnH.

[devils advocate]

Why must someone be able to answer? What did the man living in no 3 bananas drive have for breakfast June 18th 1874? Can you answer that?!

[Ratboy]

I think one question that might be relevant to this thread and maybe is the intent of the original post is something like:
Why do Mercury and Venus have phases like the moon, but other planets like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn do not?
The thing that bugged a lot of the early FE's were that the planets move in a weird way (retrograde Mars for example).  The sun and moon move at a pretty much constant speed with the moon moving a little slower than the sun.  Sometimes the planets move faster than the sun and sometimes they move slower.  Venus and Mercury are never seen very far away from the sun and Mars Jupiter and Saturn are like the moon where they can travel around the night sky or day sky whatever they want to do. Because people could see the planets in the sky, the models proposed had to match what they could see with their own eyes.  So the models had these weird circles within circles to explain how these planets were moving.  Only when the sun was stuck into the middle of the model did it all fall into place with planets just moving at constant speeds (well it does change a bit with their eliptical orbits) orbiting around this sun. 
So the first question could be about why do Venus and Mars have phases and the other planets do not?

[Roger G]

I think one question that might be relevant to this thread and maybe is the intent of the original post is something like:
Why do Mercury and Venus have phases like the moon, but other planets like Mars, Jupiter and Saturn do not?
The thing that bugged a lot of the early FE's were that the planets move in a weird way (retrograde Mars for example).  The sun and moon move at a pretty much constant speed with the moon moving a little slower than the sun.  Sometimes the planets move faster than the sun and sometimes they move slower.  Venus and Mercury are never seen very far away from the sun and Mars Jupiter and Saturn are like the moon where they can travel around the night sky or day sky whatever they want to do. Because people could see the planets in the sky, the models proposed had to match what they could see with their own eyes.  So the models had these weird circles within circles to explain how these planets were moving.  Only when the sun was stuck into the middle of the model did it all fall into place with planets just moving at constant speeds (well it does change a bit with their eliptical orbits) orbiting around this sun. 
So the first question could be about why do Venus and Mars have phases and the other planets do not?

The answer to your question is simple, Mars doesn't have phases, because it is outside the orbit of the earth the side that we see is always lit by the sun. There are occasions when there is an irregularity of the mars face when the earth comes between it and the sun and casts a shadow. Venus on the other hand is an 'inferior planet', or orbiting inside the earth's orbit, so shows phases in the same way that the moon does as the sun illuminates it from different angles relative to us.

Roger

[Ratboy]

Roger, what I meant was what is the explanation if one rejects the obvious answer?

[Roger G]

Roger, what I meant was what is the explanation if one rejects the obvious answer?

There isn't anything to explain regarding Mars, it doesn't have phases either in FE or RE so I don't understand your question. You could ask for an explanation of why the sun turns blue at mid day. It doesn't, although a lateral answer could be that it is because you always put on blue tinted sunglasses at mid day.

Roger

[Rounder]

Yes, we know Mars has no phases in either universe.  The question is WHY does Mars not have phases in FE?  We know why it doesn’t have phases in a big-planets, things-far-away, globe-earth universe.  We are looking for the explanation for it in a tiny-dots-in-the-sky, 3000-miles-away, flat-earth universe.

[Ratboy]

Roger, what I meant was what is the explanation if one rejects the obvious answer?

There isn't anything to explain regarding Mars, it doesn't have phases either in FE or RE so I don't understand your question. You could ask for an explanation of why the sun turns blue at mid day. It doesn't, although a lateral answer could be that it is because you always put on blue tinted sunglasses at mid day.

Roger

Roger, the original question was regarding Mars not having phases and Venus and Mercury do.  You answered the obvious answer and I requested the non-obvious answer that does not require a round earth.  You then replied that I could ask about the sun being blue. But in this case it is like asking about the moon turning blue and the sun not turning blue.  Venus has phases and Mars does not.  What FE answer is there to that?

[Curious Squirrel]

Roger, what I meant was what is the explanation if one rejects the obvious answer?

There isn't anything to explain regarding Mars, it doesn't have phases either in FE or RE so I don't understand your question. You could ask for an explanation of why the sun turns blue at mid day. It doesn't, although a lateral answer could be that it is because you always put on blue tinted sunglasses at mid day.

Roger

Roger, the original question was regarding Mars not having phases and Venus and Mercury do.  You answered the obvious answer and I requested the non-obvious answer that does not require a round earth.  You then replied that I could ask about the sun being blue. But in this case it is like asking about the moon turning blue and the sun not turning blue.  Venus has phases and Mars does not.  What FE answer is there to that?

Presumably for roughly the same reason in RE. It has a wider orbit than Venus and Mercury. Also known as, it doesn't come below the sun. Why? Hell if I know, the FE cosmology is already pretty screwed up to be honest. But remember the moon phases come from a shift of only a few hundred miles up and down, if that.

[Ratboy]

Presumably for roughly the same reason in RE. It has a wider orbit than Venus and Mercury. Also known as, it doesn't come below the sun. Why? Hell if I know, the FE cosmology is already pretty screwed up to be honest. But remember the moon phases come from a shift of only a few hundred miles up and down, if that.

The only thing that does not make sense with that answer is the idea that some planets could have wider orbits than others.  As alluded to in my thread about An Experiment Everyone can Try, all the planets, the moon and the sun (and the zodiac constellations) have the same width of orbit.  They can all only be seen directly overhead for people between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn and every one can be seen directly overhead at one time or another anywhere between these extremes.  People on the equator are able to see one of the zodiac constellations directly overhead at least once a night and during the two equinoxes, they get to see all of them over the two nights at some time directly overhead.  Since all the zodiac constellations, the moon, the sun and all the planets occupy the same overhead space, and all their orbits follow the equator during the equinox, it really makes explanation for phases hard to come up with.

[Roger G]

Presumably for roughly the same reason in RE. It has a wider orbit than Venus and Mercury. Also known as, it doesn't come below the sun. Why? Hell if I know, the FE cosmology is already pretty screwed up to be honest. But remember the moon phases come from a shift of only a few hundred miles up and down, if that.

The only thing that does not make sense with that answer is the idea that some planets could have wider orbits than others.  As alluded to in my thread about An Experiment Everyone can Try, all the planets, the moon and the sun (and the zodiac constellations) have the same width of orbit.  They can all only be seen directly overhead for people between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn and every one can be seen directly overhead at one time or another anywhere between these extremes.  People on the equator are able to see one of the zodiac constellations directly overhead at least once a night and during the two equinoxes, they get to see all of them over the two nights at some time directly overhead.  Since all the zodiac constellations, the moon, the sun and all the planets occupy the same overhead space, and all their orbits follow the equator during the equinox, it really makes explanation for phases hard to come up with.

If you are looking from an RE point of view,  the planets are basically on the same plane as the earth, but a wider orbit means that they are further out in space than we are in their orbit round the sun. Imagine they were all balls on a piece of sting spaced at different distances along the string. If you then whirled the string around your head, that would be similar to the planets going around the sun with the ones nearest the end of the string being the further out or on a wider orbit. The difference with the planets is that unlike the balls on the string, they are orbiting at different speeds, so the outer ones take much longer to complete an orbit.

So to get back to the phases, planets that are further out from the sun than us, will always appear to us to be lit fully by the sun, but planets nearer the sun than us will sometimes have the side that faces us in darkness or partial darkness because the area facing the sun will be lit.

If you want the answers from an FE point of view, you will need to ask an FE believer because I can't see how it would work if the sun is going round a flat disk earth.

Roger

[Curious Squirrel]

Presumably for roughly the same reason in RE. It has a wider orbit than Venus and Mercury. Also known as, it doesn't come below the sun. Why? Hell if I know, the FE cosmology is already pretty screwed up to be honest. But remember the moon phases come from a shift of only a few hundred miles up and down, if that.

The only thing that does not make sense with that answer is the idea that some planets could have wider orbits than others.  As alluded to in my thread about An Experiment Everyone can Try, all the planets, the moon and the sun (and the zodiac constellations) have the same width of orbit.  They can all only be seen directly overhead for people between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn and every one can be seen directly overhead at one time or another anywhere between these extremes.  People on the equator are able to see one of the zodiac constellations directly overhead at least once a night and during the two equinoxes, they get to see all of them over the two nights at some time directly overhead.  Since all the zodiac constellations, the moon, the sun and all the planets occupy the same overhead space, and all their orbits follow the equator during the equinox, it really makes explanation for phases hard to come up with.

If you are looking from an RE point of view,  the planets are basically on the same plane as the earth, but a wider orbit means that they are further out in space than we are in their orbit round the sun. Imagine they were all balls on a piece of sting spaced at different distances along the string. If you then whirled the string around your head, that would be similar to the planets going around the sun with the ones nearest the end of the string being the further out or on a wider orbit. The difference with the planets is that unlike the balls on the string, they are orbiting at different speeds, so the outer ones take much longer to complete an orbit.

So to get back to the phases, planets that are further out from the sun than us, will always appear to us to be lit fully by the sun, but planets nearer the sun than us will sometimes have the side that faces us in darkness or partial darkness because the area facing the sun will be lit.

If you want the answers from an FE point of view, you will need to ask an FE believer because I can't see how it would work if the sun is going round a flat disk earth.

Roger

Thinking about it, how was it explained during Geocentrism? Because for most celestial things FE IS essentially an offshoot of Geocentrism, although Tom likes to call it Heliocentric because all the planets orbit the sun. (Remember, Earth isn't a planet.) I'll admit my knowledge of the Geocentric view is quite limited.

[Ratboy]

Thinking about it, how was it explained during Geocentrism? Because for most celestial things FE IS essentially an offshoot of Geocentrism, although Tom likes to call it Heliocentric because all the planets orbit the sun. (Remember, Earth isn't a planet.) I'll admit my knowledge of the Geocentric view is quite limited.

Geocentrism works not too badly to explain how the heavenly bodies move as observed from earth.  It was the mechanism that was hard to explain.  If you consider the sun, it could orbit the earth once a day and light half the earth at a time. If the earth moved up and down within its sphere, it could cause seasons and allow the north to have longer days in summer etc.  The ancients did not know Mercury and Venus had phases, since you need a telescope to see that.  The planets followed a sphere within a sphere path that explains things like retrograde motion.  The more accurate people could see things (with telescopes for example) the more complex the geocentric system became.  All of this assumed a round earth with the sun orbiting the equator as we know it in a round earth world.  On a flat earth, the spotlight of the sun has a hard time explaining how the southern hemisphere can get equal amounts of light and dark the same as the northern half.  The spotlight of the sun has to reach a lot farther for the south part of the disk in order to give it a 12 hour daylight day.  How does the tip of south of Chile get as much light on March 21 as Cheyenne Wyoming on a flat earth model?  Easily explained on a geocentric round earth model.

[Curious Squirrel]

Thinking about it, how was it explained during Geocentrism? Because for most celestial things FE IS essentially an offshoot of Geocentrism, although Tom likes to call it Heliocentric because all the planets orbit the sun. (Remember, Earth isn't a planet.) I'll admit my knowledge of the Geocentric view is quite limited.

Geocentrism works not too badly to explain how the heavenly bodies move as observed from earth.  It was the mechanism that was hard to explain.  If you consider the sun, it could orbit the earth once a day and light half the earth at a time. If the earth moved up and down within its sphere, it could cause seasons and allow the north to have longer days in summer etc.  The ancients did not know Mercury and Venus had phases, since you need a telescope to see that.  The planets followed a sphere within a sphere path that explains things like retrograde motion.  The more accurate people could see things (with telescopes for example) the more complex the geocentric system became.  All of this assumed a round earth with the sun orbiting the equator as we know it in a round earth world.  On a flat earth, the spotlight of the sun has a hard time explaining how the southern hemisphere can get equal amounts of light and dark the same as the northern half.  The spotlight of the sun has to reach a lot farther for the south part of the disk in order to give it a 12 hour daylight day.  How does the tip of south of Chile get as much light on March 21 as Cheyenne Wyoming on a flat earth model?  Easily explained on a geocentric round earth model.

Ah, so it didn't have to contend with the phases and such. Bummer that. Seemed like it would have been a good fit for a rough idea of how things work in the FE model.

[Roger G]

Thinking about it, how was it explained during Geocentrism? Because for most celestial things FE IS essentially an offshoot of Geocentrism, although Tom likes to call it Heliocentric because all the planets orbit the sun. (Remember, Earth isn't a planet.) I'll admit my knowledge of the Geocentric view is quite limited.

Geocentrism works not too badly to explain how the heavenly bodies move as observed from earth.  It was the mechanism that was hard to explain.  If you consider the sun, it could orbit the earth once a day and light half the earth at a time. If the earth moved up and down within its sphere, it could cause seasons and allow the north to have longer days in summer etc.  The ancients did not know Mercury and Venus had phases, since you need a telescope to see that.  The planets followed a sphere within a sphere path that explains things like retrograde motion.  The more accurate people could see things (with telescopes for example) the more complex the geocentric system became.  All of this assumed a round earth with the sun orbiting the equator as we know it in a round earth world.  On a flat earth, the spotlight of the sun has a hard time explaining how the southern hemisphere can get equal amounts of light and dark the same as the northern half.  The spotlight of the sun has to reach a lot farther for the south part of the disk in order to give it a 12 hour daylight day.  How does the tip of south of Chile get as much light on March 21 as Cheyenne Wyoming on a flat earth model?  Easily explained on a geocentric round earth model.

Ah, so it didn't have to contend with the phases and such. Bummer that. Seemed like it would have been a good fit for a rough idea of how things work in the FE model.

Lots of ideas seem to be a rough fit for an FE model of all sorts of things until someone asks another awkward question. Then either the rough fit has to be changed to an even more complicated model or the question ignored or derailed. So we still don't have an FE answer for the phases of the inner planets.

Roger