FE Wiki Critique: Cosmos/The Planets.

Let's critique the Wiki, one section at a time. This thread tackles the task for: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets

First, let's consider:

Rotoundity

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet.

This answer assumes that the Earth is not a planet. This is a logical fallacy of assuming the result. The Wiki should describe how FEers scientifically determined that the Earth is not a planet.

Next up:

Size and Magnitude

Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

This answer lacks any quantitative evidence. How did FEer determine scientifically that the planets are "pretty small"? How big is "pretty small"? By not answering the question, FEers demonstrate that they seem unable to answer basic questions about the Cosmos.

Next Up:

Retrograde Motion

Q. Why do the planets retrograde in the sky?

A. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth.

First, FEers make several more unsupported, at least here in the Wiki, claims:
1) The planets revolve around the Sun.
2) The Sun moves around the hub of the Earth, without defining what they mean by "the hub of the Earth".
3) Retrograde motions occur for all seven planets.
4) The Sun's motion causes the retrograde motion.

Let's review these in order.

1) No, in FET the planets do not revolve around the Sun as the diagram indicates. The planets do pass over and under the Sun, and not in a circle in the plane parallel to the Earth's surface.

2) Again, FEers makes another unsupported claim. They need to show us how they know that the Sun revolves around the hub. They need to tell us where the hub is. For example, how do they know that the North Pole is at the center of the hub and not the South Pole? Is this, like so many other claims, just wild speculation?

3) No, only the outer planets are seen to move retrograde. Mercury and Venus don't. So the Wiki fails miserably. Why would the inner planets not move in retrograde? Why would Mercury and Venus have phases? Since RET predicts the retrograde motion for the outer planets, since RET explains the reason for the motion (The Earth is overtaking the planet as its orbit is smaller and completed more quickly.), predicts when and where the retrograde motion will occur, and predicts the phases of the inner planets, FET fails miserably.

4) No, the observed motion does not match the explanation. Clearly no one considered that planet in retrograde motion is nowhere near the Sun and is not executing a tight circle about the Sun when it's in retrograde.

Finally, let's critique this statement:

Several retrogrades a year would be more appropriate, depending on the planet.

Again, this is miserably wrong. No planet has even one period of retrograde motion each year. Obviously no one even researched the concept before trying to 'make up' an explanation. How very sad!

Clearly this section was poorly thought out and fails miserably.

Let's critique the Wiki

OK.

Clearly this section was poorly thought out and fails miserably.

Yes. It was written by Tom.

/critique

Also, there is no mention of what mechanism keeps the planets in said rotation, what actually causes the retrograde motion, or how these conclusions were arrived at.

Many articles in the wiki are being developed.

Many articles in the wiki are being developed.

So? Did you want us to spot your theory some handicap points because you didn't do your homework?

Many articles in the wiki are being developed.

The fact that it is rarely if ever edited makes me doubt this claim.

Many articles in the wiki are being developed.

As a FEW editor, which wiki articles are you helping to develop?

Quote from: Johannes on July 31, 2010, 08:04:33 PM

Many articles in the wiki are being developed.

The fact that it is rarely if ever edited makes me doubt this claim.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-listpages.php?sort_mode=lastModif_desc


The wiki has been improving for at least the past few months. Also, there are almost 100 unique articles in the FE wiki created by volunteers on this site.... I don't see what you are complaining about.

Are you going to update the wiki to answer the critiques made in the OP?

Quote from: General Disarray on July 31, 2010, 08:13:54 PM

Quote from: Johannes on July 31, 2010, 08:04:33 PM

Many articles in the wiki are being developed.

The fact that it is rarely if ever edited makes me doubt this claim.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-listpages.php?sort_mode=lastModif_desc


The wiki has been improving for at least the past few months. Also, there are almost 100 unique articles in the FE wiki created by volunteers on this site.... I don't see what you are complaining about.

Let's see.  Of the last 50 articles edited (since November 16, 2009), John Davis edited one article (which is still pretty much just an outline with no actual content), you have edited 3 (one of which was just a page of links) and Tom Bishop has edited 46.  Maybe we should rename the FEW to be the TBW (Tom Bishop Wiki) seeing as he has done most of the work and is responsible for the vast majority of the content. 

Round earth believers are allowed to edit the wiki. If you guys really want the wiki to be changed why don't you ask daniel for FEW access.

Do you really want non-believers (possible conspiracy agents) to have editorial access to the FEW?

This answer assumes that the Earth is not a planet. This is a logical fallacy of assuming the result.

Actually the fallacy is assuming that the earth is a planet, when anyone can see that it is a plane.

This answer lacks any quantitative evidence. How did FEer determine scientifically that the planets are "pretty small"?

Observation.

How big is "pretty small"?

Pretty small.

First, FEers make several more unsupported, at least here in the Wiki, claims:
1) The planets revolve around the Sun.

They do.

2) The Sun moves around the hub of the Earth, without defining what they mean by "the hub of the Earth".

An area above the North Pole.

3) Retrograde motions occur for all seven planets.

This was never stated in the Wiki.

4) The Sun's motion causes the retrograde motion.

Actually the Wiki says that it's the combined motion of the sun and planets.

1) No, in FET the planets do not revolve around the Sun as the diagram indicates. The planets do pass over and under the Sun, and not in a circle in the plane parallel to the Earth's surface.

No one said that the planets passed over or under the sun.

Planetary transits occur when the observer is viewing the sun from the side and a planet happens to get in the way. It only occurs with the planets closest to the sun.

2) Again, FEers makes another unsupported claim. They need to show us how they know that the Sun revolves around the hub. They need to tell us where the hub is. For example, how do they know that the North Pole is at the center of the hub and not the South Pole? Is this, like so many other claims, just wild speculation?

Of course the sun revolves around the hub.

3) No, only the outer planets are seen to move retrograde. Mercury and Venus don't. So the Wiki fails miserably. Why would the inner planets not move in retrograde? Why would Mercury and Venus have phases? Since RET predicts the retrograde motion for the outer planets, since RET explains the reason for the motion (The Earth is overtaking the planet as its orbit is smaller and completed more quickly.), predicts when and where the retrograde motion will occur, and predicts the phases of the inner planets, FET fails miserably.

The Wiki does not state that all planets visibly retrograde. But it does state that all planets revolve around the sun.

4) No, the observed motion does not match the explanation. Clearly no one considered that planet in retrograde motion is nowhere near the Sun and is not executing a tight circle about the Sun when it's in retrograde.

No one suggested that the planets were right near the sun. The diagram in the Wiki is for illustration purposes only.

Quote

This answer assumes that the Earth is not a planet. This is a logical fallacy of assuming the result.

Actually the fallacy is assuming that the earth is a planet, when anyone can see that it is a plane.

Nope. the Wiki's fallacy remains regardless of arguments against it.

Quote

This answer lacks any quantitative evidence. How did FEer determine scientifically that the planets are "pretty small"?

Observation.

When? What results? How do you know the distance to the planets?

Quote

How big is "pretty small"?

Pretty small.

non-responsive

Quote

First, FEers make several more unsupported, at least here in the Wiki, claims:
1) The planets revolve around the Sun.

They do.

non-responsive

Quote

2) The Sun moves around the hub of the Earth, without defining what they mean by "the hub of the Earth".

An area above the North Pole.

That definition would still be in the Wiki.

Quote

3) Retrograde motions occur for all seven planets.

This was never stated in the Wiki.

Yes, it is.

Quote

4) The Sun's motion causes the retrograde motion.

Actually the Wiki says that it's the combined motion of the sun and planets.

Quote

1) No, in FET the planets do not revolve around the Sun as the diagram indicates. The planets do pass over and under the Sun, and not in a circle in the plane parallel to the Earth's surface.

No one said that the planets passed over or under the sun.

Planetary transits occur when the observer is viewing the sun from the side and a planet happens to get in the way. It only occurs with the planets closest to the sun.

Evidence? What about when a planet is blocked by Sun?

Quote

2) Again, FEers makes another unsupported claim. They need to show us how they know that the Sun revolves around the hub. They need to tell us where the hub is. For example, how do they know that the North Pole is at the center of the hub and not the South Pole? Is this, like so many other claims, just wild speculation?

Of course the sun revolves around the hub.

non-responsive

Quote

3) No, only the outer planets are seen to move retrograde. Mercury and Venus don't. So the Wiki fails miserably. Why would the inner planets not move in retrograde? Why would Mercury and Venus have phases? Since RET predicts the retrograde motion for the outer planets, since RET explains the reason for the motion (The Earth is overtaking the planet as its orbit is smaller and completed more quickly.), predicts when and where the retrograde motion will occur, and predicts the phases of the inner planets, FET fails miserably.

The Wiki does not state that all planets visibly retrograde. But it does state that all planets revolve around the sun.

Quote

4) No, the observed motion does not match the explanation. Clearly no one considered that planet in retrograde motion is nowhere near the Sun and is not executing a tight circle about the Sun when it's in retrograde.

No one suggested that the planets were right near the sun. The diagram in the Wiki is for illustration purposes only.

The diagram is wrong and illustrates nothing.

Lmao, answering "pretty small" to "how small is pretty small" shows that Tom does not care about the details; it just looks small so it's small. I guess no object under 30 minutes of arc in the sky could ever be very big. Because, I mean, the size of an object is absolutely related to its angular diameter, not relatively related or anything. Even if it's light years away, it has to look big to be big 

Lmao, answering "pretty small" to "how small is pretty small" shows that Tom does not care about the details; it just looks small so it's small. I guess no object under 30 minutes of arc in the sky could ever be very big. Because, I mean, the size of an object is absolutely related to its angular diameter, not relatively related or anything. Even if it's light years away, it has to look big to be big 

Yeah. Then, according to Bishop, when I look at a plane in the sky, I can conclude that planes reduce their sizes when flying. What evidence I have? Observation: I see the plane small, so it is small.

Ridiculous.

Quote

1) No, in FET the planets do not revolve around the Sun as the diagram indicates. The planets do pass over and under the Sun, and not in a circle in the plane parallel to the Earth's surface.

No one said that the planets passed over or under the sun.

Planetary transits occur when the observer is viewing the sun from the side and a planet happens to get in the way. It only occurs with the planets closest to the sun.

*sigh*  Tom, you do realize that in order for a planetary transit of the sun (or a solar eclipse) to be visible from the earth, the planet (or the moon) must pass between the sun and the observer.  The only way that is possible on a flat earth is if the planet (or the moon) is below the sun at the time of the transit (or eclipse).