Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets

  • 134 Replies
  • 26353 Views
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #60 on: December 21, 2011, 06:04:13 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.
Let's review a few things.
1) You claim to have proven that Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto don't exist, based solely on a model that requires that the planets revolve around the entire round Earth.
2) You say that the model is true.
3) Therefore, the Earth is round.

Is it any wonder that this site is failing so badly when Thork makes such concessions?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41771
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #61 on: December 21, 2011, 06:31:10 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.

Lurk moar.  I already told Tom that Ptolemy's geocentric solar system only works as a round earth system.  As for the days of the week...  Well, I've always thought that Monday is a bad way to start a work week.  Other than that, I don't see what the days of the week have to do with retrograde motion either.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2011, 06:34:31 PM by markjo »
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.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #62 on: December 23, 2011, 06:27:26 PM »
I still cannot produce retrograde motion accurately in a flat earth model.  The mechanism that Tom posted can produce an S shape, but not for only 3 months of the year...  So tom, im contending that it is not possible while maintaining a constant speed for a planet to show only 3 months of retrograde motion in the model you posted.  Please provide the results where you found this to be possible, as i cannot reproduce it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #63 on: December 25, 2011, 07:44:49 PM »
I still cannot produce retrograde motion accurately in a flat earth model.  The mechanism that Tom posted can produce an S shape, but not for only 3 months of the year...  So tom, im contending that it is not possible while maintaining a constant speed for a planet to show only 3 months of retrograde motion in the model you posted.  Please provide the results where you found this to be possible, as i cannot reproduce it.

What is your source that S shapes appear in the sky for extended periods of times?

*

El Cid

  • 169
  • ...And the truth shall set you free.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #64 on: December 27, 2011, 02:28:31 AM »
Isaac Newton thought he could turn lead into gold.
Yes, he did.  Newton was one of those insane geniuses you hear about, like Vincent van Gogh.  In fact, the two were very similar.  They did not get along with other people.  Both were known to become extremely angry when challenged.  This does not, however, change the fact that they were geniuses with good ideas.  That is true Argumentum ad hominem.

One model should be enough. Imagine this above us.

Look closely at the Earth in this image.  It is distinctly round.  This model works based on a spherical Earth.  If you flattened out the Earth, this model would no longer explain the view of Mars in the sky.  Look at http://www.jimloy.com/cindy/ptolemy.htm.  First diagram shows a red arrow.  This is an observer on Earth observing Mars.  The planets both move, but the arrow itself slows down, goes backwards, slows, and turns forward again.  This is what causes the view to be like the second diagram.  Ptolomy believed that the Earth was a sphere in the center of the universe, so his epicycles were his explanation for the behavior.  It makes no sense on a flat Earth.











FET only has 5 planets.

Another mind-bendingly obvious FET-is-wrong.  Amateur astronomers see them Uranus and Neptune every day.

http://www.spacecentre.co.uk/spacenow/newsitem.aspx/2/990/Launch_Into_Space

[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/18629Uranus_Croped.jpg]http://Uranus[/img]



[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/531220a-med.jpg]http://Neptune and Triton[/img]

[img=http://www.cloudynights.com/photopost/data/525/5311845-med.jpg]http://Uranus with Oberon and Titania[/img]


A logical answer is, "How do you know those are actually them?"  Because they pointed their telescopes at a specific angle to find the planets based on the known RET-based orbits of the planets.  Click on the first link again if skeptic.


----


Just to clear things up, these are the days of the week:  http://deoxy.org/time/d2k/thedays.htm

There were five planets, a sun, and a moon visible to the ancients in the night sky.  This is probably what the seven days in the Bible came from in the first place (just a wild guess).

All in all, the week was based off the celestial bodies, not the other way around, exemplified well by zarg.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #65 on: January 06, 2012, 11:36:28 PM »
I still cannot produce retrograde motion accurately in a flat earth model.  The mechanism that Tom posted can produce an S shape, but not for only 3 months of the year...  So tom, im contending that it is not possible while maintaining a constant speed for a planet to show only 3 months of retrograde motion in the model you posted.  Please provide the results where you found this to be possible, as i cannot reproduce it.

What is your source that S shapes appear in the sky for extended periods of times?

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm

If you scroll down there is an s shape for mars in 2005, with a 36 week time period shown.   I can not produce a shape like that in the model that you gave me for that period of time.  Not to say that you did not, but if you could give me the settings that you used to produce it that would be great.  As of right now i do not believe that it is possible.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2012, 11:43:18 PM by OrbisNonSufficit »

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2012, 11:29:25 PM »
So still no FEer can explain Ess shaped retrograde motion?

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #67 on: January 10, 2012, 02:49:25 PM »
If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #68 on: January 10, 2012, 02:55:05 PM »
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #69 on: January 10, 2012, 03:05:08 PM »
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.
Celestial gear wobbling would be special pleading. Do try to avoid making your fallacies so obvious, please.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #70 on: January 10, 2012, 03:06:25 PM »
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.
Celestial gear wobbling would be special pleading. Do try to avoid making your fallacies so obvious, please.
I wasn't aware I should be avoiding that.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #71 on: January 10, 2012, 03:17:07 PM »
Celestial gear wobbling is an interesting phenomena we have not fully investigated.
Celestial gear wobbling would be special pleading. Do try to avoid making your fallacies so obvious, please.
I wasn't aware I should be avoiding that.
You would make the debating more fun for me anyway; otherwise, RET wins too quickly. It's like a basketball game where the RET team scores 210 in the first half of the first quarter while the FET quits at that point.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #72 on: January 10, 2012, 04:03:46 PM »
You would make the debating more fun for me anyway; otherwise, RET wins too quickly. It's like a basketball game where the RET team scores 210 in the first half of the first quarter while the FET quits at that point.
It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered. It should also be acknowledged that we are playing into the wind and we don't get to swap ends at half time. Finding FE sources and documentation on the internet isn't exactly easy and finding RE answers to things, well that's a google away for any subject that comes up.

So I have to ask, if its about the sport of it, why after all his time are you still playing for team noob? It seems like you are saying "I will devour you, but I want to play with food first".






Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2012, 04:07:18 PM »
Would the first half of the first quarter be called the first eighth?

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2012, 04:08:22 PM »
Dunno, I don't understand American Handegg.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2012, 04:09:25 PM »
You would make the debating more fun for me anyway; otherwise, RET wins too quickly. It's like a basketball game where the RET team scores 210 in the first half of the first quarter while the FET quits at that point.
It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered. It should also be acknowledged that we are playing into the wind and we don't get to swap ends at half time. Finding FE sources and documentation on the internet isn't exactly easy and finding RE answers to things, well that's a google away for any subject that comes up.

So I have to ask, if its about the sport of it, why after all his time are you still playing for team noob? It seems like you are saying "I will devour you, but I want to play with food first".

Or it could just be that FET is wrong, just saying.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2012, 04:10:37 PM »
It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered trolls.

Fi'ed.
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2012, 04:15:54 PM »
Or it could just be that FET is wrong, just saying.

Yes, I get that. So then with that in mind, would it not be more a challenge worthy of your keen intellect to be able to argue against that which at first seems obvious? Would the 'win' not then be worth far more?

Also the earth is flat, Thicko.

It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered trolls.

Fi'ed.
We already decided that you are the troll. You have no interest in debate. Only yelling troll in every post. Of course having an avatar that looks like someone drew a dick with a smiley face and beard on a toilet door, does little to convince anyone that you have the slightest notion wtf is going on. So get back under your bridge, most foul of forum creatures.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2012, 04:20:32 PM »
Or it could just be that FET is wrong, just saying.

Yes, I get that. So then with that in mind, would it not be more a challenge worthy of your keen intellect to be able to argue against that which at first seems obvious? Would the 'win' not then be worth far more?

Also the earth is flat, Thicko.

It should be noted the RE team has hundreds of players with fresh new players coming off the bench each week, where the FE team has about 5 players at any one time, and they are all knackered trolls.

Fi'ed.
We already decided that you are the troll. You have no interest in debate. Only yelling troll in every post. Of course having an avatar that looks like someone drew a dick with a smiley face and beard on a toilet door, does little to convince anyone that you have the slightest notion wtf is going on. So get back under your bridge, most foul of forum creatures.
Why would you need me to support your FEDA efforts if the earth is flat? Reality should be enough to win handily, right?

I guess we need a new sub-category to the ad hominem attack, ad signum. Thork, you really could spend more time and effort in your attacks.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2012, 04:23:17 PM »
http://www.feda.com/
Quote
Mission
FEDA's mission is to provide:

-A strong dealer advocacy voice in the food service equipment industry united for a profitable dealer-based distribution system.
-Industry information and business management tools to run a profitable dealership.
-Dealer-focused training and education that is relevant, cost effective and convenient.
-Opportunities to network and problem solve with other dealers to improve their business.

All of the above are focused on maintaining profitable dealerships capable of providing the knowledge, service and value needed by today's professional food service operator.

So the conspiracy goes further than we thought. First the shape of the Earth and now the food on our plates!

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2012, 04:28:25 PM »
We already decided that you are the troll. You have no interest in debate. Only yelling troll in every post. Of course having an avatar that looks like someone drew a dick with a smiley face and beard on a toilet door, does little to convince anyone that you have the slightest notion wtf is going on. So get back under your bridge, most foul of forum creatures.

But we know you're a troll, as we've all seen the threads from ages ago, Pizza kindly posted links for us. Denying it doesn't make you any more convincing.
My avatar is the most accurate known image of a moonshramp, drawn by another forum member in a different thread. I suspect he recieved the image in a dream, rendering it entirely zetetic under James's principles.
As for me having no interest in debate - perhaps you'd like to return to the debate that I started and you abandoned about INS disproving the FE theory of circumnavigation?  :P
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2012, 04:42:19 PM »
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself. 


If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #82 on: January 10, 2012, 04:44:50 PM »
Please use the search function and search "INS" and *Thork as the username. There you will find dozens of threads where I have had every conceivable conversation about INS and followed it out to every logical conclusion. If I got bored or forgot about your debate, that is unfortunate but I'd take you more seriously if your avatar wasn't a badly drawn dick with a smiley face and a beard.

Also, I would like to hear your definition of a troll. Do I seem like an internet troll to you?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
That is the definition of an internet troll. It sums you up perfectly.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #83 on: January 10, 2012, 04:47:50 PM »
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself. 


If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm
Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2012, 04:48:16 PM »
Please use the search function and search "INS" and *Thork as the username. There you will find dozens of threads where I have had every conceivable conversation about INS and followed it out to every logical conclusion. If I got bored or forgot about your debate, that is unfortunate but I'd take you more seriously if your avatar wasn't a badly drawn dick with a smiley face and a beard.

Also, I would like to hear your definition of a troll. Do I seem like an internet troll to you?

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
That is the definition of an internet troll. It sums you up perfectly.

Stop trolling this thread, it is about:

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm


it is not about what you are posting.  That makes you a troll by your own posted definition. 

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #85 on: January 10, 2012, 04:49:05 PM »
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself. 


If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm
Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #86 on: January 10, 2012, 05:05:43 PM »
Since the recent derailment, I again post the following.  This is not a matter of something that needs to be studied, it is simply a pattern that is not possible in FE terms.  The pattern stems from the planets orbiting in the same rough plane as the earth orbits.  If the planet were directly overhead orbiting the sun, you could only produce a pattern where the path of the orbiting object crossed itself. 


If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005.  It does not cross its own path.  I contend that this is impossible in FEer, as the planets are directly overhead.

This would disprove FE.  This is not a topic of study, its a rational thought process.  No matter how you construct an FE model, planets orbing the sun would always cross their own path eventually.  there would be no way to produce the following result.

http://cseligman.com/text/sky/retrograde.htm
Are you under the impression that in RE planets don't cross their paths in the Earth's sky eventually? I think they do.

Not every year.  Look at 2005 mars.
So you're arguing that because Mar's 2005 retrograde motion did not in reality cross its path that it somehow demonstrates that FEs (really lame) attempt with epicycles is false, right?

Heck, if FEers are already using special pleading to get epicycles to explain retrograde motion what would keep them from more special pleading that the epicycles move up and down relative to the plane of the planet's orbit to get the additional effect? Once they argue from fallacy, they can prove anything.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #87 on: January 10, 2012, 05:15:57 PM »
Stop trolling this thread, it is about:

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005. 
This thread is titled "Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets". Is Mars an outer planet now? It is you that has no intention of keeping to the topic, instead preferring to shift tact whenever FET blocks your path.

I have earlier in this thread shown that the outer planets do not exist. The unsatisfactory reply I got to that was "The chinese have 10 days" and the laughable picture below.

^ That isn't proof of Neptune. Someone could have as easily said "The nucleus of an atom", "An algae cell", "My TV died". That is the laziest photoshop brought here as evidence I have ever seen.

As for retrograde motion of the inner planets (known hereafter due to a lack of outer planets as 'the planets'), retrograde motion is exactly what you would expect in a FE system.
The FE system has the earth at the centre. The sun revoles around the earth, and the planets revolve around the sun. This is closest to the Tychonian System for RET.


^ Also count the planets in the Tychonian system. No neptune or uranus rubbish. Uranus. I mean even the name is a joke at your expense.

I was trying to avoid getting dragged into a debate as its 2am, and I will not be able to follow it up. But I answered this stupid retrograde question to death a bunch of times. Its not new. Its not got FE stumped. No one has proved a thing from the RE side. the answers are all there. Stop screaming "no answer, no answer" when all you need to do is search.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 05:20:34 PM by Thork »

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #88 on: January 10, 2012, 05:19:00 PM »
Stop trolling this thread, it is about:

If you scroll towards the bottom of the page, you will see a picture of mars' retrograde motion in 2005. 
This thread is titled "Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets". Is Mars an outer planet now? It is you that has no intention of keeping to the topic, instead preferring to shift tact whenever FET blocks your path.

I have earlier in this thread shown that the outer planets do not exist. The unsatisfactory reply I got to that was "The chinese have 10 days" and the laughable picture below.

^ That isn't proof of Neptune. Someone could have as easily said "The nucleus of an atom", "An algae cell", "My TV died". That is the laziest photoshop brought here as evidence I have ever seen.

As for retrograde motion of the inner planets (again as I have explained in this thread and dozens of others, retrograde motion is exactly what you would expect in a FE system.
The FE system has the earth at the centre. The sun revoles around the earth, and the planets revolve arounf the sun. This is closest to the Tychonian System for FET.



I was trying to avoid getting dragged into a debate as its 2am, and I will not be able to follow it up. But I answered this stupid retrograde question to death a bunch of times. Its not new. Its not got FE stumped. No one has proved a thing from the RE side. the answers are all there. Stop screaming "no answer, no answer" when all you need to do is search.
Amazing! So FET has retrograde motion of the inner planets even though reality doesn't. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're wrong, again.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: Retrograde Motion of the Outer Planets
« Reply #89 on: January 10, 2012, 05:28:35 PM »
So FET has retrograde motion of the inner planets even though reality doesn't. I guess that's all the proof we need that you're wrong, again.

What? Please observe the retrograde motion of Venus according to RET. So whatever the reality (round or flat earth), retrograde motion is part of it. Its at this point I will bid you a good evening, whilst you spend some time plugging some of those embarressing gaps in your knowledge
 
Quote from: http://www.scienceu.com/observatory/articles/retro/retro.html
As we view the moving Venus from the more slowly moving Earth, the line of sight (i.e., where in the sky, relative to the stars, we will see Venus) reverses its motion: it is first rotating counterclockwise, then (near the fourth and fifth position) starts rotating clockwise. This corresponds to the first reversal of apparent motion. A while later (around the ninth position) it starts rotating again in a counterclockwise direction, resulting in the second reversal. The same explanation works for the outer planets, too, only now it is the Earth that overtakes the other planet.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2012, 05:30:36 PM by Thork »