# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 11:14:00 AM

Title: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 11:14:00 AM
I contend:
The outer planets go through a RET-predicted period of retrograde motion every year or so. You can observe this motion over the course of a two-year period from most any location on Earth for all five outer planets.

FET does not explain nor predict this motion.

RET does a great job both explaining and predicting this motion.

When combined with the refinements of Kepler (elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus, relationships between distance from sun and orbital speed - both within a single orbit and between orbits) this does, in fact, provide the correct explanation for the observed retrograde motion along with precise predictions of the positions of the planets.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 11:21:05 AM
The math for FETs motion is out there somewhere, we just haven't put enough effort into uncovering it yet. Once we've convinced the world of the true shape of the earth I'm sure more scientists will uncover these hidden maths.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 11:27:38 AM
The math for FETs motion is out there somewhere, we just haven't put enough effort into uncovering it yet. Once we've convinced the world of the true shape of the earth I'm sure more scientists will uncover these hidden maths.
And that would be a "special pleading fallacy".
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: EmperorZhark on December 19, 2011, 03:10:07 PM
The math for FETs motion is out there somewhere, we just haven't put enough effort into uncovering it yet. Once we've convinced the world of the true shape of the earth I'm sure more scientists will uncover these hidden maths.

It says it all!
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 04:04:18 PM
Okay, I might be falling for it here, but how does anyone get to 4000 posts and still make threads like this?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 04:06:55 PM
Okay, I might be falling for it here, but how does anyone get to 4000 posts and still make threads like this?
I'm just splitting off a topic that Tom used to derail another thread. Do you have a particular problem with this thread? I wouldn't mind higher-content posts from you.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 04:08:17 PM
Okay, I might be falling for it here, but how does anyone get to 4000 posts and still make threads like this?
I'm just splitting off a topic that Tom used to derail another thread. Do you have a particular problem with this thread? I wouldn't mind higher-content posts from you.

I don't have a problem with it, no. Just wondered that's all. Is this a serious thread?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 04:44:40 PM
Okay, I might be falling for it here, but how does anyone get to 4000 posts and still make threads like this?
I'm just splitting off a topic that Tom used to derail another thread. Do you have a particular problem with this thread? I wouldn't mind higher-content posts from you.

I don't have a problem with it, no. Just wondered that's all. Is this a serious thread?
Yes.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 04:53:14 PM
Then my question is also serious. I stopped making threads like this after a few weeks perhaps. I don't remember; it might have been later. But it wasn't 4000 posts later! This is essentially a joke forum. The most fun to be had in the serious fora is baiting noobs who ask stupid questions about reaching the speed of light or seeing the Earth's curve in photos at the beach. But....you're...still doing this. Unless you mean serious as in a serious hypothetical discussion, safe in the knowledge that all involved are speaking hypothetically. Like in that bit at the beginning of The Time Machine (Until he pulls out the time machine).
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 04:56:22 PM
Then my question is also serious. I stopped making threads like this after a few weeks perhaps. I don't remember; it might have been later. But it wasn't 4000 posts later! This is essentially a joke forum. The most fun to be had in the serious fora is baiting noobs who ask stupid questions about reaching the speed of light or seeing the Earth's curve in photos at the beach. But....you're...still doing this. Unless you mean serious as in a serious hypothetical discussion, safe in the knowledge that all involved are speaking hypothetically. Like in that bit at the beginning of The Time Machine (Until he pulls out the time machine).
I think this a topic for The Lounge.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 05:02:11 PM
And this thread should be locked?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48384.msg1191665#msg1191665
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 05:03:59 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33267.0
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 05:04:44 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=47856.0
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 05:06:07 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=36047.0
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 05:07:18 PM
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18260.0
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 05:09:12 PM
And this thread should be locked?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48384.msg1191665#msg1191665
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 05:10:28 PM
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 05:21:54 PM
I didn't ask for your help. Please stop. In particular, listing necro-threads in one after another post does no good whatsoever. I suggest that you find the correct forum for your efforts.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 05:55:42 PM
ClockTower, we're worried that you might actually believe in Flat Earthers. They're like the bogeyman, entirely made up to scare young physicists.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 05:58:55 PM
ClockTower, we're worried that you might actually believe in Flat Earthers. They're like the bogeyman, entirely made up to scare young physicists.
<yawn> Do you have anything to contribute to the topic? If not, please post your comments elsewhere.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 06:07:49 PM
You knew what the FET answer to this would be long before you posted it. If you didn't know, its in the reply directly after the OP (mine).
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 06:14:31 PM
You knew what the FET answer to this would be long before you posted it. If you didn't know, its in the reply directly after the OP (mine).
Let's see now...
1) George Scott Fallacy. You can't tell me what I knew.
2) "its" should be "it's".
3) Please let me know when you were elected to be the decider of what "the FET answer to this" would be.
4) Unless you have something to contribute to the topic, please post in the appropriate forum. Thanks!
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 06:19:23 PM
Just because I haven't had enough time to look for the math in FET doesn't mean it is not there. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I have a job to do and I can't go around devoting my daily life of trying to provide the glory of the Truth to a bunch of heathens.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 19, 2011, 06:23:47 PM
Just because I haven't had enough time to look for the math in FET doesn't mean it is not there. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I have a job to do and I can't go around devoting my daily life of trying to provide the glory of the Truth to a bunch of heathens.
Special Pleading Fallacy again? Surely you can argue without making such mistakes! (I particularly like the "bunch of heathens" part.)
ETA: spelling error.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 06:26:38 PM
Just because I haven't had enough time to look for the math in FET doesn't mean it is not there. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. I have a job to do and I can't go around devoting my daily life of trying to provide the glory of the Truth to a bunch of heathens.
Special Pleading Fallacy again? Surely you can argue without making such mistakes! (I particularly like the "brunch of heathens" part.)

I never take brunches with heathens. I hate them enough when they're not around me, actually eating a meal with them? Ew.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 20, 2011, 09:15:08 AM
I didn't ask for your help. Please stop. In particular, listing necro-threads in one after another post does no good whatsoever. I suggest that you find the correct forum for your efforts.

Are you fucking kidding me? I wasn't "listing necro threads" (whatever the hell that means), I was listing threads, old ones, that already addressed your topic. Threads you should have searched for before wading in with another tired old question. I still can't believe you have more than 4000 posts. Are you hard of learning?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 20, 2011, 09:20:29 AM
I didn't ask for your help. Please stop. In particular, listing necro-threads in one after another post does no good whatsoever. I suggest that you find the correct forum for your efforts.

Are you f***ing kidding me? I wasn't "listing necro threads" (whatever the hell that means), I was listing threads, old ones, that already addressed your topic. Threads you should have searched for before wading in with another tired old question. I still can't believe you have more than 4000 posts. Are you hard of learning?
If you don't know what it means, then how do you know you weren't doing it? As I stated in the OP, this was a split off of another topic that Tom was derailing. We were debating the topic already. Do you understand now?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 20, 2011, 09:28:22 AM
I didn't ask for your help. Please stop. In particular, listing necro-threads in one after another post does no good whatsoever. I suggest that you find the correct forum for your efforts.

Are you f***ing kidding me? I wasn't "listing necro threads" (whatever the hell that means), I was listing threads, old ones, that already addressed your topic. Threads you should have searched for before wading in with another tired old question. I still can't believe you have more than 4000 posts. Are you hard of learning?
If you don't know what it means, then how do you know you weren't doing it? As I stated in the OP, this was a split off of another topic that Tom was derailing. We were debating the topic already. Do you understand now?

I know what each of those words means, but the way you have put them together makes no sense.

As stated in the post you quoted by me: you should have searched before posting. The other threads contain answers (they're bullshit answers but they are answers). You should have been prepared for this after trying to accuse me of going off-topic in a thread that shouldn't even exist.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 20, 2011, 09:30:39 AM
I know what each of those words means, but the way you have put them together makes no sense.

As stated in the post you quoted by me: you should have searched before posting. The other threads contain answers (they're bullshit answers but they are answers). You should have been prepared for this after trying to accuse me of going off-topic in a thread that shouldn't even exist.
Fortunately for the value of the site, you don't get to decide what threads exist. ego much?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 20, 2011, 09:34:03 AM
I know what each of those words means, but the way you have put them together makes no sense.

As stated in the post you quoted by me: you should have searched before posting. The other threads contain answers (they're bullshit answers but they are answers). You should have been prepared for this after trying to accuse me of going off-topic in a thread that shouldn't even exist.
Fortunately for the value of the site, you don't get to decide what thread exist. ego much?

I have no idea what you're talking about and I would bet neither do you.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 20, 2011, 10:40:01 AM
P.S.

The 'Search' function is your friend.
(http://i.imgur.com/DTrJn.jpg)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: El Cid on December 21, 2011, 12:30:12 AM
This is quite good, I think.

Ptolemy's Epicycles (http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm)

A good explanation, but works based on an Earth-centric model, when Earth is a sphere.  Even those in the Middle Ages didn't think the Earth was flat, they used some other ridiculous notion.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 02:34:32 AM
^ 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

English has a few Bastardisations because of our German/Norse language roots (Frisian) so instead of calling Mercury, Mercury we have Wednesday from Wodin. Thursday from Thor instead of Jupiter. Same God/planet.

Conclusion: There are the sun + moon + 5 planets. Otherwise there would be more days in the week. There is no Neptune day or Uranus day. It shows they just added those at a time when they wanted to get people excited about RET, gifting them new and magical fantasy planets.

The second fact is that retrograde motion has been explained by the works of Ptolemy as I have referenced
here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49809.msg1222581#msg1222581) and here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49874.msg1224925#msg1224925) for example and Tom Bishop has referenced here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48384.msg1191786#msg1191786) and here (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=48412.msg1192897#msg1192897).

You will notice is diagrams like this below from Ptolemy he doesn't add any of the made up planets either.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nnBVYXdSlnE/TdHqVQOYAsI/AAAAAAAAACc/5iPf_F7S98s/s400/Cassini_apparent.jpg)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: trig on December 21, 2011, 04:21:45 AM
This is quite good, I think.

Ptolemy's Epicycles (http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm)

A good explanation, but works based on an Earth-centric model, when Earth is a sphere.  Even those in the Middle Ages didn't think the Earth was flat, they used some other ridiculous notion.
The epicycles were a very acceptable explanation for the movement of the planets from Ptolemy's time to the middle ages, and achieved a level of predictability already one (sometimes two) orders of magnitude better than anything the FES has to offer. While the FES cannot predict the place where the Sun will come up next dawn with a 20 degree imprecision or less, Ptolemy's epicycles could predict the location of the planets within a couple of degrees most of the time.

But even at the end of the middle ages astronomers were already looking for a better explanation of the planet's movements. First they tried to adjust the epicycles, then they tried to add more, and finally they looked for solutions elsewhere, finding one in the heliocentric model.

So, in this scale, FES "theories" fit nicely in pre-babylonian times, maybe around 10000 BC or earlier. Their level of predictability is about as good as what existed in those times, when even the most learned people said "yeah, some dots in the sky move, most stay still".
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 21, 2011, 08:30:11 AM
The second fact is that retrograde motion has been explained by the works of Ptolemy as I have referenced
here and here for example and Tom Bishop has referenced here and here.
So you want to accept Ptolemy's work as accurate now? Then you want to accept that the Earth is round? Why would you pick Ptolemy's model over magic anyway?

So do tell us how Mars goes retrograde in FET. Just two diagrams, one normal motion and one retrograde motion, would be convincing. Do tell us in what dimension the epicycles run. In the plane with the Sun and the Moon? Don't forget that those planets that go retrograde transit the Sun.

Do you really want to waste time claiming that Uranus and Neptune don't exist? Any one with a decent telescope can observe both planets. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/highlights/118185699.html (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/highlights/118185699.html)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on December 21, 2011, 02:38:03 PM
Conclusion: There are the sun + moon + 5 planets. Otherwise there would be more days in the week.

Hahahaha. This is masterful. I love you Thork.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 03:13:17 PM
So you want to accept Ptolemy's work as accurate now? Then you want to accept that the Earth is round? Why would you pick Ptolemy's model over magic anyway?
The retrograde movement shows the patterns we observe. Now we are back to the realms of celestial gears, driving the heavens as Ptolemy described above us. Yes, he said the earth was round. Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. (http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm) Many people in history can make a wonderous and fantastic discovery and then make a total balls of their next effort.

So do tell us how Mars goes retrograde in FET. Just two diagrams, one normal motion and one retrograde motion, would be convincing.
One model should be enough. Imagine this above us.

Do you really want to waste time claiming that Uranus and Neptune don't exist? Any one with a decent telescope can observe both planets. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/highlights/118185699.html (http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/highlights/118185699.html)
You just linked a theory. The theory is wrong. I think you will be horribly out gunned trying to prove Neptune and Uranus exist.
Again, are you sure you haven't investigated this part of FET before?
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28908.msg695021#msg695021
FET only has 5 planets.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekday_names
The Ptolemaic system asserts that the order of the heavenly bodies, from the farthest to the closest to the Earth, is: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Moon. (This order was first established by the Greek Stoics.)
So note that order. Saturn is on the widest gear or makes the largest circle.                     And they are moving like so.
(http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/images/ptolemy.gif)                                                                (http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/images/KeplerMars.jpg)
Also note the sun's position. Its between Mars and Venus.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekday_names
In astrological theory, not only the days of the week, but the hours of the day are dominated by the seven luminaries. If the first hour of a day is dominated by Saturn, then the second hour is dominated by Jupiter, the third by Mars, and so on with the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the moon, so that the sequence of planets repeats every seven hours. Therefore, the twenty-fifth hour, which is the first hour of the following day, is dominated by the Sun; the forty-ninth hour, which is the first hour of the next day, by the Moon. Thus, if a day is labelled by the planet which dominates its first hour, then Saturn's day is followed by the Sun's day, which is followed by the Moon's day, and so forth, as shown in the table here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekday_names).

So Ptolemy not only gives us retrograde motion. He also gives us the days of the week and the reason the days are in that order. I did not throw in the Sun+Moon+5 planets solar system by chance. It all ties together beautifully. FET is like that. It all makes sense. Its just hard for you noobs to put all the pieces together so it seems confusing.

Now, if you add in Neptune and Uranus and rearrange the planets into RETs order, my God what a mess. A nine day week with the days all jumbled. So who's model makes sense?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on December 21, 2011, 03:17:51 PM
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. (http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm) Many people in history can make a wonderous and fantastic discovery and then make a total balls of their next effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 03:23:08 PM
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. (http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm) Many people in history can make a wonderous and fantastic discovery and then make a total balls of their next effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: markjo on December 21, 2011, 03:37:15 PM
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. (http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm) Many people in history can make a wonderous and fantastic discovery and then make a total balls of their next effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg)

I read it.  Did you?  I saw where it said that others thought that Newton could turn lead into gold.  However, I didn't see where it said that Newton thought that he could turn lead into gold.  Did I miss that passage?  Would you point it out to me, please?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 03:41:26 PM
Its in the very first line Markjo. ::)
Quote from: http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth-century mathematician and scientist, though not generally known as an alchemist, practiced the art with a passion. Though he wrote over a million words on the subject, after his death in 1727, the Royal Society deemed that they were "not fit to be printed."

al·che·my/ˈalkəmē/
Noun:
The medieval forerunner of chemistry, based on the supposed transformation of matter, esp. that of base metals into gold.

It then goes on to say
Quote from: http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm
As a practicing alchemist, Newton spent days locked up in his laboratory, and not a few have suggested that he finally succeeded in transmuting lead into gold.
in case the opening paragraph was too subtle.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on December 21, 2011, 03:52:32 PM
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. (http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm) Many people in history can make a wonderous and fantastic discovery and then make a total balls of their next effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg)

Sure. I just thought you might be interested that chemistry has subsequently succeeded where alchemy failed.

So even if Isaac Newton did think it was possible to turn lead into gold, he would have been right. ;)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 03:56:01 PM
Interesting. I proved that the RET planets are all in the wrong order and that 2 of them don't exist (3 if you include Pluto), and RErs have had to resort to quibbling over my interpretation of Newton's efforts to turn lead to gold. Which he tried using alchemy, not nuclear physics. As a result, it didn't get him very far.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: markjo on December 21, 2011, 04:00:54 PM
Its in the very first line Markjo. ::)
Quote from: http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm
Sir Isaac Newton, the famous seventeenth-century mathematician and scientist, though not generally known as an alchemist, practiced the art with a passion. Though he wrote over a million words on the subject, after his death in 1727, the Royal Society deemed that they were "not fit to be printed."

al·che·my/ˈalkəmē/
Noun:
The medieval forerunner of chemistry, based on the supposed transformation of matter, esp. that of base metals into gold.

Alchemy included, but was not limited to, the transmutation of base metals into gold.

It then goes on to say
Quote from: http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm
As a practicing alchemist, Newton spent days locked up in his laboratory, and not a few have suggested that he finally succeeded in transmuting lead into gold.
in case the opening paragraph was too subtle.

Not a few have suggested that NASA succeeded in sending men to the moon, but we know better, don't we?

Nice try Thork, but you still haven't shown where Newton even working on transmuting lead into gold, let alone that he believed (or even claimed) that he could.  Since his alchemical work was secret, we will probably never know for sure just what discoveries he may or may not have made.

Of course none of this has anything to do with retrograde motion, so thanks for the irrelevant diversion.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 04:04:24 PM
Erm, it was you lot that made the irrelevant diversion. I'm still waiting to see what kind of a messed up week you guys think we should have?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: markjo on December 21, 2011, 04:08:34 PM
Actually, you're the one that brought up Newton's alchemy as if it was relevant.  I was merely refuting the claim that you made based on the article that you cited.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 04:19:24 PM
Actually, you're the one that brought up Newton's alchemy as if it was relevant.  I was merely refuting the claim that you made based on the article that you cited.
So you have nothing to say about Ptolemy's solar system and the days of the week? I see.

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. ::)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: AsmodeusSilent on December 21, 2011, 04:31:45 PM
I don't know where you're getting that from, a good pair of binoculars would work in a pinch. You can see most of the planets without any equipment at all actually. If I'm remembering right, the only one you can't see unaided is Neptune.

EDIT: Oh, missed the discern from a star part. Well, that's easy enough to do if you just track its movement through the solar system.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 04:42:52 PM
I don't know where you're getting that from, a good pair of binoculars would work in a pinch. You can see most of the planets without any equipment at all actually. If I'm remembering right, the only one you can't see unaided is Neptune.

EDIT: Oh, missed the discern from a star part. Well, that's easy enough to do if you just track its movement through the solar system.
Have you done that? Tracked its movement?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: AsmodeusSilent on December 21, 2011, 04:45:03 PM
Myself? No. I'm not the one with the telescope. I did however use a chart that has been tracking its movement to find it in the first place, so someone has and they have been doing so accurately or I would have failed to find it.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 04:45:35 PM
Myself? No.
I see.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: AsmodeusSilent on December 21, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
I did however use a chart that has been tracking its movement to find it in the first place, so someone has and they have been doing so accurately or I would have failed to find it.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 04:52:07 PM
The fact you were told to look in a certain part of the sky and saw something that looked like a star, doesn't really add any weight to your claims of extra planets. I would expect you to see star like objects in the sky at night time.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: AsmodeusSilent on December 21, 2011, 04:59:08 PM
But I also expect to not see a star like object at the predicted location if I used that prediction on the wrong date. The prediction changes and remains accurate, and it's not like the predictions are vague. Certainly not vague enough for me, and every other amateur astronomer to mistake the star like object we expect to see for a different celestial object every time we try.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 05:02:39 PM
How do you know its not a satellite? As opposed to a planet? Its orbit all mapped out, you just tracked Uranus1 nice. Would that be a hard stunt to pull off?

You saw something shiny. Lots of things are shiny. Lets not leap to conclusions about extra imaginary planets.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: AsmodeusSilent on December 21, 2011, 05:04:51 PM
Before I go on with this, what are stars/the sun/planets in the FE model? I asked earlier but the topic was deleted. However, I can't debate with you without a clear definition, so it's relevant now.

EDIT: The reason I ask this now, is that given a world where celestial bodies are within 5k miles or what have you, planets and any satellites orbiting the sun are essentially the same thing, so this debate quickly becomes meaningless.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on December 21, 2011, 05:08:48 PM
This is our 'Bible' for want of a better word. Scroll down for the contents. It will run you up to speed.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Its 1 am here so I don't want to get dragged too deep into a debate now anyway. I will log off soon.

Have a read and I'm sure some of the other FErs will be able to answer your queries. O0
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: AsmodeusSilent on December 21, 2011, 05:11:14 PM
Thanks, I'll read that. I have to go soon myself. This has been quite fun though, thank you.

EDIT: One last thing before I go. I asked my father about this and he said that he's been to a star party and viewed the outer planets as disks. If you could show me why you believe you need an observatory to do so, that would be great.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on December 21, 2011, 05:48:28 PM
Funny that you mention "Bible", Thork. The Bible is essentially the actual origin of the traditional seven-day week. Aside from the naming, it never had anything to do with planets.

I'm still waiting to see what kind of a messed up week you guys think we should have?

I'm happy with the current week. However, here are some other opinions:

Ancient Rome used an 8-day week called the nundinal cycle.

Ancient Egypt went by a 10-day week.

The Basque country in Spain used a 3-day week.

The Nigerian Igbo calendar has a 4-day week.

The Celtic and Marathi calendars have 8-day weeks.

The Javanese of Indonesia still use a 5-day-week calendar to this day.

Ancient Baltic weeks were 9 days.

The French switched to a 10-day week for a short time after the French Revolution.

The ancient Egyptian calendar used a 10-day week.

The Chinese had a 10-day week.

Ancient China even used a 60-day week.

Athenians: 10-day week.

Mayans: 13-day week.

Mesopotamians: 14-day week.

Are you satisfied yet?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on December 21, 2011, 06:04:13 PM
How do you know its not a satellite? As opposed to a planet? Its orbit all mapped out, you just tracked Uranus1 nice. Would that be a hard stunt to pull off?

You saw something shiny. Lots of things are shiny. Lets not leap to conclusions about extra imaginary planets.
Let's review a few things.
1) You claim to have proven that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto don't exist, based solely on a model that requires that the planets revolve around the entire round Earth.
2) You say that the model is true.
3) Therefore, the Earth is round.

Is it any wonder that this site is failing so badly when Thork makes such concessions?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: markjo on December 21, 2011, 06:31:10 PM
Actually, you're the one that brought up Newton's alchemy as if it was relevant.  I was merely refuting the claim that you made based on the article that you cited.
So you have nothing to say about Ptolemy's solar system and the days of the week? I see.

Lurk moar.  I already told Tom that Ptolemy's geocentric solar system only works as a round earth system.  As for the days of the week...  Well, I've always thought that Monday is a bad way to start a work week.  Other than that, I don't see what the days of the week have to do with retrograde motion either.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on December 23, 2011, 06:27:26 PM
I still cannot produce retrograde motion accurately in a flat earth model.  The mechanism that Tom posted can produce an S shape, but not for only 3 months of the year...  So tom, im contending that it is not possible while maintaining a constant speed for a planet to show only 3 months of retrograde motion in the model you posted.  Please provide the results where you found this to be possible, as i cannot reproduce it.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Tom Bishop on December 25, 2011, 07:44:49 PM
I still cannot produce retrograde motion accurately in a flat earth model.  The mechanism that Tom posted can produce an S shape, but not for only 3 months of the year...  So tom, im contending that it is not possible while maintaining a constant speed for a planet to show only 3 months of retrograde motion in the model you posted.  Please provide the results where you found this to be possible, as i cannot reproduce it.

What is your source that S shapes appear in the sky for extended periods of times?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: El Cid on December 27, 2011, 02:28:31 AM
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. (http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm)
Yes, he did.  Newton was one of those insane geniuses you hear about, like Vincent van Gogh.  In fact, the two were very similar.  They did not get along with other people.  Both were known to become extremely angry when challenged.  This does not, however, change the fact that they were geniuses with good ideas.  That is true Argumentum ad hominem.

One model should be enough. Imagine this above us.
Look closely at the Earth in this image.  It is distinctly round.  This model works based on a spherical Earth.  If you flattened out the Earth, this model would no longer explain the view of Mars in the sky.  Look at http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm (http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm).  First diagram shows a red arrow.  This is an observer on Earth observing Mars.  The planets both move, but the arrow itself slows down, goes backwards, slows, and turns forward again.  This is what causes the view to be like the second diagram.  Ptolomy believed that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe, so his epicycles were his explanation for the behavior.  It makes no sense on a flat Earth.

FET only has 5 planets.

Another mind-bendingly obvious FET-is-wrong.  Amateur astronomers see them Uranus and Neptune every day.

http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/990/Launch_Into_Space (http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/990/Launch_Into_Space)

[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/18629Uranus_Croped.jpg]http://Uranus[/img]

(http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/12616Neptune7222300_copy.jpg)

[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/531220a-med.jpg]http://Neptune and Triton[/img]

[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/5311845-med.jpg]http://Uranus with Oberon and Titania[/img]

A logical answer is, "How do you know those are actually them?"  Because they pointed their telescopes at a specific angle to find the planets based on the known RET-based orbits of the planets.  Click on the first link again if skeptic.

----

Just to clear things up, these are the days of the week:  http://deoxy.org/time/d2k/thedays.htm (http://deoxy.org/time/d2k/thedays.htm)

There were five planets, a sun, and a moon visible to the ancients in the night sky.  This is probably what the seven days in the Bible came from in the first place (just a wild guess).

All in all, the week was based off the celestial bodies, not the other way around, exemplified well by zarg.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 06, 2012, 11:36:28 PM
I still cannot produce retrograde motion accurately in a flat earth model.  The mechanism that Tom posted can produce an S shape, but not for only 3 months of the year...  So tom, im contending that it is not possible while maintaining a constant speed for a planet to show only 3 months of retrograde motion in the model you posted.  Please provide the results where you found this to be possible, as i cannot reproduce it.

What is your source that S shapes appear in the sky for extended periods of times?

If you scroll down there is an s shape for mars in 2005, with a 36 week time period shown.   I can not produce a shape like that in the model that you gave me for that period of time.  Not to say that you did not, but if you could give me the settings that you used to produce it that would be great.  As of right now i do not believe that it is possible.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 09, 2012, 11:29:25 PM
So still no FEer can explain Ess shaped retrograde motion?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2012, 02:49:25 PM
If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 02:55:05 PM
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 03:05:08 PM
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.
Celestial gear wobbling would be special pleading. Do try to avoid making your fallacies so obvious, please.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Rushy on January 10, 2012, 03:06:25 PM
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.
Celestial gear wobbling would be special pleading. Do try to avoid making your fallacies so obvious, please.
I wasn't aware I should be avoiding that.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 03:17:07 PM
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.
Celestial gear wobbling would be special pleading. Do try to avoid making your fallacies so obvious, please.
I wasn't aware I should be avoiding that.
You would make the debating more fun for me anyway; otherwise, RET wins too quickly. It's like a basketball game where the RET team scores 210 in the first half of the first quarter while the FET quits at that point.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 10, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
You would make the debating more fun for me anyway; otherwise, RET wins too quickly. It's like a basketball game where the RET team scores 210 in the first half of the first quarter while the FET quits at that point.
It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered. It should also be acknowledged that we are playing into the wind and we don't get to swap ends at half time. Finding FE sources and documentation on the internet isn't exactly easy and finding RE answers to things, well that's a google away for any subject that comes up.

So I have to ask, if its about the sport of it, why after all his time are you still playing for team noob? It seems like you are saying "I will devour you, but I want to play with food first".
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk4dmqC23Y1qzh7dmo1_500.jpg)

Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on January 10, 2012, 04:07:18 PM
Would the first half of the first quarter be called the first eighth?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 10, 2012, 04:08:22 PM
Dunno, I don't understand American Handegg.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 04:09:25 PM
You would make the debating more fun for me anyway; otherwise, RET wins too quickly. It's like a basketball game where the RET team scores 210 in the first half of the first quarter while the FET quits at that point.
It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered. It should also be acknowledged that we are playing into the wind and we don't get to swap ends at half time. Finding FE sources and documentation on the internet isn't exactly easy and finding RE answers to things, well that's a google away for any subject that comes up.

So I have to ask, if its about the sport of it, why after all his time are you still playing for team noob? It seems like you are saying "I will devour you, but I want to play with food first".
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lk4dmqC23Y1qzh7dmo1_500.jpg)
Or it could just be that FET is wrong, just saying.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 10, 2012, 04:10:37 PM
It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered trolls.

Fi'ed.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 10, 2012, 04:15:54 PM
Or it could just be that FET is wrong, just saying.

Yes, I get that. So then with that in mind, would it not be more a challenge worthy of your keen intellect to be able to argue against that which at first seems obvious? Would the 'win' not then be worth far more?

Also the earth is flat, Thicko.

It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered trolls.

Fi'ed.
We already decided that you are the troll. You have no interest in debate. Only yelling troll in every post. Of course having an avatar that looks like someone drew a dick with a smiley face and beard on a toilet door, does little to convince anyone that you have the slightest notion wtf is going on. So get back under your bridge, most foul of forum creatures.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 04:20:32 PM
Or it could just be that FET is wrong, just saying.

Yes, I get that. So then with that in mind, would it not be more a challenge worthy of your keen intellect to be able to argue against that which at first seems obvious? Would the 'win' not then be worth far more?

Also the earth is flat, Thicko.

It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered trolls.

Fi'ed.
We already decided that you are the troll. You have no interest in debate. Only yelling troll in every post. Of course having an avatar that looks like someone drew a dick with a smiley face and beard on a toilet door, does little to convince anyone that you have the slightest notion wtf is going on. So get back under your bridge, most foul of forum creatures.
Why would you need me to support your FEDA efforts if the earth is flat? Reality should be enough to win handily, right?

I guess we need a new sub-category to the ad hominem attack, ad signum. Thork, you really could spend more time and effort in your attacks.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on January 10, 2012, 04:23:17 PM
http://www.feda.com/
Quote
Mission
FEDA's mission is to provide:

-A strong dealer advocacy voice in the food service equipment industry united for a profitable dealer-based distribution system.
-Industry information and business management tools to run a profitable dealership.
-Dealer-focused training and education that is relevant, cost effective and convenient.
-Opportunities to network and problem solve with other dealers to improve their business.

All of the above are focused on maintaining profitable dealerships capable of providing the knowledge, service and value needed by today's professional food service operator.

So the conspiracy goes further than we thought. First the shape of the Earth and now the food on our plates!
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 10, 2012, 04:28:25 PM
We already decided that you are the troll. You have no interest in debate. Only yelling troll in every post. Of course having an avatar that looks like someone drew a dick with a smiley face and beard on a toilet door, does little to convince anyone that you have the slightest notion wtf is going on. So get back under your bridge, most foul of forum creatures.

But we know you're a troll, as we've all seen the threads from ages ago, Pizza kindly posted links for us. Denying it doesn't make you any more convincing.
My avatar is the most accurate known image of a moonshramp, drawn by another forum member in a different thread. I suspect he recieved the image in a dream, rendering it entirely zetetic under James's principles.
As for me having no interest in debate - perhaps you'd like to return to the debate that I started and you abandoned about INS disproving the FE theory of circumnavigation?  :P
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2012, 04:42:19 PM
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 10, 2012, 04:44:50 PM
Please use the search function and search "INS" and *Thork as the username. There you will find dozens of threads where I have had every conceivable conversation about INS and followed it out to every logical conclusion. If I got bored or forgot about your debate, that is unfortunate but I'd take you more seriously if your avatar wasn't a badly drawn dick with a smiley face and a beard.

Also, I would like to hear your definition of a troll. Do I seem like an internet troll to you?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
That is the definition of an internet troll. It sums you up perfectly.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 04:47:50 PM
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2012, 04:48:16 PM
Please use the search function and search "INS" and *Thork as the username. There you will find dozens of threads where I have had every conceivable conversation about INS and followed it out to every logical conclusion. If I got bored or forgot about your debate, that is unfortunate but I'd take you more seriously if your avatar wasn't a badly drawn dick with a smiley face and a beard.

Also, I would like to hear your definition of a troll. Do I seem like an internet troll to you?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
That is the definition of an internet troll. It sums you up perfectly.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

it is not about what you are posting.  That makes you a troll by your own posted definition.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2012, 04:49:05 PM
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 05:05:43 PM
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 10, 2012, 05:15:57 PM

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.
This thread is titled "Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets". Is Mars an outer planet now? It is you that has no intention of keeping to the topic, instead preferring to shift tact whenever FET blocks your path.

I have earlier in this thread shown that the outer planets do not exist. The unsatisfactory reply I got to that was "The chinese have 10 days" and the laughable picture below.
(http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/12616Neptune7222300_copy.jpg)
^ That isn't proof of Neptune. Someone could have as easily said "The nucleus of an atom", "An algae cell", "My TV died". That is the laziest photoshop brought here as evidence I have ever seen.

As for retrograde motion of the inner planets (known hereafter due to a lack of outer planets as 'the planets'), retrograde motion is exactly what you would expect in a FE system.
The FE system has the earth at the centre. The sun revoles around the earth, and the planets revolve around the sun. This is closest to the Tychonian System for RET.

(http://www.mlahanas.de/Physics/LX/TychonianSystem.jpg)
^ Also count the planets in the Tychonian system. No neptune or uranus rubbish. Uranus. I mean even the name is a joke at your expense.

I was trying to avoid getting dragged into a debate as its 2am, and I will not be able to follow it up. But I answered this stupid retrograde question to death a bunch of times. Its not new. Its not got FE stumped. No one has proved a thing from the RE side. the answers are all there. Stop screaming "no answer, no answer" when all you need to do is search.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 05:19:00 PM

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.
This thread is titled "Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets". Is Mars an outer planet now? It is you that has no intention of keeping to the topic, instead preferring to shift tact whenever FET blocks your path.

I have earlier in this thread shown that the outer planets do not exist. The unsatisfactory reply I got to that was "The chinese have 10 days" and the laughable picture below.
(http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/12616Neptune7222300_copy.jpg)
^ That isn't proof of Neptune. Someone could have as easily said "The nucleus of an atom", "An algae cell", "My TV died". That is the laziest photoshop brought here as evidence I have ever seen.

As for retrograde motion of the inner planets (again as I have explained in this thread and dozens of others, retrograde motion is exactly what you would expect in a FE system.
The FE system has the earth at the centre. The sun revoles around the earth, and the planets revolve arounf the sun. This is closest to the Tychonian System for FET.

(http://www.mlahanas.de/Physics/LX/TychonianSystem.jpg)

I was trying to avoid getting dragged into a debate as its 2am, and I will not be able to follow it up. But I answered this stupid retrograde question to death a bunch of times. Its not new. Its not got FE stumped. No one has proved a thing from the RE side. the answers are all there. Stop screaming "no answer, no answer" when all you need to do is search.
Amazing! So FET has retrograde motion of the inner planets even though reality doesn't. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're wrong, again.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 10, 2012, 05:28:35 PM
So FET has retrograde motion of the inner planets even though reality doesn't. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're wrong, again.

What? Please observe the retrograde motion of Venus according to RET. So whatever the reality (round or flat earth), retrograde motion is part of it. Its at this point I will bid you a good evening, whilst you spend some time plugging some of those embarressing gaps in your knowledge
(http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/images/retro.gif)
Quote from: http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/retro.html
As we view the moving Venus from the more slowly moving Earth, the line of sight (i.e., where in the sky, relative to the stars, we will see Venus) reverses its motion: it is first rotating counterclockwise, then (near the fourth and fifth position) starts rotating clockwise. This corresponds to the first reversal of apparent motion. A while later (around the ninth position) it starts rotating again in a counterclockwise direction, resulting in the second reversal. The same explanation works for the outer planets, too, only now it is the Earth that overtakes the other planet.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2012, 05:32:32 PM
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.

They would have to argue that the planet has an irregular orbit that includes an Ess shape in it.  And that would be just crazy.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 06:06:42 PM
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.

They would have to argue that the planet has an irregular orbit that includes an Ess shape in it.  And that would be just crazy.
And magical epicycles aren't crazy?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
So FET has retrograde motion of the inner planets even though reality doesn't. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're wrong, again.

What? Please observe the retrograde motion of Venus according to RET. So whatever the reality (round or flat earth), retrograde motion is part of it. Its at this point I will bid you a good evening, whilst you spend some time plugging some of those embarressing gaps in your knowledge
(http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/images/retro.gif)
Quote from: http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/retro.html
As we view the moving Venus from the more slowly moving Earth, the line of sight (i.e., where in the sky, relative to the stars, we will see Venus) reverses its motion: it is first rotating counterclockwise, then (near the fourth and fifth position) starts rotating clockwise. This corresponds to the first reversal of apparent motion. A while later (around the ninth position) it starts rotating again in a counterclockwise direction, resulting in the second reversal. The same explanation works for the outer planets, too, only now it is the Earth that overtakes the other planet.
You're right. I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 10, 2012, 06:30:07 PM
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself.

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.

They would have to argue that the planet has an irregular orbit that includes an Ess shape in it.  And that would be just crazy.
And magical epicycles aren't crazy?

No, in fact they are much more complicated than current FE theory, which is why they were abandoned.  But FE does not claim epicycles, the claim that the planets orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the northern hub, which produces epicycle like movement.  However that epicycle like movement cannot account for the Ess like shapes that some of the retrograde planets exhibit.  That would disprove FE.  Its just a matter of patterns, a planet orbiting the sun directly overhead in a circle or oval will always cross its own path, its only when observed from the same plane that you can see an ess shape.  That is what i am arguing.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 10, 2012, 08:46:02 PM
No, in fact they are much more complicated than current FE theory, which is why they were abandoned.  But FE does not claim epicycles, the claim that the planets orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the northern hub, which produces epicycle like movement.  However that epicycle like movement cannot account for the Ess like shapes that some of the retrograde planets exhibit.  That would disprove FE.  Its just a matter of patterns, a planet orbiting the sun directly overhead in a circle or oval will always cross its own path, its only when observed from the same plane that you can see an ess shape.  That is what i am arguing.
Actually, FEers are inconsistent, as usual. Thork argues that the outer planets orbit around the northern hub, not the Sun. Tom Bishop and the Wiki have the outer planets orbiting the Sun.

Thork needs epicycles to get retrograde motion. Tom Bishop says he doesn't need epicycles without any sound reason.

I hope that helps.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 11, 2012, 04:31:11 AM
Please use the search function and search "INS" and *Thork as the username. There you will find dozens of threads where I have had every conceivable conversation about INS and followed it out to every logical conclusion.

Please post an excerpt from your answer to my request that you say whether or not you think INS is capable of detecting the difference between a path that curves to left or right and a path that does not curve to left or right, something which I requested be answered several times in that thread. There are only three possible answers - "yes", "no" and "I don't know".
So which of these did you say?
Oh that's right - you refused to answer that question. Because saying "yes" renders FET unworkable, saying "no" renders INS unworkable, and saying "I don't know" means you shouldn't have mouthed off like an authority on INS in that thread. I also asked you for a better term than yaw to describe a deviation to left or right as you said it was the incorrect term, and you failed to respond to that too.
Care to answer these things now?

Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 11, 2012, 04:36:10 AM
I'd take you more seriously if your avatar wasn't a badly drawn dick with a smiley face and a beard.

Says someone who really does have a Dick for an avatar...  ::)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2012, 04:54:55 AM
You were wasting my time. You were unable to wrap your head around schuler corrections.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning
Schuler tuning is a modification to the electronic control system used in inertial navigation systems that accounts for the curvature of the Earth. An inertial navigation system, used in submarines, ships, aircraft, and other vehicles to keep track of position, determines directions with respect to three axes pointing 'north', 'east', and 'down'. To detect the vehicle's orientation, the system contains an 'inertial platform' mounted on gimbals, with gyroscopes that keep it pointing in a fixed orientation in space. However, the directions 'north', 'east' and 'down' change as the vehicle moves on the curved surface of the Earth. Schuler tuning describes the modifications necessary to an inertial navigation system to keep the inertial platform always pointing 'north', 'east' and 'down', so it gives correct directions on Earth.

As explained repeatedly (and ignored) INS is a flat earth instrument. A Schuler correction is apparently applied as an RET explanation as to how a flat earth instrument works on a round earth. Of course this is a woeful excuse by RErs and no such correction exists.

However your not being able to comprehend that INS is a flat earth instrument and your continued insistence that INS can detect "yaw" - (which it can, but you don't comprehend what yaw is) led to a break down in the debate. Yaw is the nose of an aircraft slewing left and right, whilst the wings remain unbanked and the pitch remains level. This puts one wing slightly forward of the other and the fuselage blocks some of the flow to the trailing wing. This then gives a higher amount of lift to the forward wing and tries to bank the aircraft. Correcting this means adding in aileron which increases drag on that wing and turns the aircraft about the z axis. This is why pilots are told the secondary effect of rudder is bank.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_surfaces
The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank.

However this is totally irrelevant to earth's shape. Yaw effects a flat earth as much as a round one. It is not the defining difference you make it out to be in your posts. The defining difference as my Schuler quote explains, is "down". A sensation an aircraft would not feel as it went around a circular earth flying "straight and level". And for that Mr Schuler adds a correction. Apparently.

So you may rest assured, it is not that I avoided the subject or could not provide an answer. The issue was that you do not have the capacity to understand the answer when it is being given. Hence my loss of interest in your objections.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on January 11, 2012, 06:19:34 AM
This is why pilots are told...

Are they being lied to? Yes or no.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2012, 06:38:27 AM
This is why pilots are told...

Are they being lied to? Yes or no.
No.
The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank. I have confirmed this myself (zetetic). A boot full of right rudder throws the nose right and the left wing begins to lift. Pro tip: When you have neither hand on the controls and autopilot disengaged (you may be messing around with a map or something) if a gust makes the aircraft bank unexpectedly, a squeeze of opposite rudder will right the aircraft using only your feet. This is a good little tip to help passing flying exams when you spend most of your time planning diversions and not actually controlling the aircraft.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 07:21:36 AM
Of course this is a woeful excuse by RErs and no such correction exists.
ITT: Thork again claims to know more than the experts. He even quotes evidence that he's wrong in the same post. It's no wonder FET can't make any headway these days.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2012, 07:23:07 AM
Also ITT:

You're right. I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 07:25:20 AM
Also ITT:

You're right. I'm wrong.
So you do agree that you're claiming to be more knowledgeable than the experts. Thanks for the concession.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2012, 07:27:28 AM
Well, it might not be more knowledge. Depending on which 'experts', they may be just deliberately misleading you.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on January 11, 2012, 07:28:47 AM
they may be just deliberately misleading you.

So we're back to this again.

Are they lying? Yes or no.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 11, 2012, 01:04:05 PM
You were wasting my time. You were unable to wrap your head around schuler corrections.

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schuler_tuning
Schuler tuning is a modification to the electronic control system used in inertial navigation systems that accounts for the curvature of the Earth. An inertial navigation system, used in submarines, ships, aircraft, and other vehicles to keep track of position, determines directions with respect to three axes pointing 'north', 'east', and 'down'. To detect the vehicle's orientation, the system contains an 'inertial platform' mounted on gimbals, with gyroscopes that keep it pointing in a fixed orientation in space. However, the directions 'north', 'east' and 'down' change as the vehicle moves on the curved surface of the Earth. Schuler tuning describes the modifications necessary to an inertial navigation system to keep the inertial platform always pointing 'north', 'east' and 'down', so it gives correct directions on Earth.

As explained repeatedly (and ignored) INS is a flat earth instrument[/u]. A Schuler correction is apparently applied as an RET explanation as to how a flat earth instrument works on a round earth. Of course this is a woeful excuse by RErs and no such correction exists.

However your not being able to comprehend that INS is a flat earth instrument and your continued insistence that INS can detect "yaw" - (which it can, but you don't comprehend what yaw is) led to a break down in the debate. Yaw is the nose of an aircraft slewing left and right, whilst the wings remain unbanked and the pitch remains level. This puts one wing slightly forward of the other and the fuselage blocks some of the flow to the trailing wing. This then gives a higher amount of lift to the forward wing and tries to bank the aircraft. Correcting this means adding in aileron which increases drag on that wing and turns the aircraft about the z axis. This is why pilots are told the secondary effect of rudder is bank.
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_control_surfaces
The rudder also has a secondary effect on bank.

However this is totally irrelevant to earth's shape. Yaw effects a flat earth as much as a round one. It is not the defining difference you make it out to be in your posts. The defining difference as my Schuler quote explains, is "down". A sensation an aircraft would not feel as it went around a circular earth flying "straight and level". And for that Mr Schuler adds a correction. Apparently.

So you may rest assured, it is not that I avoided the subject or could not provide an answer. The issue was that you do not have the capacity to understand the answer when it is being given. Hence my loss of interest in your objections.

You manage to dodge answering my extremely simple and basic questions yet again. You also inadvertently re-raise something else which I challenged you on and you neglected to address. Let's break it down:
Schuler tuning is used.
If Schuler tuning was used on a flat earth then INS would give misleading information.
The fact that INS works when Schuler tuning is used proves that there is a curvature that needs to be compensated for.
You get round this by invoking the conspiracy - i.e. claiming that Schuler tuning isn't really used at all. (highlighted in red)
You have no evidence of this and have just added thousands of people to the many tens of thousands necessary to make the conspiracy work.
This is a fail for FE.

Now let's address your yammering highlighted in green. Let's quote from a post in the other thread:
Thork: yes, INS WOULD be more reliable on a flat earth. However, being on a curved earth doesn't render it useless.
See that quote there? Is that me "ignoring" the issue?
I will perfectly happily agree that INS would work just as reliably on a flat earth, and would not need Schuler tuning to do so. I have never ever claimed otherwise. My argument is that a component of curvature to a path of travel on a flat earth that is not present on a round earth would be detected by INS. That is the argument that you consistently will not confirm or deny.
And so finally we come to your semantic tapdance with the word "yaw". I think the definition of yaw you supplied (the slew of an aircraft nose to left or right) is perfectly in keeping with my description of a path of travel as yawed or non-yawed. Yaw does not only refer to aircraft and so your babbling about airflows and rudder compensation have no relevance. I have needed to use these terms because any reference to a "straight" direction of travel on a round earth is leaped on by the semantics police to crow about how "straight" is not possible. If an aircraft flies with yaw it will eventually describe a circular path such as that needed to circumnavigate your stupid flat earth. If it flies without yaw it can describe a great circle route around a globe earth.
Now stop being so pathetic and answer: yes, no, I don't know?  :P
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 11, 2012, 01:04:34 PM
No, in fact they are much more complicated than current FE theory, which is why they were abandoned.  But FE does not claim epicycles, the claim that the planets orbit the sun, and the sun orbits the northern hub, which produces epicycle like movement.  However that epicycle like movement cannot account for the Ess like shapes that some of the retrograde planets exhibit.  That would disprove FE.  Its just a matter of patterns, a planet orbiting the sun directly overhead in a circle or oval will always cross its own path, its only when observed from the same plane that you can see an ess shape.  That is what i am arguing.
Actually, FEers are inconsistent, as usual. Thork argues that the outer planets orbit around the northern hub, not the Sun. Tom Bishop and the Wiki have the outer planets orbiting the Sun.

Thork needs epicycles to get retrograde motion. Tom Bishop says he doesn't need epicycles without any sound reason.

I hope that helps.

Im not sure how to explain it differently.  An Ess shape can occur because we orbit in the same plane as the other planets, well roughly the same plane.  if the planets were directly overhead the reason for retrograde motion would be different, we would be observing them based completely on their own motion.  Regardless if there are epicycles or the planets orbit the sun (tom or thorks model)  The movement of the planets would not be dependent upon the movement of the earth.  They would actually be crossing their own path, as opposed to us just seeing it that way due to our different movement speed.

Both epicycles are orbits are closed ovals.  When you have them in motion they would always cross their own path at some point, creating a loopty loop of sorts.  This is not what we see however, we can also see Ess shapes, where the planet exhibits retrograde motion during the year without ever crossing over its own path in the sky from our perspective.   So niether explanation can account for this.  Some years the planet will appear to cross its path, and other years it will form and Ess shape.

I hope this better explains the concept, it would be easier if i could simply draw it.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2012, 02:18:50 PM
@The Knowledge              *snigger ... if ever a dog had a bad name.

Lets please put yaw to bed so you stop bringing it up. Yaw is not a direction. No more than pitch or roll. It is merely a rotation. One can yaw an aircraft to compensate for wind and fly exactly straight.

Where on earth did you get this strange idea that Yaw is something important to this debate? Its totally irrelevant. It has as much relevance as pitch or roll. They are all rotations about an axis. Not a direction measured by INS. INS measures North, East and Down. That's it. No Yaw. No Bank, it doesn't care about roll. Yaw is not important. Please make that the last time you rant about yaw. Yaw can happen on a flat earth, a round earth. Its just wiggling the nose left and right. It doesn't prove anything about earth's shape. FIN

Schuler tuning. INS works great on a flat earth. Like really great. Like better than it would on a round earth. RE people know this and trying to cobble a reason to calm suspicions. An adjustment.
So I say there is no schuler tuning ( because its not needed). You say there is schuler tuning even though you only just found out about it.
I say earth is flat. You say its round.
That is where the trail runs cold. Its why that boring INS thread ended after 20 something pages. Because it wasn't going anywhere. So can this thread now go back to retrograde motion? We have done INS to death.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on January 11, 2012, 02:45:12 PM
RE people know this and trying to cobble a reason to calm suspicions. An adjustment.

So are those RE people lying? Yes or no.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 03:00:15 PM
INS measures North, East and Down. That's it.
Would you please document this outlandish claim? In particular, please show that INS doesn't measure linear acceleration or orientation. Thanks.

Also to be clear, am I correct in assuming that when you say North you include South, perhaps as a negative quantity? Thanks.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on January 11, 2012, 03:13:09 PM
INS plots your position in 3D space. It will make all calculations based on your x, y and z positions. It does this with accelerometers and gyros.

Example: You fly in a straight line at 120 kts. You then make the same trip at 240 Kts. It took half the time. But also when you flew slower, you flew more nose up (higher angle of attack) to generate more lift at the lower airspeed. In other words you had your nose pitched up. The INS didn't assume you were climbing. It didn't give a sh*t. No more than it cares if you roll the wings or yaw the nose.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on January 11, 2012, 04:23:50 PM
INS plots your position in 3D space. It will make all calculations based on your x, y and z positions. It does this with accelerometers and gyros.

Example: You fly in a straight line at 120 kts. You then make the same trip at 240 Kts. It took half the time. But also when you flew slower, you flew more nose up (higher angle of attack) to generate more lift at the lower airspeed. In other words you had your nose pitched up. The INS didn't assume you were climbing. It didn't give a sh*t. No more than it cares if you roll the wings or yaw the nose.
So you admit that you were wrong. INS measure more than just North, East, and Down. Noted. I guess we should start to doubt all of your postings regarding INS.

I do so like your example by the way. Your imagining that INS would 'care' about anything is quite cute.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on January 11, 2012, 04:39:12 PM
It does this with accelerometers and gyros.

I see. Now, tell us, Thork -- what do accelerometers and gyroscopes measure?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 11, 2012, 05:54:55 PM
So can this thread now go back to retrograde motion? We have done INS to death.

Yes please, an FE'er has yet to explain the phenomenon that i posted about.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 11, 2012, 06:07:08 PM

Lets please put yaw to bed so you stop bringing it up. Yaw is not a direction. No more than pitch or roll. It is merely a rotation. One can yaw an aircraft to compensate for wind and fly exactly straight. Where on earth did you get this strange idea that Yaw is something important to this debate? Its totally irrelevant.
An aircraft with no crosswind acting on it, with continual yawing in one direction, WILL TRAVEL IN A CIRCLE OVER A FLAT PLANE, JUST LIKE FET DESCRIBES THE PROCESS OF CIRCUMNAVIGATION TO BE. Jesus bloody Christ, are you really that thick that you don't understand why I'm talking about it? Get rid of the "or" in your name and replace it with "ic", if I were you. At first I thought this was feigned ignorance (i.e. trolling) but since you deny indulging in this type of behaviour I can only conclude that it's genuine stupidity.

Quote
Schuler tuning. INS works great on a flat earth. Like really great. Like better than it would on a round earth. RE people know this and trying to cobble a reason to calm suspicions. An adjustment.
So I say there is no schuler tuning ( because its not needed). You say there is schuler tuning even though you only just found out about it.
Your denial that it exists is pathetic and the feeble last gasp of someone who can't actually get out of the corner they've painted themselves in.
And anyway, it is irrelevant to my assertion that INS would be able to DETECT THE KIND OF YAWED TRAVEL THAT FET CLAIMS CIRCUMNAVIGATION NEEDS even without Schuler tuning. Let's say the earth is flat and Schuler tuning does indeed not exist - INS still shows you're travelling in a curve to left or right when attempting to circumnavigate. INS still blows the "you don't notice you're going in a curve" argument out of the water. You really haven't bothered reading the thread about this, have you?

Quote
That is where the trail runs cold. Its why that boring INS thread ended after 20 something pages.
5 pages actually, most of which were me trying to get any FE'ers at all to answer a question that STILL has not been answered by them, because all possible answers either disprove FET or directly conflict with real world experiences and mechanisms.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: trig on January 12, 2012, 05:04:42 AM

Lets please put yaw to bed so you stop bringing it up. Yaw is not a direction. No more than pitch or roll. It is merely a rotation. One can yaw an aircraft to compensate for wind and fly exactly straight. Where on earth did you get this strange idea that Yaw is something important to this debate? Its totally irrelevant.
An aircraft with no crosswind acting on it, with continual yawing in one direction, WILL TRAVEL IN A CIRCLE OVER A FLAT PLANE, JUST LIKE FET DESCRIBES THE PROCESS OF CIRCUMNAVIGATION TO BE. Jesus bloody Christ, are you really that thick that you don't understand why I'm talking about it? Get rid of the "or" in your name and replace it with "ic", if I were you. At first I thought this was feigned ignorance (i.e. trolling) but since you deny indulging in this type of behaviour I can only conclude that it's genuine stupidity.

I am also quite confused as to how such a simple and well known fact about planes is even being discussed. Both the roll and the yaw affect the direction that the plane takes. When you want to change your direction significantly you use both the wheel and the foot pedals to roll and yaw simultaneously, if you want small adjustments you can use either, if the wind rolls your plane you roll it back to horizontal, if the wind yaws your plane you yaw it back. All of this should be very simple for an aeronautical engineer as Thork, and he should know that he is not making any sense with his "yaw is not a direction, it is a rotation".

And going back to the OP, there is nothing to even discuss in this thread, except Ptolomey's model, created and defined around a small Earth with planets orbiting around it, not hovering above. If Ptolomey's model is right then we can declare the FES totally wrong and close this website and this society once and for all.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 12, 2012, 05:32:45 AM
I am also quite confused as to how such a simple and well known fact about planes is even being discussed. Both the roll and the yaw affect the direction that the plane takes. When you want to change your direction significantly you use both the wheel and the foot pedals to roll and yaw simultaneously, if you want small adjustments you can use either, if the wind rolls your plane you roll it back to horizontal, if the wind yaws your plane you yaw it back. All of this should be very simple for an aeronautical engineer as Thork, and he should know that he is not making any sense with his "yaw is not a direction, it is a rotation".

The control of aircraft was brought in by Thick to cloud the issue and distract from the real one - his refusal to answer the main question about INS.
Yaw was only even mentioned by me in the context of a path that curves to left or right being described as "a yawed path" rather than "a curved path" which the FE'ers scream is what a global great circle route is. The word "yaw" was only mentioned in order to get round the FE Semantics Squad because the word "curved" was not specific enough to satisfy them. Its only relevance to the INS issue is to make sure the FE'ers understand what type of curved path I'm talking about.
You will notice that they still haven't answered the question of whether INS can detect travel along such a path. And what's more, they won't. RE win.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: zarg on January 12, 2012, 09:45:16 AM
The word "yaw" was only mentioned in order to get round the FE Semantics Squad because the word "curved" was not specific enough to satisfy them. Its only relevance to the INS issue is to make sure the FE'ers understand what type of curved path I'm talking about.

Looks like the SS got you anyway. How about "a path in which the inertial Y coordinate* changes in an overall circular curve pattern".

*reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics_(aircraft)#Basic_coordinate_systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics_(aircraft)#Basic_coordinate_systems)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 12, 2012, 05:51:23 PM
The word "yaw" was only mentioned in order to get round the FE Semantics Squad because the word "curved" was not specific enough to satisfy them. Its only relevance to the INS issue is to make sure the FE'ers understand what type of curved path I'm talking about.

Looks like the SS got you anyway. How about "a path in which the inertial Y coordinate* changes in an overall circular curve pattern".

*reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics_(aircraft)#Basic_coordinate_systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_dynamics_(aircraft)#Basic_coordinate_systems)

That will do. Thank you for providing an alternate term, unlike Thork, who told me not to use yaw but when requested to provide an alternate term, declined to do so. Yet another of the 100 Proofs that Thork is a troll.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on January 15, 2012, 06:57:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on January 17, 2012, 07:36:36 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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: markjo on March 13, 2012, 05:54:10 PM
^ 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?
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Thork on March 13, 2012, 06:00:00 PM

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

Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: The Knowledge on March 14, 2012, 05:56:16 AM

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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on March 16, 2012, 12:58:21 PM

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://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0604/Mars2005_6_tezel_f.jpg)
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on March 16, 2012, 01:42:22 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.

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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: ClockTower on March 16, 2012, 01:49:37 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.
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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on March 19, 2012, 12:08:25 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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: trig on March 19, 2012, 06:32:17 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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on March 19, 2012, 07:18:10 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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Nolhekh on March 28, 2012, 07:51:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: Nolhekh on March 28, 2012, 07:56:36 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.
Title: Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
Post by: EireEngineer on March 29, 2012, 06:17:34 AM
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.