Retrograde motion

With the sun being directly over the earth, and the planets orbiting the sun, they are in extremely close proximity to each other, in fact it would almost appear that the planets are orbiting the earth, and not the sun.  But this brings up a relatively large issue, the issue of epicycles.  Given the position of the sun ( directly over the earth), does flat earth theory include epicycles in the orbits of the planets to account for their retrograde motion?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets#Solar_System

That diagram is highly inaccurate.  There is lots of data that shows multiple epicycles would be necessary to get any where near as accurate of model of the planet motion as a heliocentric model.  It simply much more complicated to assume that there are in fact epicycles, when there is no simple explanation for why planets would engage in such a complicated orbit pattern.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 05:07:47 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets#Solar_System

That diagram is highly inaccurate.  There is lots of data that shows multiple epicycles would be necessary to get any where near as accurate of model of the planet motion as a heliocentric model.  It simply much more complicated to assume that there are in fact epicycles, when there is no simple explanation for why planets would engage in such a complicated orbit pattern.

The link above presents a Heliocentric model of the solar system. Heliocentricism is the idea that the planets revolve around the sun.

Epicycle theory is not presented in my link. Epicycles are the idea that the planets do not revolve around the sun, but instead revolve around an invisible point in space.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 05:33:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 05:07:47 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets#Solar_System

That diagram is highly inaccurate.  There is lots of data that shows multiple epicycles would be necessary to get any where near as accurate of model of the planet motion as a heliocentric model.  It simply much more complicated to assume that there are in fact epicycles, when there is no simple explanation for why planets would engage in such a complicated orbit pattern.

The link above presents a Heliocentric model of the solar system. Heliocentricism is the idea that the planets revolve around the sun.


Epicycle theory is not presented in my link. Epicycles are the idea that the planets do not revolve around the sun, but instead revolve around an invisible point in space.

Heliocentric-ism is the idea that the planets orbit the sun, correct, but thats provided that the sun is not on top of the earth.  And yes there is a need for epicycles in your link.  The system of epicycles is quite flawed, and the diagram you presented is a gross underrepresentation of the number of epicycles within epicycles that would be needed to make an accurate prediction regarding the location of the planets at any given time.

Here is a link on epicycles.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html


here is what you posted

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets#Solar_System

This is necessary for FE because your sun is directly over the earth.

What you posted doesn't work if the sun is directly over the earth, with the planets orbiting the sun, you would see the planets cross their own path, which does not happen in the sky, you simply see a S shape.  If the planets are further out, then you would have no retrograde motion.  You need epicycles because of the placement of the sun.

The link above presents a Heliocentric model of the solar system. Heliocentricism is the idea that the planets revolve around the sun.

Not true, Tom.  Geocentric models have all the planets, save the earth, orbiting the sun. 

Epicycle theory is not presented in my link. Epicycles are the idea that the planets do not revolve around the sun, but instead revolve around an invisible point in space.

Close, but not quite.  Epicycles describe how planets in their own circles while orbiting the sun.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 06:06:12 PM

The link above presents a Heliocentric model of the solar system. Heliocentricism is the idea that the planets revolve around the sun.

Not true, Tom.  Geocentric models have all the planets, save the earth, orbiting the sun. 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 06:06:12 PM

Epicycle theory is not presented in my link. Epicycles are the idea that the planets do not revolve around the sun, but instead revolve around an invisible point in space.

Close, but not quite.  Epicycles describe how planets in their own circles while orbiting the sun.

yeah the model that he posted shows the sun over the earth, and order for there to be obvious retrograde motion, the planets would have to be within the circumference of the earth, or the orbit would simple be around the earth, and no retrograde motion would be perceived, unless it included epicycles.  Not to mention that if the planets were in fact within the circumferential of the earth, they would exhibit a circular retrograde motion, rather than the S shaped motion that is perceived.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 06:06:12 PM

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 22, 2011, 05:33:23 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 22, 2011, 05:07:47 PM

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets#Solar_System

That diagram is highly inaccurate.  There is lots of data that shows multiple epicycles would be necessary to get any where near as accurate of model of the planet motion as a heliocentric model.  It simply much more complicated to assume that there are in fact epicycles, when there is no simple explanation for why planets would engage in such a complicated orbit pattern.

The link above presents a Heliocentric model of the solar system. Heliocentricism is the idea that the planets revolve around the sun.


Epicycle theory is not presented in my link. Epicycles are the idea that the planets do not revolve around the sun, but instead revolve around an invisible point in space.

Heliocentric-ism is the idea that the planets orbit the sun, correct, but thats provided that the sun is not on top of the earth.  And yes there is a need for epicycles in your link.  The system of epicycles is quite flawed, and the diagram you presented is a gross underrepresentation of the number of epicycles within epicycles that would be needed to make an accurate prediction regarding the location of the planets at any given time.

Here is a link on epicycles.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html


here is what you posted

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Planets#Solar_System

This is necessary for FE because your sun is directly over the earth.

What you posted doesn't work if the sun is directly over the earth, with the planets orbiting the sun, you would see the planets cross their own path, which does not happen in the sky, you simply see a S shape.  If the planets are further out, then you would have no retrograde motion.  You need epicycles because of the placement of the sun.

This is an epicycle:



The planet is rotating around an invisible point in space.

This is not an epicycle:



The planet is rotating around the sun. It's a heliocentric model where the sun is the focal point of the solar system.

Lets look up the definition of Heliocentric on Google definition:

he-li-o-cen-tric

adjective /ˌhēlēəˈsentrik/ 

   1. Having or representing the sun as the center, as in the accepted astronomical model of the solar system

   2. Measured from or considered in relation to the center of the sun
          * - heliocentric distance

Any model of the solar system with the sun as a focal point is a Heliocentric System.

Ok Tom, going to make this simple.  The diagram that you posted is indeed heliocentric, and it is indeed not displaying epicycles.  However, the diagram that you posted does not accurately explain retrograde motion without the use of epicycles.

if the position of the sun is directly over the earth, and so to are the planets as depicted by the diagram, then the path in the night sky of the planet will show a loop/ a shape where the path is crosses over itself.  This is not what we see when we look at retrograde motion.  When we look at retrograde motion we see an S shaped doubling back.  If the planets are not over the earth with the sun, then their orbit will encompass the circumference of the earth, and no retrograde motion will be observed unless there are epicycles.

Tom you have not answered my question, the picture that you posted does not describe accurately what we see when we look into the night sky, unless you add epicycles to it or change the location of the sun.

Sometimes the planets go backwards. They are highly unstable, as observed.

Sometimes the planets go backwards. They are highly unstable, as observed.

So you are saying that there is a system of epicycles.

 And its not sometimes, In RE its a highly predictable event that is due to the earth having a faster orbit than the planets exhibiting retrograde motion, therefore the earth passes them making them appear to move backwards.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 23, 2011, 03:26:55 PM

Sometimes the planets go backwards. They are highly unstable, as observed.

So you are saying that there is a system of epicycles.

The word "cycles" assumes the earth is round, and is discouraged here. We use the word "epiplanes" to describe the inconssequential bit of wobble that a few planets exhibit.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 23, 2011, 03:55:09 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 23, 2011, 03:26:55 PM

Sometimes the planets go backwards. They are highly unstable, as observed.

So you are saying that there is a system of epicycles.

The word "cycles" assumes the earth is round, and is discouraged here. We use the word "epiplanes" to describe the inconssequential bit of wobble that a few planets exhibit.

Since when does cycles refer to roundness? Quit being a troll.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 23, 2011, 03:55:09 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 23, 2011, 03:26:55 PM

Sometimes the planets go backwards. They are highly unstable, as observed.

So you are saying that there is a system of epicycles.

The word "cycles" assumes the earth is round, and is discouraged here. We use the word "epiplanes" to describe the inconssequential bit of wobble that a few planets exhibit.

Cycle refers to the period, not to the shape of the earth.  This period of time when the planet exhibits a backwards motion is months long and hardly an inconsequential wobble.  Also every planet has some form of retrograde motion, but Mercury and Venus exhibit it in a more unusual manner.  That fact actually does not help FE, as their orbits, while smaller should be indistinguishable based on the sun's location in the FE model.

Try drawing a cricle without making it round...

Try drawing a cricle without making it round...

   I just tried this and it looks more like a cat.

Try drawing a cricle without making it round...

Ok, great. Now what about a cycle.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 24, 2011, 01:47:39 PM

Try drawing a cricle without making it round...

Ok, great. Now what about a cycle.

You cannot draw a cycle.

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 24, 2011, 02:06:44 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 24, 2011, 01:47:39 PM

Try drawing a cricle without making it round...

Ok, great. Now what about a cycle.

You cannot draw a cycle.

yes you can, you can look up plenty of drawings of the water cycle if you wish. Please stop trolling or arguing semantics in this thread.  If you have something to say regarding the explanation of retrograde motion then say it, otherwise please refrain from posting in a thread about retrograde motion.

The word "cycles" assumes the earth is round, and is discouraged here. We use the word "epiplanes" to describe the inconssequential bit of wobble that a few planets exhibit.

Please cease this irrelevant derailing.

Quote from: Crustinator on May 24, 2011, 03:44:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 24, 2011, 02:06:44 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 24, 2011, 01:47:39 PM

Try drawing a cricle without making it round...

Ok, great. Now what about a cycle.

You cannot draw a cycle.

yes you can, you can look up plenty of drawings of the water cycle if you wish. Please stop trolling or arguing semantics in this thread.  If you have something to say regarding the explanation of retrograde motion then say it, otherwise please refrain from posting in a thread about retrograde motion.

Retrograde motions are already explained in the FAQ.

Quote from: OrbisNonSufficit on May 24, 2011, 03:47:59 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 24, 2011, 03:44:25 PM

Quote from: Harutsedo on May 24, 2011, 02:06:44 PM

Quote from: Crustinator on May 24, 2011, 01:47:39 PM

Try drawing a cricle without making it round...

Ok, great. Now what about a cycle.

You cannot draw a cycle.

yes you can, you can look up plenty of drawings of the water cycle if you wish. Please stop trolling or arguing semantics in this thread.  If you have something to say regarding the explanation of retrograde motion then say it, otherwise please refrain from posting in a thread about retrograde motion.

Retrograde motions are already explained in the FAQ.

You are partially right, but what you meant was "FE has an explanation for retrograde motion that does not work for the position of our sun.". Please stop trolling.  If you read the thread you would know that I had already been directed to the FE diagram and had found it to be grossly inaccurate.

Historical note: Not all historical systems were either geocentric or heliocentric. In the 1500s a number of other systems showed up, such as Tycho's system in which the sun orbited the Earth and the other planets orbited the sun. There were also hybrid systems, such as ones in which Venus and Mercury orbited the sun but the other planets orbited the Earth. In any event, Tom's claim that his additional circle is not an epicycle is at best an abuse of language. It is exactly the sort of thing that would have been classically called an epicycle in any classical astronomical system.

If you read the thread you would know that I had already been directed to the FE diagram and had found it to be grossly inaccurate.

We do not have the time or resources to accurately map the world. If you would like to give us 2 million dollars an hour (the Conspiracy's budget) we will happily provide you with said map.

seems to me like you don't have an answer. You don’t need a budget of millions, that’s just putting an insurmountable object in your path as a means to avoiding looking stupid, but you can’t see the irony in that. Cartographers have been mapping the globe for hundreds of years, just because you can’t understand physics, don’t be trying to convince us of your fairy tales

And how much would you say it would cost to replicate the efforts of cartographers all over the world?


Mapping the world wasn't any cheaper or easier in the past you know.

yeah, you have the proof, but you're just not going to show us it, like the boy who could fly but didn't when his mates challenged him, because he didn't want to. you're boring me already, no answers to any questions

Proof of what? That mapping the world is difficult and expensive?

avoidance again. now you're just proving my point.