Transit of Venus

  • 29 Replies
  • 2734 Views
Transit of Venus
« on: February 24, 2009, 09:42:00 AM »
Now, Anyone can spend a little while watching Venus and see that it's going around the Sun. It shrinks and grows as it moves back and forth across the sun, and it undergoes phases as it moves round the Sun, letting you see which direction the sun is from it's point of view.

We'll use something well documented and observed by many to explain a problem with FE celestial mechanics. The transit of Venus of 2004. I'm sure at least a few of you observed it, and if you didn't there will be another on June the 6th, 2012. Be sure to catch that one if you can, as it will be the last for quite a while.

Now, the transit of Venus is where Venus passes in front of the Sun, meaning that we observe a small dark disc pass over the disc of the Sun. Given that the Sun in a FE model is a little thing 3,000 miles away, and Venus is this little fragment of stuff who knows where, you would expect that the transit would only be observable from a small area of he planet, where these two objects line up from an observers point of view.

Yet, the transit was observable everywhere that the Sun was observable. What's more, it was observed in much the same place on the Sun all over the planet, something that shouldn't happen in a FE model even if Venus was rolling up against the surface of the Sun.

Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17252
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #1 on: February 24, 2009, 10:06:41 AM »
Quote
Yet, the transit was observable everywhere that the Sun was observable. What's more, it was observed in much the same place on the Sun all over the planet, something that shouldn't happen in a FE model even if Venus was rolling up against the surface of the Sun.

That's not true. Venus tracks across the sun in a different position depending on where you stand on earth. Astronomers use this fact (along with the assumption that the earth is a globe) to calculate the distance to the sun. See: http://www.transitofvenus.nl/parallax.html
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 10:09:01 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #2 on: February 24, 2009, 04:43:24 PM »
Quote
That's not true. Venus tracks across the sun in a different position depending on where you stand on earth. Astronomers use this fact (along with the assumption that the earth is a globe) to calculate the distance to the sun. See:

It's a difference of about 9 arcseconds on a surface half a degree across. Much the same place.

It's also an irrelevant point. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #3 on: February 24, 2009, 06:52:13 PM »
The sun is not 3000 miles away.

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #4 on: February 24, 2009, 07:06:16 PM »
Quote
The sun is not 3000 miles away.

I've yet to see any other value for the distance to the sun, but any reasonably small value such as that will have the same problems. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38186
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #5 on: February 24, 2009, 07:18:42 PM »
The sun is not 3000 miles away.

Then how far away is the sun?  Or, more specifically, how high above the FE is the sun at any given time?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2009, 07:19:42 PM »
Since we do not know the extent of the atmolayer it is impossible to know.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38186
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2009, 07:38:03 PM »
Since we do not know the extent of the atmolayer it is impossible to know.

Rowbotham thought that it was quite easy to figure out.  He calculated to the value to be something less than 700 miles in ENAG.  Maybe you should double check his math.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #8 on: February 25, 2009, 05:40:36 AM »
Indeed, all attempts at measuring the distance to the Sun from a FE point of view place it fairly close to the planet, but having the Sun so close does not allow transits to work. Besides, as you move the Sun further away, it becomes harder to explain why it only lights a select portion of the Planet at any one time. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #9 on: February 25, 2009, 09:24:50 AM »
Since we do not know the extent of the atmolayer it is impossible to know.

Rowbotham thought that it was quite easy to figure out.  He calculated to the value to be something less than 700 miles in ENAG.  Maybe you should double check his math.
Rowbotham lived in a time where physics knowledge was much less than it is today.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38186
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #10 on: February 25, 2009, 10:32:30 AM »
Since we do not know the extent of the atmolayer it is impossible to know.

Rowbotham thought that it was quite easy to figure out.  He calculated to the value to be something less than 700 miles in ENAG.  Maybe you should double check his math.
Rowbotham lived in a time where physics knowledge was much less than it is today.
If we can't trust anything so simple as Rowbotham's process of calculating the distance to the sun, then how can we trust his views on perspective, or anything else for that matter?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #11 on: February 25, 2009, 12:45:07 PM »
Since we do not know the extent of the atmolayer it is impossible to know.

Rowbotham thought that it was quite easy to figure out.  He calculated to the value to be something less than 700 miles in ENAG.  Maybe you should double check his math.
Rowbotham lived in a time where physics knowledge was much less than it is today.

Then why is ENAG the unofficial FE bible?

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #12 on: February 25, 2009, 12:48:22 PM »
Rowbotham lived in a time where physics knowledge was much less than it is today.

I'm sorry, I have to speak up here, I've been lurking for some time now and I finally have something to say.
I believe it was Giovanni Domenico Cassini who calculated a fairly accurate RE distance to the sun in 1672.  What's your excuse as to why Rowbotham couldn't have been just as accurate when he made his calculation for the FE?
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17252
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #13 on: February 25, 2009, 01:06:54 PM »
Quote
The sun is not 3000 miles away.

I've yet to see any other value for the distance to the sun, but any reasonably small value such as that will have the same problems. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

You're going to have to prove that the transit was observable everywhere where the sun was observable before asking us "how it works."

You haven't given evidence for anything so far. Please do.

Quote
I'm sorry, I have to speak up here, I've been lurking for some time now and I finally have something to say.
I believe it was Giovanni Domenico Cassini who calculated a fairly accurate RE distance to the sun in 1672.  What's your excuse as to why Rowbotham couldn't have been just as accurate when he made his calculation for the FE?

Astronomical parallax assumes that the earth was a globe. If had assumed that the earth was flat he would have gotten different calculations.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38186
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #14 on: February 25, 2009, 01:24:18 PM »
Quote
I'm sorry, I have to speak up here, I've been lurking for some time now and I finally have something to say.
I believe it was Giovanni Domenico Cassini who calculated a fairly accurate RE distance to the sun in 1672.  What's your excuse as to why Rowbotham couldn't have been just as accurate when he made his calculation for the FE?

Astronomical parallax assumes that the earth was a globe. If had assumed that the earth was flat he would have gotten different calculations.

Nope.  Astronomical parallax assumes that the earth (of whatever shape) is orbiting around the sun at a distance of about 93,000,000 miles.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #15 on: February 25, 2009, 01:30:24 PM »
Quote
I'm sorry, I have to speak up here, I've been lurking for some time now and I finally have something to say.
I believe it was Giovanni Domenico Cassini who calculated a fairly accurate RE distance to the sun in 1672.  What's your excuse as to why Rowbotham couldn't have been just as accurate when he made his calculation for the FE?

Astronomical parallax assumes that the earth was a globe. If had assumed that the earth was flat he would have gotten different calculations.

Nope.  Astronomical parallax assumes that the earth (of whatever shape) is orbiting around the sun at a distance of about 93,000,000 miles.

The point of my statement was to defense of Rowbotham's calculations of the distance he got for the distance of the sun.  Saying that not much was known about physics is inaccurate, as by the 1900s, a great deal was "known" and both the math and the equipment of the time was of sufficient sophistication to make such predictions accurately if one had the intelligence to make accurate observations and inferrences.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17252
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #16 on: February 25, 2009, 01:31:14 PM »
Nope.  Astronomical parallax assumes that the earth (of whatever shape) is orbiting around the sun at a distance of about 93,000,000 miles.

No, astronomical parallax doesn't assume that the sun has a distance of 93 million miles. That's what it's trying to find out.

And yes, the calculations take into account the assumption that the earth is a globe, since the angle of the sun in the sky is interpreted to mean something different when comparing observations 10,000 miles apart.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 01:37:02 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #17 on: February 25, 2009, 03:17:36 PM »
Quote
You're going to have to prove that the transit was observable everywhere where the sun was observable before asking us "how it works.

Photos of the transit ranging from Canada to Australia. This is why I chose the transit to make my point, as it was recorded the world over. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #18 on: February 25, 2009, 03:28:44 PM »
And yes, the calculations take into account the assumption that the earth is a globe, since the angle of the sun in the sky is interpreted to mean something different when comparing observations 10,000 miles apart.

Maybe because the angle of the sun _actually_is_ different when comparing observations 10,000 miles apart.

Just an idea. Check your data. YMMV.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17252
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #19 on: February 25, 2009, 04:00:15 PM »
Quote
You're going to have to prove that the transit was observable everywhere where the sun was observable before asking us "how it works.

Photos of the transit ranging from Canada to Australia. This is why I chose the transit to make my point, as it was recorded the world over. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

Those transits are erratic and widely separated from parallax, just as I said they would be.

----------

On Page 11 we can see that up north in Ontario Venus makes a path across a sliver of the sun's bottom:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04k/Connelly1.jpg
Taken at Bright's Grove, Ontario

----------

On Page 6 we can see that at New York Venus makes a transit near the equator of the sun:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman1.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman2.jpg

Taken at Victor, NY

----------

And then in Australia it makes a little sliver across the sun's top:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04/Donovan1.jpg

----------

As we can see, from 42 degrees North to 20 degrees South the planet Venus moves across the entire body of the sun.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 05:19:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

EnigmaZV

  • 3471
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #20 on: February 25, 2009, 04:07:14 PM »
Quote
You're going to have to prove that the transit was observable everywhere where the sun was observable before asking us "how it works.

Photos of the transit ranging from Canada to Australia. This is why I chose the transit to make my point, as it was recorded the world over. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

Those transits are erratic and widely separated from parallax, just like I said they would be.

On Page 11 we can see that up north in Ontario Venus makes a path across a sliver of the sun's bottom:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04k/Connelly1.jpg
Taken at Bright's Grove, Ontario

----------

On Page 6 we can see that at New York Venus makes a transit near the equator of the sun:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman1.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman2.jpg

Taken at Victor, NY

----------

And then in Australia it makes a little sliver across the sun's top:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04/Donovan1.jpg

It seems to me that the farther south you go, the farther up the sun Venus appears to be.  That seems more like a pattern than erratic behaviour.
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17252
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #21 on: February 25, 2009, 04:27:25 PM »
It seems to me that the farther south you go, the farther up the sun Venus appears to be.  That seems more like a pattern than erratic behaviour.

I meant erratic in the sense that Venus is seen to jump all over the sun depending on where you're standing. None the less, it demonstrates that 'N the Great' was completely wrong when he stated:

"Yet, the transit was observable everywhere that the Sun was observable. What's more, it was observed in much the same place on the Sun all over the planet, something that shouldn't happen in a FE model even if Venus was rolling up against the surface of the Sun."

Venus is actually seen to be separated by parallax across the sun's entire body between 42 degrees North and 20 degrees South. 'N the Great' needs to actually look at his evidence before ignorantly making assumptions.

What more, judging by the wide separation between 42 degrees North and 20 degrees South, it demonstrates that the Venus transit could not possibly be seen from "every place on earth." Could it be seen from 60 degrees South? I think not.

'N the Great' needs to stop posting and take an introduction to astronomy class at a community college.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 05:19:12 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #22 on: February 25, 2009, 04:41:00 PM »
Those transits are erratic and widely separated from parallax, just like I said they would be.

----------

On Page 11 we can see that up north in Ontario Venus makes a path across a sliver of the sun's bottom:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04k/Connelly1.jpg
Taken at Bright's Grove, Ontario
...
...
As we can see, from 42 degrees North to 20 degrees South the planet Venus moves across the entire body of the sun.

Pst. Tom. Yeah. Over here. Shhh. NASA is part of the conspiracy remember?

I've always said that NASA was a military conspiracy.

That means you can't quote information from their site and claim it's true.

Otherwise you look like a mug.

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #23 on: February 25, 2009, 05:28:58 PM »
Quote
Those transits are erratic and widely separated from parallax, just like I said they would be.

----------

On Page 11 we can see that up north in Ontario Venus makes a path across a sliver of the sun's bottom:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04k/Connelly1.jpg
Taken at Bright's Grove, Ontario

----------

On Page 6 we can see that at New York Venus makes a transit near the equator of the sun:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman1.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman2.jpg

Taken at Victor, NY

----------

And then in Australia it makes a little sliver across the sun's top:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04/Donovan1.jpg

Only one of those links is showing a path across the Sun. I'm not seeing anything suggesting that Venus crossed at the widest part of the Sun.

And of course Venus is going to look like it's going over the top from the point of view of Australia They're on the other side of the planet, so they're looking at it from the other way up.

Quote
What more, judging by the wide separation over 60 degrees of latitude, it demonstrates that the Venus transit could not possibly be seen from "every place on earth." Could it be seen from 60 degrees South? I think not.

I never said that it could be seen from every place on earth.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38186
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2009, 06:39:30 PM »
Nope.  Astronomical parallax assumes that the earth (of whatever shape) is orbiting around the sun at a distance of about 93,000,000 miles.

No, astronomical parallax doesn't assume that the sun has a distance of 93 million miles. That's what it's trying to find out.

Tom, if you can't read a whole book on astronomy, at least read the Cliff notes:
Quote from: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Stellar-Parallax-and-Distances.topicArticleId-23583,articleId-23524.html
Stellar Parallax and Distances

For nearby stars, distance is determined directly from parallax by using trigonometry and the size of Earth's orbit. The trigonometric or stellar parallax angle equals one-half the angle defined by a baseline that is the diameter of Earth's orbit. Because even the nearest stars are extremely distant, the parallax triangle is long and skinny (see Figure 1 ).
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17252
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2009, 07:07:08 PM »
Tom, if you can't read a whole book on astronomy, at least read the Cliff notes:
Quote from: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Stellar-Parallax-and-Distances.topicArticleId-23583,articleId-23524.html
Stellar Parallax and Distances

For nearby stars, distance is determined directly from parallax by using trigonometry and the size of Earth's orbit. The trigonometric or stellar parallax angle equals one-half the angle defined by a baseline that is the diameter of Earth's orbit. Because even the nearest stars are extremely distant, the parallax triangle is long and skinny (see Figure 1 ).

We were talking about using astronomical parallax to find the distance to the sun, not the distance to the stars.

From page one it was originally posted:

"I believe it was Giovanni Domenico Cassini who calculated a fairly accurate RE distance to the sun in 1672.  What's your excuse as to why Rowbotham couldn't have been just as accurate when he made his calculation for the FE?"

Please actually read the threads you reply to in the future.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 12:17:08 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

brutsi

  • 69
  • RE
Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #26 on: February 26, 2009, 02:12:20 AM »
Quote
The sun is not 3000 miles away.

I've yet to see any other value for the distance to the sun, but any reasonably small value such as that will have the same problems. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

You're going to have to prove that the transit was observable everywhere where the sun was observable before asking us "how it works."

You haven't given evidence for anything so far. Please do.

Quote

I live in denmark and i saw the passage in 2004 http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/billeder_af_venuspassagen
The site is in danish but please turn you attention to the fotos. the passage was visible from 07:19 until 13:22 the 8. of june 2004, you could see it with the naked eye, even without filters. although that would be hurtfull to your eye. the homepage even forecast the next passage to indeed take place in 2012 as stated in the thread.

:EDIT if you know just a bit of geography denmark is far from both north america and australia.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 02:14:07 AM by brutsi »

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #27 on: March 05, 2009, 12:54:07 PM »
Now, Anyone can spend a little while watching Venus and see that it's going around the Sun. It shrinks and grows as it moves back and forth across the sun, and it undergoes phases as it moves round the Sun, letting you see which direction the sun is from it's point of view.

We'll use something well documented and observed by many to explain a problem with FE celestial mechanics. The transit of Venus of 2004. I'm sure at least a few of you observed it, and if you didn't there will be another on June the 6th, 2012. Be sure to catch that one if you can, as it will be the last for quite a while.

Now, the transit of Venus is where Venus passes in front of the Sun, meaning that we observe a small dark disc pass over the disc of the Sun. Given that the Sun in a FE model is a little thing 3,000 miles away, and Venus is this little fragment of stuff who knows where, you would expect that the transit would only be observable from a small area of he planet, where these two objects line up from an observers point of view.

Yet, the transit was observable everywhere that the Sun was observable. What's more, it was observed in much the same place on the Sun all over the planet, something that shouldn't happen in a FE model even if Venus was rolling up against the surface of the Sun.

Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

I have a very simple to understand solution to this. THE EARTH IS ROUND, A GLOBE, NOT FLAT. There now wasn't that easy to understand.

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2009, 11:59:12 AM »
Perhaps this topic is a little stale now, but I feel I should drop another thing in. The transit entered and exited the disc of the Sun at approximately the same time all over the world, which is not what you would expect if the two objects are very close. For example, third contact happened at 13:05 CEST in France, which represents 11:05 UTC. Third contact was observed in the USA at about 6:10 CDT, which is 11:10 UTC.

Re: Transit of Venus
« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2009, 02:38:09 PM »
Quote
You're going to have to prove that the transit was observable everywhere where the sun was observable before asking us "how it works.

Photos of the transit ranging from Canada to Australia. This is why I chose the transit to make my point, as it was recorded the world over. Are there any explanations of how this works in a FE model?

Those transits are erratic and widely separated from parallax, just as I said they would be.

----------

On Page 11 we can see that up north in Ontario Venus makes a path across a sliver of the sun's bottom:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04k/Connelly1.jpg
Taken at Bright's Grove, Ontario

----------

On Page 6 we can see that at New York Venus makes a transit near the equator of the sun:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman1.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04f/Chatman2.jpg

Taken at Victor, NY

----------

And then in Australia it makes a little sliver across the sun's top:

http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/venustransit/08jun04/Donovan1.jpg

----------

As we can see, from 42 degrees North to 20 degrees South the planet Venus moves across the entire body of the sun.
You avoid the real question. RET clearly and accurately predicts the transits and occultations of both interior planets. FET makes no predictions. RE is again the better model.