An interesting question about Samuel Birley Rowbotham?

Quote

But what can you predict with your cosmology?  Last I knew, most of the current FE models are not the same as the ancient FE models.

FET can predict all the same celestial phenomenas as the ancients. On predicting the Lunar Eclipse, for example, Samuel Birley Rowbotham provides a series of equations which will determine the time, duration, and magnitude of the next Lunar Eclipse. See his Lunar Eclipse chapter of Earth Not a Globe.

What about planetary transits? Oh wait, they can't happen in FET, because then the planets would be tiny and would move into our atmosphere.

The whole RE model DE point is kind of irrelevant when comparing models anyway, as it also exists as a problem under the FE model, although in a slightly different way.

I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.

FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.

FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.

If the superior planets are revolving a set distance from the Sun, why is Mars less than 2 degrees away from it?

Mars isn't 2 degrees away from the sun. Not sure what you're talking about.

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 11, 2008, 04:30:59 PM

I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.

FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.

Why did you misquote me? My actual post was talking about planetary transits, and the fact that planetary orbits appear vertical to us at the equator.

Mars isn't 2 degrees away from the sun. Not sure what you're talking about.

...Where is it, then?

Mars is a little close currently and thus may be a little difficult to observe. You could try Jupiter. Less than 30 degrees away from the Sun, closer even than Venus, which appears quite close to it at the moment. Was a wonderful sight when the Moon eclipsed Venus for a while.

Quote from: Perfect Circle on December 11, 2008, 04:30:59 PM

I must say that I don't know of any accurate FE models of the celestial objects used by the ancients. If I recall correctly, the model used in those days was of a number of spheres surrounding a round Earth, which had smaller spheres embedded in them. The larger spheres rotated around the Earth, and the smaller ones had the planets attached to them and rotated occasionally to account for the retrograde motion of the superior planets.

FET uses the heliocentric model for the planets. The planets all revolve around the sun while the sun revolves around the hub of the earth. This combined motion of systems creates the occasional retrograde motion of the planets as seen by an observer on earth.

It is a little hard to just describe in text, but there is a difference in the motions of the Planets Mercury and Venus as compared to the rest. IF you use an astronomy program and plot out the movements of the planets you can see the difference (note: the astronomy program is just to show the motions, not as a proof of them - the proof is to go out and plot their movements over several years - it will take time, but can be done with a moderately priced - around $1000 telescope - and a bit of patience and attention to detail).

The RET Model has these Outer Planets as being further away form the Sun then the Earth where as Mercury and Venus are closer to the Sun than the Earth. RET predicts the positions of all these planets very accurately and so as a Model is extremely good (note: this is a model not specifically that it is really this way, it just means that when modelled mathematically it give accurate predictions as to the future - or even past - positions of the planets).

As the motions of these outer  planets can most easily be described by having them go behind the Earth (as compared from the sun), how does FET cope when the planets are modelled as being between the Earth and the Sun?