Neptune: FET failed to predict, but RET did so and continues to do so

Let's look at one of FET's most damning problems. FET fails to predict.

In this thread, let's concentrate on the planet Neptune.

A careful review here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-case-of-the-pilfered determined that indeed French mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier had indeed hypothesized the correct position of the yet-undiscovered (but already seen) planet.

Dr. Meeus's work in http://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Algorithms-Jean-Meeus/dp/0943396352, Chapters 30 and 31 in particular, shows us how RET predicts Neptune's position.

A easy-to-use calculator based on these algorithms (and their improvements) is here: http://www.ephemeris.com/ephemeris.php

USNO lists twelve years' of confirmed observations of Neptune by the Flagstaff Astrometric Scanning Transit Telescope here: http://www.usno.navy.mil/USNO/astrometry/optical-IR-prod/solsys/fastt-plansat

Neptune does not exist.

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.

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

I predict:
Tom Bishop will attempt to deny the existence of Neptune. Then he'll attack the calculator.
Tausami will explain its position due to Magic Aether Eyewalls.
Willmore will engage in pedantry over Clocktower's wording.
Irushtocvs will post something of no relevance.

Neptune does not exist.

What are we looking at when we think we're looking at Neptune, then? It can be observed quite easily with modest amateur equipment. So can Uranus, btw.

Quote from: Thork on March 12, 2012, 04:36:30 AM

Neptune does not exist.

What are we looking at when we think we're looking at Neptune, then? It can be observed quite easily with modest amateur equipment. So can Uranus, btw.

Stop lying or provide a citation of someone using modest equipment to view Neptune.

This is very old FET. ClockTower should have known better.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=28908.msg695021#msg695021

Neptune does not exist.

Quote from: Thork on December 21, 2011, 02:34:32 AM

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.

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

Sorry, did you have an argument against the existence of Neptune that doesn't rely on an ad populum fallacy like the above?

Oh, and that Ptolemy model requires a round earth. Please keep posting all the proof of RET you wish. Thanks.

Ptolemy does not need a round earth. Only epicycles. Stop making things up. Celestial gears (the prime movers) explain the motion.

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.

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?

Ptolemy does not need a round earth. ...

False.

"Ptolemy astronomy was based on five main points: the celestial realm is spherical, and moves as a sphere, the Earth is a sphere, the Earth is at the center of the cosmos, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, Earth has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point, and Earth does not move."

Reference: http://www.universetoday.com/81048/ptolemy-astronomy/

Could you at least make an effort?

Stop lying or provide a citation of someone using modest equipment to view Neptune.

You're pathetic.

Neptune taken with a Meade LX200.

And while we're at it:

Uranus taken with the same telescope.
And I've actually observed Uranus myself with my own telescope, which is smaller than a LX200 but should still be able to show Neptune if I try hard and have good seeing.

So stop with the accusations of lying and get back to work. Don't forget to ask the customers if they want fries with that.

Quote from: Thork on March 12, 2012, 04:50:28 AM

Ptolemy does not need a round earth. ...

False.

"Ptolemy astronomy was based on five main points: the celestial realm is spherical, and moves as a sphere, the Earth is a sphere, the Earth is at the center of the cosmos, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, Earth has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point, and Earth does not move."

Reference: http://www.universetoday.com/81048/ptolemy-astronomy/

Could you at least make an effort?

As you have been told a number of times, it is the two dimensional circular patterns that we are interested in from Ptolemy's work. Why does that necessitate a 3 dimensional sphere? The solar system is 2 dimensional. It makes sense that the earth at the centre of it is also 2 dimensional - ergo flat.

Now can you make an effort? How about actually trying to prove Neptune exists?

You're pathetic.

Neptune taken with a Meade LX200.

This is your proof of a planet 57 times as large as our own dear earth? That?

A blurry little dot? Here. I'll shop you another planet right now. Would you like a square pink one?

We'll call my discovery Vulcan after the Roman god of metal working. Please adjust your calendar to now include Vulday. It will be after Nepday but before Urday.

A blurry little dot? Here. I'll shop you another planet right now. Would you like a square pink one?

We'll call my discovery Vulcan after the Roman god of metal working. Please adjust your calendar to now include Vulday. It will be after Nepday but before Urday.

Please refrain from low content posting.  This form of ridicule really doesn't help your argument or the image of the FES.

Please refrain from low content posting.  This form of ridicule really doesn't help your argument or the image of the FES.

I was making a valid point as to how easy it is to conjure a blurry dot. My response was after all in reponse to

You're pathetic.

but being as you never read anything other than the last post, I expect little better from you.

Thork, you are too stupid to realise that the photo is not meant to prove Neptune exists. It is merely a response to you asking me to provide a citation of someone using modest equipment to see it.
The proof that Neptune exists is that thousands of people (and you can try this at home) have looked at it through telescopes and seen it with their own eyes. And many have photographed it. As has been said before, photographs are proof if the subject can be observed and compared with the picture.

But I suppose Thork could use the same argument to say the Moon doesn't exist, simply by refusing to look at it. It doesn't make him look like a big clever theorist - it makes him look like a performing monkey throwing faeces at the audience.

Thork, you are too stupid to realise that the photo is not meant to prove Neptune exists. It is merely a response to you asking me to provide a citation of someone using modest equipment to see it.
The proof that Neptune exists is that thousands of people (and you can try this at home) have looked at it through telescopes and seen it with their own eyes. And many have photographed it. As has been said before, photographs are proof if the subject can be observed and compared with the picture.

>Blurry blue dot in the sky
>must be a planet lulz!

Quote from: ClockTower on March 12, 2012, 04:54:55 AM

Quote from: Thork on March 12, 2012, 04:50:28 AM

Ptolemy does not need a round earth. ...

False.

"Ptolemy astronomy was based on five main points: the celestial realm is spherical, and moves as a sphere, the Earth is a sphere, the Earth is at the center of the cosmos, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, Earth has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point, and Earth does not move."

Reference: http://www.universetoday.com/81048/ptolemy-astronomy/

Could you at least make an effort?

As you have been told a number of times, it is the two dimensional circular patterns that we are interested in from Ptolemy's work. Why does that necessitate a 3 dimensional sphere? The solar system is 2 dimensional. It makes sense that the earth at the centre of it is also 2 dimensional - ergo flat.

Now can you make an effort? How about actually trying to prove Neptune exists?

Sorry, no. You cannot both claim that Ptolemy provides your basis and that you reject one of his five main points.

If you want to use your circles-on-circles concept, you'll need to demonstrate that it still works. I can already tell you that it's a fool's errand. I guess I like you enough to point out some of the difficulties you face now.

1) The FE is under the Sun, the Moon, and all planets at all times, yet your pretty circles aren't.
2) The Ptolemaic Spheres provide for the motion of the Sun, Moon, and all planets to move in all three-dimensions, as we observe in reality. You really can't match reality with your lame two-dimensional approach.
3) Ptolemy addressed the transits of the Moon, Venus, and Mercury across the Sun, and the observed parallax involved. Your approach does not.
4) Ptolemy has different observers seeing different perspectives depending on where on Earth they are. Your approach does not.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 12, 2012, 08:50:34 AM

Thork, you are too stupid to realise that the photo is not meant to prove Neptune exists. It is merely a response to you asking me to provide a citation of someone using modest equipment to see it.
The proof that Neptune exists is that thousands of people (and you can try this at home) have looked at it through telescopes and seen it with their own eyes. And many have photographed it. As has been said before, photographs are proof if the subject can be observed and compared with the picture.

>Blurry blue dot in the sky
>must be a planet lulz!

You attack a strawman. Please review the thread. We've listed both the algorithms and recorded observations to determine that Neptune exists and appears where RET predicts. You fail.

Quote from: markjo on March 12, 2012, 08:43:01 AM

Please refrain from low content posting.  This form of ridicule really doesn't help your argument or the image of the FES.

I was making a valid point as to how easy it is to conjure a blurry dot.

What did you expect when you asked for a picture of Neptune from a modest sized telescope?

Thork, you are too stupid to realise that the photo is not meant to prove Neptune exists.

Please refrain from personal attacks.  I swear, sometimes it's hard to tell who is more childish, FE'ers or RE'ers.

The claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is false. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

I guess I like you enough

What a strange turn of phrase. You don't like me at all. It is why you have banned me from messaging you.

1) The FE is under the Sun, the Moon, and all planets at all times, yet your pretty circles aren't.
2) The Ptolemaic Spheres provide for the motion of the Sun, Moon, and all planets to move in all three-dimensions, as we observe in reality. You really can't match reality with your lame two-dimensional approach.
3) Ptolemy addressed the transits of the Moon, Venus, and Mercury across the Sun, and the observed parallax involved. Your approach does not.
4) Ptolemy has different observers seeing different perspectives depending on where on Earth they are. Your approach does not.

I feel a little sorry for you that you don't have the imagination to construct such a simple system in your head.

1) As you can see the whole systems happens above the earth.
2) The 7 luminaries move in a plain between 2900 miles and 3100 miles. The sun stays at 3000 miles. Planets Mercury and Venus descend below it and pass in front as well as behind. The other 3 planets are always more than 3000 miles away and are never closer than the sun.
3) Of course now you see that mine does. Its just you couldn't imagine it.
4) You can see now how this 2 dimensional system would appear 3 dimensional from different points on earth. The 7 luminaries do all their movement above the earth albeit sometimes away on the far side where we cannot view, so slight is the angle.

Quote from: The Knowledge on March 12, 2012, 08:50:34 AM

Thork, you are too stupid to realise that the photo is not meant to prove Neptune exists. It is merely a response to you asking me to provide a citation of someone using modest equipment to see it.
The proof that Neptune exists is that thousands of people (and you can try this at home) have looked at it through telescopes and seen it with their own eyes. And many have photographed it. As has been said before, photographs are proof if the subject can be observed and compared with the picture.

>Blurry blue dot in the sky
>must be a planet lulz!

Are you unable to understand that is what Neptune looks like from Earth viewed through a LX200? What were you expecting to see?
I think that proves my original prediction about you in this thread.

The claim that the position of Neptune was predicted through RET is false. Please read the section in Earth Not a Globe on the subject.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

The linked review in Scientific American considered all observations and records. While there may very well have been cancelling errors, the fact remains that RET's prediction was within one degree of the actual. Please keep up.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 12, 2012, 09:01:08 AM

I guess I like you enough

What a strange turn of phrase. You don't like me at all. It is why you have banned me from messaging you.

Again, you lost the privilege by sending rude PMs.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 12, 2012, 09:01:08 AM

1) The FE is under the Sun, the Moon, and all planets at all times, yet your pretty circles aren't.
2) The Ptolemaic Spheres provide for the motion of the Sun, Moon, and all planets to move in all three-dimensions, as we observe in reality. You really can't match reality with your lame two-dimensional approach.
3) Ptolemy addressed the transits of the Moon, Venus, and Mercury across the Sun, and the observed parallax involved. Your approach does not.
4) Ptolemy has different observers seeing different perspectives depending on where on Earth they are. Your approach does not.

I feel a little sorry for you that you don't have the imagination to construct such a simple system in your head.

1) As you can see the whole systems happens above the earth.

Nope. I don't see that. Perhaps you should try again. What is a "whole systems" anyways? I know, according to the FAQ, that the Moon and Sun follow approximately the same orbit about a point 3000 miles above the NP. Tell me where over the FE does Mercurcy and Venus orbit, and yet be between the orbits of the Moon and the Sun--at all times. Tell me where over the FE do the other planet orbits. If Saturn's orbit is as far out as you claim, how does an observer in the SH see Saturn to his north?

2) The 7 luminaries move in a plain between 2900 miles and 3100 miles. The sun stays at 3000 miles. Planets Mercury and Venus descend below it and pass in front as well as behind. The other 3 planets are always more than 3000 miles away and are never closer than the sun.

In reality, the "7 luminaries" do not move in a plane. They don't even appear to move in a plane. So you've got quite a bit of work to do just to catch up with reality.

3) Of course now you see that mine does. Its just you couldn't imagine it.

No, your model does not address transits and their observed parallax.

4) You can see now how this 2 dimensional system would appear 3 dimensional from different points on earth. The 7 luminaries do all their movement above the earth albeit sometimes away on the far side where we cannot view, so slight is the angle.

How does something two-dimensional appear three-dimensional from different points? Why can't we always observe Mars from at least somewhere on the FE? Isn't there always a place on the FE directly under Mars? Why can't we go to the place and wait until midnight to see Mars directly overhead? Aren't all of the planets moving almost as fast as the Sun around the point 3000 miles above the NP? If so, please explain why we see the planets each go retrograde about every 360 days?

Oh, and don't forget. You still need to provide the predictions for all the planets for hundreds of years from thousand of location on the Earth just to catch up with us. No, we won't wait. You've had since Ptolemy's time to get your math done.

I feel a little sorry for you that you don't have the imagination to construct such a simple system in your head.

This model would not work when viewed from the southern regions. Explain how the planets rotate around the axis of the south celestial pole.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 12, 2012, 09:01:08 AM

I guess I like you enough

What a strange turn of phrase. You don't like me at all. It is why you have banned me from messaging you.

Quote from: ClockTower on March 12, 2012, 09:01:08 AM

I feel a little sorry for you that you don't have the imagination to construct such a simple system in your head.

1.) Epicycles are less accurate and more complicated than our current models.  And you actually need stacks of them for more accuracy.  Epicyles upon epicycles, and even then our computer model that includes the earth's gravity based around science's version of the solar system provides the most accurate model of the solar system.

2.) Retrograde motion sometimes forms an Ess shy in the sky.  If the planets were directly overhead and doing epicycles, it would always look like the loopty loop that your illustration shows.  The reason that it sometimes looks like an Ess is because the planets orbit in roughly the same plane in the ptolomy's model.  Imagine that you are standing underneath a roller coaster's loopty loop, you can see that the track does not connect.  But that is not possible in your modification to the model, as the planets are now directly overhead.

It is frustrating to have to explain this so many times, and yet never receive an explanation from the FE'ers.  Tom posted a simulation, but when i asked for the settings he used to get an Ess shape in the course of three-five months of a year he failed to do so.  Since I am not required to prove it impossible, I am simply asking him to provide evidence of his statement.

 I'm sorry, but what?! I respect the Flat Earth Theory even though I don't necessarily agree with it. I am, however, astounded that you think Neptune is not a planet. 

-Lily

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.

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

[/quote]

Neptune, Uranus, and Saturn were discovered after the days of the week were named. It would be way too confusing to reinvent the whole week system just to accommodate 3 more planets.

- Lily 

Thork still hasn't answered my original question of what people are actually looking at when they think they're looking at Neptune.

[
I feel a little sorry for you that you don't have the imagination to construct such a simple system in your head.

I cannot even imagine how someone can even post such a horribly failed diagram. I am not going to be as cautious as the others who have valid points against this atrocity, and will call it what it is: such a bad diagram would be shameful for the first astronomers that existed before Babilonian times. Just a list of the atrocities, from the top of my head:

• The planets sometimes move a lot further South than Polaris Australis (the closest star we have to a South Star). This is an absolute impossibility.
• The planets sometimes move almost to the North Star. In reality, the planets never go further North than about 22.3 degrees North.
• The planets move around the sky drawing circles. In reality the planets move in an almost straight line (as seen by an observer) called the Ecliptic.
• The planets would never pass directly between the Sun and us. In reality this is a rather common occurrence.

This is a failure beyond words. This failure does not even have something to do with FET or RET. It is like painting a circle and saying you painted a triangle.

I believe this image was meant to convey the concept, not be a literal representation of celestial movement.

I do not have the strongest telescope in the world but I will try and verify Neptune's existence or not within a few days. I suspect it should appear similar to other celestial bodies we attribute the name planet to but that is yet to be judged in the near future.

I do not have the strongest telescope in the world but I will try and verify Neptune's existence or not within a few days. I suspect it should appear similar to other celestial bodies we attribute the name planet to but that is yet to be judged in the near future.

Best wait till at least the 17th.

http://www.calendar-365.com/moon/moon-calendar.html

I await your findings with great interest.

I believe this image was meant to convey the concept, not be a literal representation of celestial movement.

If the concept involves celestial bodies that change direction without the influence of varying external forces, then it is entirely incorrect. This is Newton's first law of motion.