The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: EmperorZhark on May 29, 2012, 08:41:59 AM
-
Watch out on June the 5th, Venus transiting in front of the Sun.
I wonder how that fits in FET?
-
lurk moar
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54676.0
-
Are you really trying to disprove FET via a small dot on the Sun?
-
irush it is venus if you like it or not. its been tracked for 100s of years and is one of the most visible bodies in the sky.
dont just use the fingers in the ears bla bla bla answer. go back to the bottom feeders or try some intelegent debate
-
Irush is right, Venus is a very insignificant object according to the FAQ.
This can be determined by its transit.
The sun and the moon arent always exactly at a fixed height, and sometimes venus (as is mercury) lower than the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venustransit_2004-06-08_07-49.jpg
this tiny black dot against a 32 Mile Sun making venus no bigger than .25 Miles.
-
Irush is right, Venus is a very insignificant object according to the FAQ.
This can be determined by its transit.
The sun and the moon arent always exactly at a fixed height, and sometimes venus (as is mercury) lower than the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Venustransit_2004-06-08_07-49.jpg
this tiny black dot against a 32 Mile Sun making venus no bigger than .25 Miles.
nasa and russian probes got it wrong again then? you never did reply to my picture from the mars rover... wonder why
-
This begs the question: what size is Venus, which distance from the Sun? In FET, of course.
How does FET predict Venus' transit?
-
This begs the question: what size is Venus, which distance from the Sun? In FET, of course.
Pretty small.
How does FET predict Venus' transit?
Prediction of astronomical events isn't specific to any word model.
Astronomers can predict the Transit of Venus because, like eclipses, it is an event which recurs in the sky periodically. One can look at historic timetables of past events to predict the next one. This is how the Ancient Babylonians predicted astronomical events, how the Ancient Greeks predicted astronomical events, and how they are predicted today. The bulk of astronomical prediction consists of analyzing previous occurrences to predict the next.
-
Astronomers can predict the Transit of Venus and the eclipses because they are events which recur in the sky periodically. One can look at historic timetables of past events to predict the next one. This is how the Ancient Babylonians predicted them, how the Ancient Greeks predicted them, and how they are predicted today.
Where did you get the idea that the Babylonians and the Greeks were aware of Venusian transits?
Fewer than 100 transits have taken place since the beginning of recorded history. The number is close to 50, actually. The first one wasn't recorded until the 17th century; the only reason anyone ever thought to look is that Kepler predicted it using his elliptical planetary models. The first observers had no prior pattern of transits of Venus to reference.
-
doesnt it pass the sun every 8 years?...
anyway tom you never answered my post about the same subject.
how is it that ENaG says the sun and the moon are at 3000 miles and the rest is 3100, yet venus pops down every 8 years. i went into further detail on the flat earth side of the story. however as my posts arnt digs at the fes or trivial they tend to get ignored for the best part
-
doesnt it pass the sun every 8 years?...
No. (http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/catalog/VenusCatalog.html)
-
doesnt it pass the sun every 8 years?...
Passing the sun is not the same as transiting the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus)
Transits of Venus are among the rarest of predictable astronomical phenomena. They occur in a pattern that repeats every 243 years, with pairs of transits eight years apart separated by long gaps of 121.5 years and 105.5 years.
Also, for Tom:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus#Ancient_and_medieval_history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_of_Venus#Ancient_and_medieval_history)
Ancient Indian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Indian), Greek (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek), Egyptian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt), Babylonian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia) and Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) observers knew of Venus and recorded the planet's motions. The early Greeks thought that the evening and morning appearances of Venus represented two different objects—Hesperus the evening star and Phosphorus the morning star.[10] Pythagoras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagoras) is credited with realizing they were the same planet. There is no evidence that any of these cultures knew of the transits. Venus was important to ancient American civilizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pre-Columbian_civilizations), in particular for the Maya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_civilization), who called it Noh Ek, "the Great Star" or Xux Ek, "the Wasp Star";[11] they embodied Venus in the form of the god Kukulkán (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kukulk%C3%A1n) (also known as or related to Gukumatz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gukumatz) and Quetzalcoatl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl) in other parts of Mexico). In the Dresden Codex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Codex), the Maya charted Venus' full cycle, but despite their precise knowledge of its course, there is no mention of the transit.[12]
-
I did not say that the Babylonians and Greeks were aware of the Transit of Venus. Please read my post again.
-
I did not say that the Babylonians and Greeks were aware of the Transit of Venus.
Then why did you bring them up as if they were relevant?
-
I did not say that the Babylonians and Greeks were aware of the Transit of Venus.
Then why did you bring them up as if they were relevant?
They're relevant because they championed the method of astronomical prediction used today: pattern analysis based on historic events.
-
I did not say that the Babylonians and Greeks were aware of the Transit of Venus.
Then why did you bring them up as if they were relevant?
They're relevant because they championed the method of astronomical prediction used today: pattern analysis based on historic events.
But there was no historical record of transits of Venus before Kepler predicted the 1631 transit.
-
I did not say that the Babylonians and Greeks were aware of the Transit of Venus.
Then why did you bring them up as if they were relevant?
They're relevant because they championed the method of astronomical prediction used today: pattern analysis based on historic events.
This is patently false. No one suspected the existence of transits until Kepler predicted them. His predictions were not based on any previous observations of Venusian transits. His predictions were based on the mathematics of elliptical orbits, and they were independently confirmed. Yes, tables of astronomical data were used to derive the mathematics, but those tables alone are totally insufficient for making accurate astronomical predictions. The very reason for Kepler's investigations was that astronomers at the time had great difficulty predicting many astronomical events with much accuracy, like the location of Mercury.
What you're describing simply isn't possible. Many objects in the sky do not come back to the exact same location according to a regular pattern. The fact that modern astronomy is able to predict not only when something like a transit will occur, but also where on Earth it will be visible, is an exquisite verification of a spherical Earth.
Oh, and here are the modern mathematics from which modern astronomical tables (called ephemerides) are constructed. (https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qV_lZK6nBXoJ:iau-comm4.jpl.nasa.gov/XSChap8.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi7xi5PWyt73v_9kf-M_7VS02u8O4L1jtcpD5tsveZxzz2o6dTv7Y59X8c2qsL9-pJn-7V6TF3S4G0aN0ra7SW3H3xmj_nKQULN7Qn5VvrakcUPHHb3m427pH2BaovGQGHS10ac&sig=AHIEtbQlB8zumzhV2ys01LCgPvoHtB8fmg)
-
This begs the question: what size is Venus, which distance from the Sun? In FET, of course.
Pretty small.
How does FET predict Venus' transit?
Prediction of astronomical events isn't specific to any word model.
Astronomers can predict the Transit of Venus because, like eclipses, it is an event which recurs in the sky periodically. One can look at historic timetables of past events to predict the next one. This is how the Ancient Babylonians predicted astronomical events, how the Ancient Greeks predicted astronomical events, and how they are predicted today. The bulk of astronomical prediction consists of analyzing previous occurrences to predict the next.
1) Pure hard FE science! I expected no less from you, Tom.
2) How can FET predict Venus transit (not RE astronomists)?
-
I did not say that the Babylonians and Greeks were aware of the Transit of Venus.
Then why did you bring them up as if they were relevant?
They're relevant because they championed the method of astronomical prediction used today: pattern analysis based on historic events.
But there was no historical record of transits of Venus before Kepler predicted the 1631 transit.
In the 1600's special tinted lenses were popularized which allowed astronomers to look at the sun with less glare. Kepler and his associated could see Venus move nearer to the sun with every pass. Based on those historical observations of Venus moving nearer to the sun he predicted that it would eventually transit the sun. That's how it was predicted.
This is patently false. No one suspected the existence of transits until Kepler predicted them. His predictions were not based on any previous observations of Venusian transits.
They were predicted based on a historical record of Venus' movements, as explained.
How can FET predict Venus transit (not RE astronomists)?
Historical patterns. It's not model specific. The predictions are applicable to both models of the earth.
-
yeh i was ignored by tom again. whats your problem? im a simpleton making simple observations. yet you ignore me all the time. im only pointing out flaws in your 'bible'
-
In the 1600's special tinted lenses were popularized which allowed astronomers to look at the sun with less glare. Kepler and his associated could see Venus move nearer to the sun with every pass. Based on those historical observations of Venus moving nearer to the sun he predicted that it would eventually transit the sun. That's how it was predicted.
Citation please.
-
Why is no FE'ers answering the topic?
Like a planetary model explaining Venus transit, or Mercury transit.
-
yeh i was ignored by tom again. whats your problem? im a simpleton making simple observations. yet you ignore me all the time. im only pointing out flaws in your 'bible'
Perhaps if you improve your grammar you won't be so quickly dismissed.
In the 1600's special tinted lenses were popularized which allowed astronomers to look at the sun with less glare. Kepler and his associated could see Venus move nearer to the sun with every pass. Based on those historical observations of Venus moving nearer to the sun he predicted that it would eventually transit the sun. That's how it was predicted.
Citation please.
From this page (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/venus/venus_text17.htm) we read that Kepler predicts the Transit of Venus in a work called Rudolphine Tables
In 1629, as Kepler was preparing a set of astronomical ephemerides for the years 1629 to 1636, based on his new laws of planetary motion published in his Rudolphine Tables (Ulm, 1627), he noted that a transit of Mercury would take place on 7 November 1631 and a transit of Venus on 6 December of the same year. Although his calculations indicated that the latter transit would best be visible from the American continent, he cautioned European astronomers in his pamphlet De raris mirisque Anni 1631 (Leipzig, 1629) to be watchful as well.
Looking up the Rudolphine Tables on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables):
The Rudolphine Tables (Latin: Tabulae Rudolphinae) consist of a star catalogue and planetary tables published by Johannes Kepler in 1627, using some observation data collected by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). The tables are named as "Rudolphine" in memory of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor.
So as we can see, it's a big historical table of past events, just as the Ancient Greeks and Babylonians had. Like lunar eclipses, the movements of the planets, and most everything else in astronomy, the Transit of Venus prediction was predicted based on analysis of previous events.
-
yeh i was ignored by tom again. whats your problem? im a simpleton making simple observations. yet you ignore me all the time. im only pointing out flaws in your 'bible'
Perhaps if you improve your grammar, you won't be so quickly dismissed.
In the 1600's special tinted lenses were popularized which allowed astronomers to look at the sun with less glare. Kepler and his associated could see Venus move nearer to the sun with every pass. Based on those historical observations of Venus moving nearer to the sun he predicted that it would eventually transit the sun. That's how it was predicted.
Citation please.
From this page we read that Kepler predicts the Transit of Venus (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gent0113/venus/venus_text17.htm) in a work called Rudolphine Tables
"In 1629, as Kepler was preparing a set of astronomical ephemerides for the years 1629 to 1636, based on his new laws of planetary motion published in his Rudolphine Tables (Ulm, 1627), he noted that a transit of Mercury would take place on 7 November 1631 and a transit of Venus on 6 December of the same year. Although his calculations indicated that the latter transit would best be visible from the American continent, he cautioned European astronomers in his pamphlet De raris mirisque Anni 1631 (Leipzig, 1629) to be watchful as well."
Looking up the Rudolphine Tables on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables):
The Rudolphine Tables (Latin: Tabulae Rudolphinae) consist of a star catalogue and planetary tables published by Johannes Kepler in 1627, using some observation data collected by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). The tables are named as "Rudolphine" in memory of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor.
So as we can see, it's a big historical table of past events, just as the Ancient Greeks and Babylonians had. Like eclipses, the movements of the planets, et all, the Transit of Venus prediction was predicted based on analysis of previous events.
Why is no FE'ers answering the topic?
Like a planetary model explaining Venus transit, or Mercury transit.
-
Why is no FE'ers answering the topic?
Like a planetary model explaining Venus transit, or Mercury transit.
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.
-
Mercury and Venus are obviously much closer to the sun, so close that sometimes they are closer to the earth than the sun. Mars never appears to do this so it never dips below the Sun.
You cant really call the gas giants planets, I believe thay are just failed stars.
-
From this page (http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/%7Egent0113/venus/venus_text17.htm) we read that Kepler predicts the Transit of Venus in a work called Rudolphine Tables
In 1629, as Kepler was preparing a set of astronomical ephemerides for the years 1629 to 1636, based on his new laws of planetary motion published in his Rudolphine Tables (Ulm, 1627), he noted that a transit of Mercury would take place on 7 November 1631 and a transit of Venus on 6 December of the same year. Although his calculations indicated that the latter transit would best be visible from the American continent, he cautioned European astronomers in his pamphlet De raris mirisque Anni 1631 (Leipzig, 1629) to be watchful as well.
Yes, tables that Kepler generated based on his own laws of planetary motion.
Looking up the Rudolphine Tables on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables):
The Rudolphine Tables (Latin: Tabulae Rudolphinae) consist of a star catalogue and planetary tables published by Johannes Kepler in 1627, using some observation data collected by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601). The tables are named as "Rudolphine" in memory of Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor.
So as we can see, it's a big historical table of past events, just as the Ancient Greeks and Babylonians had. Like lunar eclipses, the movements of the planets, and most everything else in astronomy, the Transit of Venus prediction was predicted based on analysis of previous events.
I think that you sipped over this part:
Previous tables
Star tables had been produced for many centuries and were used to establish the position of the planets relative to the fixed stars (particularly the twelve constellations used in astrology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology)) on a specific date in order to construct horoscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horoscope). Until the end of the 16th century, the most widely used had been the Alphonsine tables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonsine_tables), first produced in the 13th century and regularly updated thereafter. These were based on a Ptolemeic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy), geocentric model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model) of the solar system. Although the Alphonsine tables were not very accurate, nothing else was available and so they continued to be used.
Previous tables were not accurate enough to predict transits of Venus or Mercury which is why they were never observed before Kepler predicted them.
-
Yes, tables that Kepler generated based on his own laws of planetary motion.
It says multiple times on the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables) that they were based on observations.
I think that you sipped over this part:
Previous tables
Star tables had been produced for many centuries and were used to establish the position of the planets relative to the fixed stars (particularly the twelve constellations used in astrology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology)) on a specific date in order to construct horoscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horoscope). Until the end of the 16th century, the most widely used had been the Alphonsine tables (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphonsine_tables), first produced in the 13th century and regularly updated thereafter. These were based on a Ptolemeic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy), geocentric model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model) of the solar system. Although the Alphonsine tables were not very accurate, nothing else was available and so they continued to be used.
Previous tables were not accurate enough to predict transits of Venus or Mercury which is why they were never observed before Kepler predicted them.
Those earlier 13th century astronomers did not use more modern methods to create their tables. They couldn't record events near to the sun because the sun blotted everything out. This is also why the Ancient Greeks and Babylonians never predicted the Transit of Venus. The special tinted lenses and darkroom projection methods were not used.
(http://www.transitofvenus.co.cc/uploads/9/3/9/6/9396565/1710924.jpg?426)
-
Why is no FE'ers answering the topic?
Like a planetary model explaining Venus transit, or Mercury transit.
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.
Predictions are based on calculations, so how do you manage that in FET?
-
Why is no FE'ers answering the topic?
Like a planetary model explaining Venus transit, or Mercury transit.
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.
Predictions are based on calculations, so how do you manage that in FET?
They are based on observations. See my previous post above.
-
Why is no FE'ers answering the topic?
Like a planetary model explaining Venus transit, or Mercury transit.
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.
This is entirely false. You are a fake intellectual.
1. Rudolphine Tables were calculated using Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Your own link describes this. They were based on the mathematical principles he outlined in Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and others. Here are more descriptions that verify this claim, taken from Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion (https://www.box.com/s/c76fa9839ab74368bcda). Sorry for the terrible formatting. I'm hosting these from a dropbox, so if the links aren't working, someone let me know.
The turning point in Kepler's fortunes came with the publication of his last big work, the Rudolphine Tables, in I627. This was an event for which the scientific world had long been waiting. They were based upon the first-class observational data accumulated by Tycho Brahe in the later part of the sixteenth century, and in them, for the first time, the laws were really put to the test. Henceforward, astronomers could compare the predictions of the tables with the actually observed positions of the sun, moon and planets, and could then compare the results with those of rival astronomical theories. They could then decide whether it was worth while to undertake the difficult and laborious work of mastering Kepler's methods and applying them in practice. In due time, a large majority of them would decide in his favour.
...
Public support for the Rudolphine Tables came almost immediately after their publication from Jacob Bartsch, a pupil of Muller at Leipzig, later (I630) to become Kepler's son-in-law. In I629 he published a volume of Ephemerides based upon Kepler's tables, but calculated for the locality of Strasbourg. In it he spoke of Kepler's theories in terms of high praise, but did not expound them. Instead, he referred the reader to the Epitome for the theoretical principles on which the tables were based. The Rudolphine Tables were undoubtedly a great improvement on all preceding ones and one might have expected that they would have swept the board at once. Two reasons, however, conspired to delay their general acceptance. The first was their difficulty. Many contemporary astronomers complained on this score. Partly it was due to the inherent difficulty of handling ellipses, and especially the area law. The problem was, of course, all the greater since neither the calculus nor co-ordinate geometry had yet been invented. Many students were also repelled by Kepler's use of logarithms which, although time-saving for those familiar with them, were still unknown and rather alarming to most astronomers. In addition, his mathematical techniques were sometimes unnecessarily clumsy and the tables were marred by a number of errors and misprints.
...
The second main reason which militated against the Rudolphine Tables was the appearance, a few years later, of a rival set of tables compiled by the Dutch astronomer, Philip Landsberg (I63I, i632). These were simpler than Kepler's; they were based on the traditional circular orbits and their author made extravagant claims for their accuracy which were at first accepted by many of his contemporaries. They were, in fact, much less accurate than Kepler's. Landsberg was familiar with Kepler's main works and frequently made use of his data, but dismissed his theories as absurd.'7 His tables were widely used during the I630's, but thereafter fell more and more out of favour; he was even accused of having deliberately falsified some of his data in order to fit his theories.'8 He continued to find occasional supporters, however, at least up to i662.
As you can see, your description cannot be accurate. If it were, there couldn't be rival tables.
This passage also indicates that you are incorrect that Rudolphine Tables are equally valid for any solar system model. They are not. I cannot find any source that indicates this to be the case. Please provide me with a citation that verifies your claims.
2. Kepler used geometry to construct his tables and the predictions they make. From The Mathematics of the Area Law (https://www.box.com/s/3e9ede919e3cd3ce0bb3):
Mathematical analysis for Kepler (in astronomy at least) meant geometry alone. He was successful in his determination of the path of a single planet because this problem is amenable to exact solution almost exclusively by the geometry of Euclid – and Kepler tackled it that way. (We may mention for interest that, in the course of his main astronomical work, Kepler introduced nothing more than precisely three propositions from Archimedes.) He successively proposed curves that were formally constructed by means of the conventional Euclidean tools of straightedge and compasses only: his use of this method has been demonstrated in detail elsewhere, in [3] and [4].
You'll notice that this paper includes numerous mathematical descriptions of the derivation of some of Kepler's laws.
3. Here is a modern method for calculating ephemerides. (https://www.box.com/s/8f19b8d04d7ca91dc543) It is extremely accurate, and it relies on a round Earth.
-
Oh, and here is a cool quote from some book-nerd contemporary of Kepler's, found just a page above the passage I quoted in Kepler's Laws, cited above:
'First, concerning the Danish Astronomy, which you mention at the beginning of your second letter. You hope that someone will give these tables a further polishing and you say that all astronomers would be grateful for this. But I should have thought that it would be a waste of time now that the Rudolphine Tables have been published, since all astronomers will undoubtedly use these . . . For myself, so far as other less liberal occupations allow, I am wholly occupied with trying to understand the foundations upon which the Rudolphine rules and tables are based, and I am using for this purpose the Epitome of Astronomy previously published by Kepler as an introduction to the tables. This epitome which previously I had read so many times and so little understood and so many times thrown aside, I now take up again and study with rather more success seeing that it was intended for use with the tables and is itself clarified by them . . . I am no longer repelled by the elliptical form of the planetary orbits; Kepler's proofs, in his Commentaria de Marte [i.e. Astronomia Nova] have convinced me."
Instead of rereading ENaG over and over again, you should tackle New Astronomy, or Epitome, or any other of Kepler's texts.
-
This is entirely false. You are a fake intellectual.
1. Rudolphine Tables were calculated using Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Your own link describes this.
Incorrect. My link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables) describes the tables as being an aggregation of observation form multiple astronomers.
They were based on the mathematical principles he outlined in Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and others. Here are more descriptions that verify this claim, taken from Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion (https://www.box.com/s/c76fa9839ab74368bcda). Sorry for the terrible formatting. I'm hosting these from a dropbox, so if the links aren't working, someone let me know.
<snip>
As you can see, your description cannot be accurate. If it were, there couldn't be rival tables.
None of that says that the data in the tables was calculated. It says right in the Wikipedia page several times that the tables are a list of observations collected over time.
Why can't there be rival tables of observations?
This passage also indicates that you are incorrect that Rudolphine Tables are equally valid for any solar system model. They are not. I cannot find any source that indicates this to be the case. Please provide me with a citation that verifies your claims.
Seeing that Kepler's master Tacho Banche used his tables to make predictions, and Tacho believed that the earth was center of the universe which everything revolved around, I would beg to differ that Kepler's tables of historic observations are not applicable to different solar system models.
Astronomy is purely a science of observation and interpretation.
You'll notice that this paper includes numerous mathematical descriptions of the derivation of some of Kepler's laws.
Kepler may have created laws for planetary motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion), but the equation we see on this page are unconnected to what actually happens. All he can do is look in the sky and observe and interpret.
The wiki page on Kepler's Laws even gives an excuse for why Kepler's laws don't really work out:
"Because of the nonzero planetary masses and resulting perturbations, Kepler's laws apply only approximately and not exactly to the motions in the solar system."
I imagine the sentiment is "Ehh, good enough."
But regardless, the Flat Earth model has the planets revolving around the sun in Keplian orbits, albeit at a smaller scale.
3. Here is a modern method for calculating ephemerides. (https://www.box.com/s/8f19b8d04d7ca91dc543) It is extremely accurate, and it relies on a round Earth.
That document was authored by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a NASA entity. It references a bunch of bogus NASA projects as a source for its data. For the historical data they are just stealing the trigonometric equations astronomers of antiquity have used for pattern analysis.
Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm) in Earth Not a Globe (scroll to the bottom), but as he describes, the whole concept of prediction in astronomy is based on pattern recognition and nothing more.
-
Oh, and here is a cool quote from some book-nerd contemporary of Kepler's, found just a page above the passage I quoted in Kepler's Laws, cited above:
'First, concerning the Danish Astronomy, which you mention at the beginning of your second letter. You hope that someone will give these tables a further polishing and you say that all astronomers would be grateful for this. But I should have thought that it would be a waste of time now that the Rudolphine Tables have been published, since all astronomers will undoubtedly use these . . . For myself, so far as other less liberal occupations allow, I am wholly occupied with trying to understand the foundations upon which the Rudolphine rules and tables are based, and I am using for this purpose the Epitome of Astronomy previously published by Kepler as an introduction to the tables. This epitome which previously I had read so many times and so little understood and so many times thrown aside, [/b]I now take up again and study with rather more success seeing that it was intended for use with the tables and is itself clarified by them . . .[/b] I am no longer repelled by the elliptical form of the planetary orbits; Kepler's proofs, in his Commentaria de Marte [i.e. Astronomia Nova] have convinced me."
Instead of rereading ENaG over and over again, you should tackle New Astronomy, or Epitome, or any other of Kepler's texts.
I'm sorry, but how does a quote by someone who freely admits that they do not understand what the tables mean go towards telling us what they mean?
-
Incorrect. My link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables) describes the tables as being an aggregation of observation form multiple astronomers.
1. Your link is a wikipedia page. I can't speak for you, but I find peer-reviewed publications in scholarly journals much more compelling than wikipedia pages. For all I know, you're the author of those words. I don't think that you are, but the fact remains that my data can be (and has been) verified, and it comes from trustworthy sources. Those sources disagree with your description of how ephemerides are calculated.
2. Your link says the following things:
"Until the end of the 16th century, the most widely used had been the Alphonsine tables, first produced in the 13th century and regularly updated thereafter. These were based on a Ptolemeic, geocentric model of the solar system. Although the Alphonsine tables were not very accurate, nothing else was available and so they continued to be used."
Geocentric models were inaccurate.
"Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets."
Kepler combined Tycho's observations with his heliocentric model.
"They contain positions for the 1,006 stars measured by Tycho Brahe, and more than 400 stars from Ptolemy and Johann Bayer, with directions and tables for locating the planets of the solar system. The tables included many function tables of logarithms and antilogarithms, and instructive examples for computing planetary positions."
This sentence encapsulates exactly the way these tables are used. Initial conditions (past observations) are fed into Kepler's model. The model uses these initial conditions to create an output (future prediction) that can be compared to the outputs of other models. Tycho's observations, and Kepler's Rudolphine Tables, were useful only inasmuch as they were finally accurate enough to begin constructing models that could be meaningfully compared.
None of that says that the data in the tables was calculated. It says right in the Wikipedia page several times that the tables are a list of observations collected over time.
Why can't there be rival tables of observations?
Are you serious? How are you not getting this? The data for past events were based on observations. The predictions for future events were based on mathematics derived from the past observations. Different models constructed to explain the data set of past observations can be compared based on their different predictions. The passages make this abundantly clear. for instance: "In I629 he published a volume of Ephemerides based upon Kepler's tables, but calculated for the locality of Strasbourg. In it he spoke of Kepler's theories in terms of high praise, but did not expound them. Instead, he referred the reader to the Epitome for the theoretical principles on which the tables were based."
There were rival tables of future predictions, created by different models (heliocentric/geocentric, circular orbits/elliptical orbits, etc.). Geocentric models failed. Circular orbits failed. Elliptical heliocentrism prevailed.
Seeing that Kepler's master Tacho Banche used his tables to make predictions, and Tacho believed that the earth was center of the universe which everything revolved around, I would beg to differ that Kepler's tables of historic observations are not applicable to different solar system models.
Astronomy is purely a science of observation and interpretation.
Kepler published the Rudolphine Tables at the end of his life. Tycho Brahe was dead. Kepler used Brahe's observations to construct the tables, but their predictions were very different. Kepler won.
That document was authored by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a NASA entity. It references a bunch of bogus NASA projects as a source for some of its data.
Nonetheless, for the historical data they are just stealing the trigonometric equations astronomers of antiquity have used for pattern analysis.
Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm) in Earth Not a Globe (scroll to the bottom), but as he describes, the whole concept of prediction in astronomy is based on pattern recognition and nothing more.
Big on claims, short on evidence. You're just making assertions at this point. Feel free to come back to any of the NASA threads you've fled from. You have no reason at all to be suspicious of NASA, other than the fact that it would disrupt the worldview you can't relinquish. It's the very definition of irrational.
Congratulations to Rowbotham on predicting lunar eclipses. That's not really evidence of anything. I can predict the exact time Venus will transit the Sun, and I can tell you precisely where on Earth you can view it. Even if the timing follows a regular pattern, its visibility on Earth isn't.
2004 Venus Transit Visibility
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/venus/Map2004-1.GIF
2012 Visibility
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/venus/Map2012-1.GIF
Oh, and here is a cool quote from some book-nerd contemporary of Kepler's, found just a page above the passage I quoted in Kepler's Laws, cited above:
'First, concerning the Danish Astronomy, which you mention at the beginning of your second letter. You hope that someone will give these tables a further polishing and you say that all astronomers would be grateful for this. But I should have thought that it would be a waste of time now that the Rudolphine Tables have been published, since all astronomers will undoubtedly use these . . . For myself, so far as other less liberal occupations allow, I am wholly occupied with trying to understand the foundations upon which the Rudolphine rules and tables are based, and I am using for this purpose the Epitome of Astronomy previously published by Kepler as an introduction to the tables. This epitome which previously I had read so many times and so little understood and so many times thrown aside, [/b]I now take up again and study with rather more success seeing that it was intended for use with the tables and is itself clarified by them . . .[/b] I am no longer repelled by the elliptical form of the planetary orbits; Kepler's proofs, in his Commentaria de Marte [i.e. Astronomia Nova] have convinced me."
Instead of rereading ENaG over and over again, you should tackle New Astronomy, or Epitome, or any other of Kepler's texts.
I'm sorry, but how does a quote by someone who freely admits that they do not understand what the tables mean go towards telling us what they mean?
He clearly says that his misunderstandings have been alleviated by carefully studying the relationship between the tables and the mathematics. More importantly, here is a first hand observer of these events describing that the tables of future predictions are, in fact, derived from mathematical models.
-
I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.
-
I love how I go into these threads expecting an argument covering the topic but instead find arguments of the stupidest things.
Flat Earthers - It's your job to debunk the world, right? You want people to see the world the way it is, yes? You spend your time being so defensive and critiquing every little thing in people's arguments. Instead you should rise at the chance to prove your model of the world we live on.
What does this black dot traveling in front of the sun mean to Flat Earthers? Surely a flat-disc model of the solar system vs. the huge orb solar system would produce different results over this great big Earth. Now's your chance to unveil the curtain of conspiracy. Seize the moment.
-
I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.
Your understanding of this process is too reductionist. It's also incomplete. You seem to think that any model can be made to fit any data set, and that Kepler's observations fit a FET as well as a RET. You merely assert this, and it's false on its face. For instance, measuring the appearance of Venusian transits from different locations allows one to calculate how far away the Earth and Venus are from the Sun. These measurements directly contradict the belief that the Sun and Venus are small and nearby. And, as I've already illustrated, because they are only visible from particular locations on Earth (locations that correspond precisely to what we would expect if the Earth were a large spheroid), they directly contradict the notion that we are all on a flat slab of rock.
Observations lead to models. Models make predictions. Different models make different predictions. These predictions can be tested. Some are more accurate than others. Kepler's mathematics require the Sun to be at the center of the solar system, and for the planets to have elliptical orbits around it. These requirements have been tested, born out, and verified.
You've said in this thread, "But regardless, the Flat Earth model has the planets revolving around the sun in Keplian orbits, albeit at a smaller scale." Please explain to me how these two different models lead to identical predictions on the apparent locations of the planets.
-
Yes, tables that Kepler generated based on his own laws of planetary motion.
It says multiple times on the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables) that they were based on observations.
Yes, they were based on Kepler's and Tycho's observations which were more accurate than observations used in previous tables. Observations that, when used with his heliocentric model, produce significantly more accurate tables than were previously available.
Those earlier 13th century astronomers did not use more modern methods to create their tables. They couldn't record events near to the sun because the sun blotted everything out. This is also why the Ancient Greeks and Babylonians never predicted the Transit of Venus. The special tinted lenses and darkroom projection methods were not used.
(http://www.transitofvenus.co.cc/uploads/9/3/9/6/9396565/1710924.jpg?426)
Kepler used, among other things, a camera obscura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_obscura#History) for his observations. This is a tool that was well known and available to the ancient Greeks.
-
Kepler was a freaking genius but he couldn't have done it without Brahe. Too bad drinking mercury was a common 'cure' back then.
Read the biography of Kepler, The Watershed. It's amazing. And after that read The Sleepwalkers. Your eyes will be opened.
-
I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.
Yes, it's pattern recognition. Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts. Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.
-
I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.
Yes, it's pattern recognition. Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts. Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.
RE models have both pattern recognition and equations based on a theory to back observations of Venus (and Mercury) transits.
FET ? Zilch!
-
These measurements directly contradict the belief that the Sun and Venus are small and nearby. And, as I've already illustrated, because they are only visible from particular locations on Earth (locations that correspond precisely to what we would expect if the Earth were a large spheroid), they directly contradict the notion that we are all on a flat slab of rock.
If the earth were flat and Venus were passing between the sun and earth, the event wouldn't be seen from everywhere. Some people would be positioned at an angle where Venus does not intersect the sun. Think about it.
Observations lead to models. Models make predictions. Different models make different predictions. These predictions can be tested. Some are more accurate than others. Kepler's mathematics require the Sun to be at the center of the solar system, and for the planets to have elliptical orbits around it. These requirements have been tested, born out, and verified.
The math isn't based on Kepler's three laws. It's based on tables of previous occurrences. His three laws are an attempt to explain what's happening in the background. But the actual predictions are predicted based on patterns.
You've said in this thread, "But regardless, the Flat Earth model has the planets revolving around the sun in Keplian orbits, albeit at a smaller scale." Please explain to me how these two different models lead to identical predictions on the apparent locations of the planets.
Kepler's Three Laws aren't used to predict the position of the planets. Historic tables are. Historic tables and pattern analysis have been used to predict astronomical events for thousands of years.
-
I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.
Yes, it's pattern recognition. Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts. Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.
Incorrect. The heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. Neither the heliocentric model or the 3 laws are used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.
I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.
Yes, it's pattern recognition. Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts. Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.
RE models have both pattern recognition and equations based on a theory to back observations of Venus (and Mercury) transits.
FET ? Zilch!
Pattern recognition isn't based on any particular theory of the solar system. I can predict that the sun will come up tomorrow, in almost exactly the same manner as it did today. I can predict that the North Star will point North, just as it did last night. Does my prediction prove that the earth is a globe, a pear, or a cube?
-
grammer nazi, its the content, not how its written. i cant be bothered to constantly press shift for your entertainment. a child of 5 would be able to see that the content is worth reading even if the sentence is missing capitals
i refer your arguemnt as the lalalalala fingers in ears technique
-
Wrong, the heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. The heliocentric model or the 3 laws are not used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.
(http://www.maintitles.net/gfx/smileys/facepalm.gif)For crying out loud Tom, do you even read your sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables#Tycho.27s_data_and_Kepler.27s_model_of_the_solar_system
Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric) model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets. Accurate calculation was aided by the newly published system of logarithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm) which simplified accurate calculation and made them less prone to errors.
-
According to the FE Wiki - the current hypothesis is the orbit of planets around the sun is parallel to the surface of the disk as the sun rotates around the north pole.
However real world observations such as transits seem to indicate that the planets - at least mercury and venus - are orbiting the sun perpendicular to the surface of the disk.
-
Wrong, the heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. The heliocentric model or the 3 laws are not used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.
(http://www.maintitles.net/gfx/smileys/facepalm.gif)For crying out loud Tom, do you even read your sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables#Tycho.27s_data_and_Kepler.27s_model_of_the_solar_system
Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric) model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets. Accurate calculation was aided by the newly published system of logarithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm) which simplified accurate calculation and made them less prone to errors.
What you quoted does not contradict my post.
Indeed, the section you quoted directly states that the tables list OBSERVATIONS, not calculations based on Kepler's Three Laws. It's a table of observations of historical astronomical events.
-
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HGIcFEFvL.jpg)
-
Can you provide me with any sources or citations that verify these claims? I'm specifically interested in knowing your justification for claims like these:
It's not model specific. The predictions are applicable to both models of the earth.
...
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.
How do you know that this is the case? I have provided material that demonstrates that Kepler's predictions were comparable to, and distinct from, geocentric models. The first link I provided on the second page of this thread, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion describes the history of these conflicts, and the success of Kepler's mathematics, in great detail.
This link (http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Hypotheses.html) also provides a clear description of the concepts outlined in New Astronomy and Epitome.
This particular section (http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Earth.html) illustrates the way that his observations were combined with geometric arguments (the model) to make distinct and verifiable predictions.
If the earth were flat and Venus were passing between the sun and earth, the event wouldn't be seen from everywhere. Some people would be positioned at an angle where Venus does not intersect the sun. Think about it.
Can you provide me with a schematic or diagram that illustrates that this is the case, that some locations on the plane will be so angled? How do you know that there are no differences in what the two models predict, in terms of visibility? Can you demonstrate this?
So far, our observations perfectly match what we would expect if we're on a rotating, spherical Earth. I have provided you with two diagrams that illustrate this point.
The math isn't based on Kepler's three laws. It's based on tables of previous occurrences. His three laws are an attempt to explain what's happening in the background. But the actual predictions are predicted based on patterns.
Do you have a source for this? The sources I have provided indicate otherwise. If you'll read them in full, you'll encounter more nuanced descriptions of the relationship between his observations and his mathematical arguments.
Kepler's Three Laws aren't used to predict the position of the planets. Historic tables are. Historic tables and pattern analysis have been used to predict astronomical events for thousands of years.
You're not even making an argument. You're just repeating your assertions. The material I have provided indicates conclusively that this is not the way ephemerides are constructed. Historical tables are used for initial conditions. Kepler's mathematics and geometry makes the predictions.
-
Can you provide me with any sources or citations that verify these claims? I'm specifically interested in knowing your justification for claims like these:
It's not model specific. The predictions are applicable to both models of the earth.
...
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.
How do you know that this is the case? I have provided material that demonstrates that Kepler's predictions were comparable to, and distinct from, geocentric models. The first link I provided on the second page of this thread, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion describes the history of these conflicts, and the success of Kepler's mathematics, in great detail.
This link (http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Hypotheses.html) also provides a clear description of the concepts outlined in New Astronomy and Epitome.
This particular section (http://www.keplersdiscovery.com/Earth.html) illustrates the way that his observations were combined with geometric arguments (the model) to make distinct and verifiable predictions.
If the earth were flat and Venus were passing between the sun and earth, the event wouldn't be seen from everywhere. Some people would be positioned at an angle where Venus does not intersect the sun. Think about it.
Can you provide me with a schematic or diagram that illustrates that this is the case, that some locations on the plane will be so angled? How do you know that there are no differences in what the two models predict, in terms of visibility? Can you demonstrate this?
So far, our observations perfectly match what we would expect if we're on a rotating, spherical Earth. I have provided you with two diagrams that illustrate this point.
The math isn't based on Kepler's three laws. It's based on tables of previous occurrences. His three laws are an attempt to explain what's happening in the background. But the actual predictions are predicted based on patterns.
Do you have a source for this? The sources I have provided indicate otherwise. If you'll read them in full, you'll encounter more nuanced descriptions of the relationship between his observations and his mathematical arguments.
Kepler's Three Laws aren't used to predict the position of the planets. Historic tables are. Historic tables and pattern analysis have been used to predict astronomical events for thousands of years.
You're not even making an argument. You're just repeating your assertions. The material I have provided indicates conclusively that this is not the way ephemerides are constructed. Historical tables are used for initial conditions. Kepler's mathematics and geometry makes the predictions.
O Tom! A lot of dithering, and still no size and distance of Venus! No mathematical explanations of it's orbit in FE!
Why do you spend so much time contradicting RET when you should work on a plausible FET?
We know there are astronomical tables, most of them done by RE'ers and probably some by FE'ers, but we are in the XXIst century, where we can go a little further in research and science.
-
Incorrect. The heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. Neither the heliocentric model or the 3 laws are used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.
Sorry, Tom, but I have to take you to school again. You keep citing Wikipedia as if it's trustworthy and terminal source material. In fact, the only available reference that it cites is this page (http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/keplertables.html), and it says this:
The Tables was far more accurate than its predecessors - its margin of error staying within 10 seconds compared to up to 5 degrees with earlier tables. Instead of providing a sequence of planetary positions for specified days (which Kepler did in his Ephemerides), the Rudolphine Tables were set up to allow calculations of planetary positions for any time in the past or future. The finding of the longitude of a given planet at a given time was based on Kepler's equation and he exploited logarithms for this tabulation. The precise geocentric positions had to be worked out from combining the heliocentric positions of the planets and the earth that were calculated separately. Logarithmic tabulations were used again to facilitate calculation. Thus, although Brahe wished the Tables to be based on his own system, it is clear from the way Kepler set up his tabulations that they were based on Kepler's own heliocentric system with elliptical planetary orbits.
Devastating.
Oh, and there's this article (http://blog.wolfram.com/2008/12/18/mathematica-7-johannes-kepler-and-transcendental-roots/). It describes a method for using Kepler's calculations in the mathematics software "Mathematica 7."
In fact, what many people consider the very first computer—made of wood by Wilhelm Schickard in 1623—was built specifically to help in getting solutions to equations of the form x == 1 - e Sin[ x ].
...
Johannes Kepler was in the process of constructing his Rudolphine astronomical tables—and his killer technology for finding the longitude of a planet at a given time required solving what’s now called Kepler’s equation: essentially the transcendental equation x == 1 - e Sin[ x ]. With considerable effort, and probably computer support, Kepler made a table of solutions to this equation.
...
It’s also nice to realize that—after 385 years—Kepler’s killer technology for constructing astronomical tables can be reduced to just a single line of Mathematica 7 input.
Do you have any evidence at all to support your claims, other than your misinterpretation of a Wikipedia page?
-
while the transit doesn;t prove a spherical or planar earth, it does prove the sun is not a spotlight.
Mercury and Mars will be "lit up" just fine during the transit. (unless of course they too create there own light).
-
Wouldn't we notice if other planets had their own stars giving them light? The more I read about FET the more non sense enters my brain.
-
Wrong, the heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. The heliocentric model or the 3 laws are not used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.
(http://www.maintitles.net/gfx/smileys/facepalm.gif)For crying out loud Tom, do you even read your sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables#Tycho.27s_data_and_Kepler.27s_model_of_the_solar_system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables#Tycho.27s_data_and_Kepler.27s_model_of_the_solar_system)
Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentric) model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets. Accurate calculation was aided by the newly published system of logarithms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm) which simplified accurate calculation and made them less prone to errors.
What you quoted does not contradict my post.
Indeed, the section you quoted directly states that the tables list OBSERVATIONS, not calculations based on Kepler's Three Laws. It's a table of observations of historical astronomical events.
You're right, there is no mention of calculations whatsoever in that passage. ::)
BTW Tom, did you ever read the Rudolphine Tables or are you just assuming that it's nothing more than a series of observations based on your selective comprehension of other people's descriptions?
-
another thing this transist proves is James is right, the Universe has to be a lot younger than sicentists theorize. Because at times venus shares the same plane as the sun, eventually the Sun will hit it.
-
another thing this transist proves is James is right, the Universe has to be a lot younger than sicentists theorize. Because at times venus shares the same plane as the sun, eventually the Sun will hit it.
For statement to hold any weight at all you would have to prove that the Sun and Venus do in fact share the same "plane" at times. Even then you would still have to prove that their paths of travel would actually cross at some point. Then you would have to calculate out their paths and locations and determine if at any time they would both be at that crossing point at the same time. You would then have to calculate out their paths throughout all of history and see if the claimed age of the Earth would have necessarily caused a collision at some point in that history given their paths of travel.
Until then this statement is a random assumption based on virtually nothing.
-
how else do you conclude that Venus (rarely) transists venus than at tiomes being closer to the sun.
at one point they would have to collide. a 32 mile sun and a .25 mile planet only oscilaating between 100 miles apart...odds say after billions of years they would collide.
-
how else do you conclude that Venus (rarely) transists venus than at tiomes being closer to the sun.
at one point they would have to collide. a 32 mile sun and a .25 mile planet only oscilaating between 100 miles apart...odds say after billions of years they would collide.
Again, this is pure assumption and random speculation. Why would they have to collide? You say that the odds are that they would eventually collide. What are the odds? Have you actually calculated them? In FET all the celestial objects are fairly small and moving in unexplained patterns in relatively close proximity to each other all the time. What calculations or observations have you made to convince you that the Sun and Venus will inevitably collide, or must already have done so if the universe is as old as some claim?
Regardless, I really don't see how you can conclude that this event provides evidence of the age of the universe. In your opinion Venus is relatively tiny right? Maybe it has only been floating around up there for a short time. Imagine that it was absolutely proven that Venus (the small spec that FET claims Venus is) has only been in it's present pattern for 1,000 years. How would that prove that was the age of the universe? How could you prove that the small chunk that is Venus has been around and on it's current path since the beginning of the universe?
You say that Venus transiting the Sun means that at times it is closer to the Sun. Do you have proof of this, or that their paths ever actually cross? And if you do, what evidence do you have that they couldn't continue on their current paths/pattern without ever colliding, even after a trillion years? How do you know Venus actually passes nearer the Sun at the times it doesn't actually cross in front of it from our viewpoint? Maybe the times we see Venus transit the Sun it is actually passing it from a further distance than normal.
I ask this in part because I am curious if there has been any attempt to actually model the paths of the planets, moon, etc. I know the basic way they move has been touched upon (epicycles, etc.) but to my knowledge their track through the sky hasn't been really mapped out in such a way that you could accurately predict the paths of an object as supposedly tiny as Venus. If this has been done I would be very interested to see the results.
-
Got bored this morning and decided to see if I could find a full description of the method for calculating ephemerides like The Rudolphine Tables. First hit, first search string.
This link (http://www.davidcolarusso.com/astro/) contains a complete description of how to use Kepler's three laws to calculate the positions of the planets for any time in the future, based on their current positions, within a margin of error. You'll notice that we need no additional information beyond the three laws and the present position of the planets.
This chapter (http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/celmechs/celm10.pdf) of this celestial mechanics textbook (http://orca.phys.uvic.ca/~tatum/celmechs.html) explains the process in even greater detail.
So, there you have it.
-
Very nice photos:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=venus+transit&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=fr&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=pfrQT5WYKcmr8APgraGEBw&biw=1209&bih=956&sei=p_rQT8LxN4Xf8APd4diuDA