Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets

  • 134 Replies
  • 26416 Views
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2011, 10:40:01 AM »
P.S.


The 'Search' function is your friend.


*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2011, 12:30:12 AM »
This is quite good, I think.

Ptolemy's Epicycles

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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #32 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 and here for example and Tom Bishop has referenced here and here.

You will notice is diagrams like this below from Ptolemy he doesn't add any of the made up planets either.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2011, 04:21:45 AM »
This is quite good, I think.

Ptolemy's Epicycles

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".

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #34 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
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #35 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.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #36 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. 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
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.
                                                               
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.

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?

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2011, 03:17:51 PM »
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. 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
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #38 on: December 21, 2011, 03:23:08 PM »
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. 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
Did you read my link? It was about alchemy.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41782
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #39 on: December 21, 2011, 03:37:15 PM »
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. 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
Did you read my link? It was about alchemy.

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?
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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #40 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.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 03:43:57 PM by Thork »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #41 on: December 21, 2011, 03:52:32 PM »
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold. 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
Did you read my link? It was about alchemy.

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. ;)
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #42 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41782
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #43 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.
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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #44 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?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41782
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #45 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.
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: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #46 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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #47 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. ::)

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #48 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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #49 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?

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #50 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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #51 on: December 21, 2011, 04:45:35 PM »
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 04:52:01 PM by Thork »

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #52 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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #53 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.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #54 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.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #55 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.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #56 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.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 05:07:51 PM by AsmodeusSilent »

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #57 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

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #58 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.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 05:18:32 PM by AsmodeusSilent »

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #59 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?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.