[manicminer]

The FAQ page in FE Wiki states regarding retrograde motion,

The 2007 retrograde of Mars. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.

If this description is true, then as I interpret it the planets should also exhibit a phase cycle like the Moon does shouldn't they?  So you would never see a 'full Jupiter' or a 'full Mars' because in that configuration the Sun would lie between the Earth and the planet.   You can't see planets when they lie in the same line of sight as the Sun for obvious reasons. The same would apply when the planet is between the Earth and the Sun on the other side of its orbit.

I have been observing the planets with telescopes for around 40 years now and I have never seen Jupiter or Saturn at 'half' phase. Only ever a full or very nearly full disk.  How can that be?

[Tom Bishop]

Why would the outer planets get between the observer and the sun?

[manicminer]

If I am wrong in that interpretation then I am clearly misunderstanding the statement I have quoted from FE Wiki. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain more fully.

[QED]

I am wrong in that interpretation then I am clearly misunderstanding the statement I have quoted from FE Wiki. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain more fully.

Is it possible from your observation of the planets that they could be in orbits around the Sun that lie in a plane perpendicular to our line of sight to the Sun. That is, they orbit the Sun but never cross between the Sun and the Earth?

I believe such an orbit should be possible from a central force argument, but have not assessed it in detail.

What orbits do they appear to have given your decades of observation?

The lack of phases of the planets is a very interesting observation.

[manicminer]

I am terrible at typing sometimes!  Just noticed another couple of typos in my previous post which I have now corrected :-)

All the planets follow paths through the sky (i.e the starry background) that closely follow that of the Sun. That tells us that the planes of the orbits are all very similar so that would put your suggestion about a perpendicular plane in some doubt.

Of the planets, Mercury and Venus do show a phase cycle that is the same (though with longer period) as that of the Moon. That is quite easy to account for by the heliocentric model if the Earth is the third planet out. Mars does show a slight gibbous phase at times but that is all.

FE Wiki seems to suggest that the other planets orbit the Sun while the Sun orbits over the plane of the Earth.  That would inevitably lead to more than just Mercury and Venus showing phases and that simply isn't what is observed.

[Tom Bishop]

Why would they lead to phases? The outer planets don't come between the observer and the sun. Please draw a diagram.

[manicminer]

No Tom I'm the one asking the question so you draw a diagram to illustrate what the statement in the FE means. Then perhaps I will understand why my interpretation is wrong.

[stack]

I couldn't find anything via the google so I whipped this up. I have no idea if it's right, just taking a guess:

[manicminer]

Congrats Stack on producing an excellent diagram. That is exactly how I envisioned what is meant by the description in FE Wiki.

It shows exactly how the outer planets as we call them should show phases. As shown you would not be able to see any on the planets because they are all in line with the Sun but if you run Jupiter or Saturn 90 deg forward of back then they should show either 'last quarter' or 'first quarter' phase. Like a 'half Moon'.  In 40 years of observing I have never seen that.

Also in this model we could never have the situation where Mars and beyond are at 'opposition' where they rise as the Sun sets. In the above configuration No planet could ever be seen on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun.

[Dr David Thork]

Yuck. That shows the planets orbiting the sun. Most flat earther's subscribe to everything 'orbiting' the earth. The earth is the big thing, it is the centre of the universe. So the planets travel in Spirograph type patterns, consistent with the celestial gearing theory.

[QED]

Yuck. That shows the planets orbiting the sun. Most flat earther's subscribe to everything 'orbiting' the earth. The earth is the big thing, it is the centre of the universe. So the planets travel in Spirograph type patterns, consistent with the celestial gearing theory.

Whoa! Where’s the sun in this picture?

[ChrisTP]

QED, the sun seems to be depicted slightly left of the center vertically along the equator at the bottom

[manicminer]

Yuck. That shows the planets orbiting the sun.

Why are you so against the idea that the planets orbit the Sun?  And what is causing all those loops in your diagram?  All looks a bit complicated to me. Again, that depiction would not produce the planetary motion as we see it in the sky.

[Tom Bishop]

From the Wikipedia page on planetary phases:

"The superior planets, orbiting outside the Earth's orbit, do not exhibit the full range of phases as they appear almost always as gibbous or full."

Sounds pretty simple to me. Some planets can get between the observer and the sun as to create all phases, and the outer ones cannot, and only display some phases.

[markjo]

From the Wikipedia page on planetary phases:

"The superior planets, orbiting outside the Earth's orbit, do not exhibit the full range of phases as they appear almost always as gibbous or full."

Sounds pretty simple to me. Some planets can get between the observer and the sun as to create all phases, and the outer ones cannot, and only display some phases.

Tom, that's the RE explanation.  What's the FE explanation?  Aren't the sun, moon and planets more or less on the same plane above the flat earth?

[Tom Bishop]

Some planets can get between the observer and the sun, others cannot.

[markjo]

Some planets can get between the observer and the sun, others cannot.

Would you care to elaborate?  What's different about the orbits of Mercury and Venus that allows them to get between the sun and the observer but not the other planets?

Perhaps a diagram of FE planetary orbits would help those of us who can't visualize such a system without help.

[manicminer]

"The superior planets, orbiting outside the Earth's orbit, do not exhibit the full range of phases as they appear almost always as gibbous or full."

Sounds pretty simple to me. Some planets can get between the observer and the sun as to create all phases, and the outer ones cannot, and only display some phases.

For once Tom I completely agree with you. This is exactly what happens in the heliocentric model.  If anyone can get the same description to work with a geocentric model then I would be most interested to hear about it.

[Tom Bishop]

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

[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?

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?

Seemingly simple questions, but maybe not for FET.