Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets

Now that the INS debate has run its course, any FER care to answer how an ESS shape is formed in FE?

They won't, because they'll need to make up a new law of physics to explain it, and that takes time. Now John Davis isn't here to use his "magic Aether explains it, but I won't tell you how" catchall.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on January 14, 2012, 07:12:17 PM

Now that the INS debate has run its course, any FER care to answer how an ESS shape is formed in FE?

They won't, because they'll need to make up a new law of physics to explain it, and that takes time. Now John Davis isn't here to use his "magic Aether explains it, but I won't tell you how" catchall.

It seems you are right, no reply yet.

^ Mostly this. I do wonder why ClockTower insists on asking questions that he already knows the FET answer to?

There are two facts that are important. The first is that Saturn in the last planet anyway. Neptune, Uranus, Pluto if you call it a planet, doesn't matter; they are all made up. I know this to be a fact because there are only 7 days in a week. It is confirmed by most European languages.
Sunday             Sun day                   
Monday             Moon day
Tuesday            Mars day            Mardi in French             Martes in Spanish         
Wednesday      Mercury day        Mercredi in French        Miércoles in Spanish
Thursday          Jupiter day          Jeudi in French             Jueves in Spanish
Friday               Venus day           Vendredi in French       Viernes in Spanish
Saturday          Saturn day

As I recall, the Romans who originally assigned the planet names to the days of the week also believed that the earth is round.  If they were wrong about the shape of the earth, then what makes you think that they weren't wrong about the number of planets too?

Please don't bump very old threads. Especially when the topic is already being discussed elsewhere.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53709.msg1317025#msg1317025

Please don't bump very old threads. Especially when the topic is already being discussed elsewhere.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53709.msg1317025#msg1317025

1. You're not a moderator, so stop bossing people around.
2. This thread is not yet old enough to qualify - a warning message comes up when it does, which I believe is after something like three months.
3. You filled the other thread with trolling lies, so it's not surprising that someone wants to talk in a different thread.

Please don't bump very old threads. Especially when the topic is already being discussed elsewhere.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=53709.msg1317025#msg1317025

That thread is no longer discussing the retrograde motion of the planets, and still FE has yet to explain the retrograde motion shown by Mars in 2005.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Planets

According to FET the planets move around on epicycles.

S-shapes can be made with epicycles.

Here's an epicycle simulator which shows that all sorts of shapes can be made in the sky: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

The FE system isn't geocentric as in the above simulator. In FET the planets are moving around the sun rather than an invisible point in space, but the simulator is sufficient to show that a variety of shapes can be made when the variables are adjusted for one circle rotating around another circle.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Planets

According to FET the planets move around on epicycles.

S-shapes can be made with epicycles.

Here's an epicycle simulator which shows that all sorts of shapes can be made in the sky: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

The FE system isn't geocentric as in the above simulator. In FET the planets are moving around the sun rather than an invisible point in space, but the simulator is sufficient to show that a variety of shapes can be made when the variables are adjusted for one circle rotating around another circle.

yes tom, i have seen that before, in fact that entire post.  I have tried many times to produce an S in a quarter of an orbit, but am unable to.  Can you please give me the settings you used to produce that result.  When i try it always crosses its own path.

Edit:  I have now made a seagull shape, but that does not help at all, that is even worse because that never happens.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Planets

According to FET the planets move around on epicycles.

S-shapes can be made with epicycles.

Here's an epicycle simulator which shows that all sorts of shapes can be made in the sky: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

The FE system isn't geocentric as in the above simulator. In FET the planets are moving around the sun rather than an invisible point in space, but the simulator is sufficient to show that a variety of shapes can be made when the variables are adjusted for one circle rotating around another circle.

This epicycle idea is silly. Please tell us in what plane Mars orbits the Sun in FET and then the plane of its epicycle that creates the retrograde motion. You have consistently failed to describe in the least how this would work.

The Wiki diagram seems to argue that Mars moves north and south in its orbit about the Sun, contrary to reality. Please try harder.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Planets

According to FET the planets move around on epicycles.

S-shapes can be made with epicycles.

Here's an epicycle simulator which shows that all sorts of shapes can be made in the sky: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

The FE system isn't geocentric as in the above simulator. In FET the planets are moving around the sun rather than an invisible point in space, but the simulator is sufficient to show that a variety of shapes can be made when the variables are adjusted for one circle rotating around another circle.

Tom, I am still waiting on how you managed to form an Ess shape like the one pictured earlier.  This is where the debate always gets to and then you run away. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 16, 2012, 01:29:50 PM

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Planets

According to FET the planets move around on epicycles.

S-shapes can be made with epicycles.

Here's an epicycle simulator which shows that all sorts of shapes can be made in the sky: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

The FE system isn't geocentric as in the above simulator. In FET the planets are moving around the sun rather than an invisible point in space, but the simulator is sufficient to show that a variety of shapes can be made when the variables are adjusted for one circle rotating around another circle.

Tom, I am still waiting on how you managed to form an Ess shape like the one pictured earlier.  This is where the debate always gets to and then you run away.

Did you check the simulator Tom Bishop quoted? It is a two dimensional epicycle simulator, where an S is totally impossible because of the missing dimension. No wonder why he ran away. Never mind that, again, the Earth is that little round thing in the center, totally contrary to FE models. The implication that because "a variety" of shapes is possible then an S shape is possible is just ludicrous, but you know Tom Bishop.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on March 19, 2012, 12:08:25 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 16, 2012, 01:29:50 PM

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Planets

According to FET the planets move around on epicycles.

S-shapes can be made with epicycles.

Here's an epicycle simulator which shows that all sorts of shapes can be made in the sky: http://astro.unl.edu/naap/ssm/animations/ptolemaic.swf

The FE system isn't geocentric as in the above simulator. In FET the planets are moving around the sun rather than an invisible point in space, but the simulator is sufficient to show that a variety of shapes can be made when the variables are adjusted for one circle rotating around another circle.

Tom, I am still waiting on how you managed to form an Ess shape like the one pictured earlier.  This is where the debate always gets to and then you run away.

Did you check the simulator Tom Bishop quoted? It is a two dimensional epicycle simulator, where an S is totally impossible because of the missing dimension. No wonder why he ran away. Never mind that, again, the Earth is that little round thing in the center, totally contrary to FE models. The implication that because "a variety" of shapes is possible then an S shape is possible is just ludicrous, but you know Tom Bishop.

Yeah i have played around with it a lot.  It works fine as an FE simulator, you just have to imagine that the blue dot is the north pole and that everything else is on top of the giant earth which covers the whole simulation lol.  But yeah I have tried and never managed to get an Ess in something reflective of the real world.

Anyways FE has no explanation for an Ess shape (because its impossible on a FE unless the planet actually moves in an Ess shape, which makes no sense), and epicycles are a flawed system as it is.  I guess celestial gears that change might work, but that just seems like a hugely more complicates system than our model of the solar system.

They have failed to answer the "Ess shape", and also the "can INS detect left and right turns" for so long its not even funny.

Every epicycle diagram posted in this thread was drawn in the assumption that the planets all roughly move on the same plane as the earth.  Since this cannot be the case for Flat Earth, none of these diagrams can possibly represent the planets' paths in the Flat Earth model.  Likewise the simulator posted by Tom assumes the observer is precisely in the middle of the average orbit for a planet, when the model he supports has us observers 3000 miles away from the plane of these orbits, and no where near the centre, looking at this system from completely different directions.  Plus all the planets seem to move towards and away from the sun from all vantage points rather than around.  This suggests that all of us as observers are on the same plane as the solar system.

Quote from: AsmodeusSilent on December 21, 2011, 04:11:13 PM

But... You can see the outer planets with a good telescope. And I don't mean NASA grade, I mean I personally know two or three people in my area who own telescopes good enough to see them with.

How can you be sure you are seeing the imaginary planets? It seems a bit far fetched. It is also not possible (RET claim) to discern an outer planet from a star with anything less than a 12 inch reflector, so I'm guessing you just made it up. I doubt you know 3 people with observatories.

Most stars aren't green and shift position over time in a way that is consistent with Newton's law of gravitation.

If fact no stars appear to be green, for obvious reasons if you look at the structure of the eye and the emission spectra of stars.