Venus passing in front of the Sun

Quote from: EmperorZhark on May 30, 2012, 09:25:29 AM

Why is no FE'ers answering the topic?

Like a planetary model explaining Venus transit, or Mercury transit.

I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.

This is entirely false.  You are a fake intellectual.

1.  Rudolphine Tables were calculated using Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  Your own link describes this.  They were based on the mathematical principles he outlined in Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and others.  Here are more descriptions that verify this claim, taken from Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.  Sorry for the terrible formatting.  I'm hosting these from a dropbox, so if the links aren't working, someone let me know.

The  turning point  in  Kepler's fortunes came with  the  publication of his last big work, the Rudolphine Tables, in  I627.  This was an event for which the scientific world had long been waiting. They were based upon the first-class observational data  accumulated by Tycho Brahe in the later part of the sixteenth century, and in  them, for the first time, the  laws were really put  to the  test. Henceforward, astronomers could compare the predictions of the tables with the actually observed positions of the sun, moon and planets, and could then compare the results with those  of  rival  astronomical theories. They  could  then  decide  whether it  was  worth  while  to  undertake the  difficult and  laborious work  of mastering Kepler's methods and applying them in practice. In due time, a large majority of them would decide in  his favour.
...
Public  support  for the  Rudolphine  Tables  came  almost  immediately after  their  publication  from Jacob  Bartsch,  a  pupil  of Muller  at  Leipzig, later  (I630)  to  become  Kepler's  son-in-law.  In  I629  he  published  a volume  of  Ephemerides  based  upon  Kepler's  tables,  but  calculated  for the  locality  of  Strasbourg.  In  it  he  spoke  of  Kepler's  theories  in  terms  of high  praise,  but  did  not  expound  them.  Instead,  he  referred  the  reader to  the  Epitome  for  the  theoretical  principles  on  which  the  tables  were based. The  Rudolphine  Tables  were  undoubtedly  a  great  improvement  on all  preceding  ones  and  one  might  have  expected  that  they  would  have swept  the  board  at  once.  Two  reasons,  however, conspired  to  delay their  general  acceptance.  The  first  was  their  difficulty.  Many  contemporary  astronomers  complained  on  this  score.  Partly  it  was  due  to  the inherent  difficulty  of  handling  ellipses,  and  especially  the  area  law. The  problem  was,  of  course,  all  the  greater  since  neither  the  calculus nor  co-ordinate  geometry  had  yet  been  invented.  Many  students  were also  repelled  by  Kepler's  use  of  logarithms  which,  although  time-saving for  those  familiar  with  them,  were  still  unknown  and  rather  alarming to  most astronomers.  In  addition,  his  mathematical  techniques  were sometimes  unnecessarily  clumsy  and  the  tables  were  marred  by  a number of  errors and  misprints.
...
The  second  main  reason  which  militated  against  the  Rudolphine Tables  was  the  appearance,  a  few  years  later,  of  a  rival  set  of  tables compiled  by  the  Dutch  astronomer,  Philip  Landsberg  (I63I,  i632). These  were  simpler  than  Kepler's;  they  were  based  on  the  traditional circular  orbits  and  their  author  made  extravagant  claims  for  their accuracy  which  were  at  first  accepted  by  many  of  his  contemporaries. They  were,  in  fact,  much  less  accurate  than  Kepler's.  Landsberg  was familiar  with  Kepler's  main  works  and  frequently  made  use  of  his  data, but  dismissed  his  theories  as  absurd.'7  His  tables  were  widely  used during  the  I630's,  but  thereafter  fell  more  and  more  out  of  favour; he  was  even  accused  of  having  deliberately  falsified  some  of  his  data in  order  to fit  his  theories.'8  He  continued  to  find  occasional  supporters, however,  at  least  up  to  i662.

As you can see, your description cannot be accurate.  If it were, there couldn't be rival tables.

This passage also indicates that you are incorrect that Rudolphine Tables are equally valid for any solar system model.  They are not.  I cannot find any source that indicates this to be the case.  Please provide me with a citation that verifies your claims.

2.  Kepler used geometry to construct his tables and the predictions they make.  From The Mathematics of the Area Law:

Mathematical analysis for Kepler (in astronomy at least) meant geometry alone. He was successful in his determination of the path of a single planet because this problem is amenable to exact solution almost exclusively by the geometry of Euclid – and Kepler tackled it that way. (We may mention for interest that, in the course of his main astronomical work, Kepler introduced nothing more than precisely three propositions from Archimedes.) He successively proposed curves that were formally constructed by means of the conventional Euclidean tools of straightedge and compasses only: his use of this method has been demonstrated in detail elsewhere, in [3] and [4].

You'll notice that this paper includes numerous mathematical descriptions of the derivation of some of Kepler's laws.

3.  Here is a modern method for calculating ephemerides.  It is extremely accurate, and it relies on a round Earth.

Oh, and here is a cool quote from some book-nerd contemporary of Kepler's, found just a page above the passage I quoted in Kepler's Laws, cited above:

'First,  concerning  the  Danish  Astronomy,  which  you  mention  at  the beginning  of your second letter. You hope that someone will  give these tables a further polishing and you say that all astronomers would be grateful for this. But  I  should  have  thought  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  now  that  the Rudolphine Tables have been published, since all astronomers will undoubtedly use these  .  .  . For myself, so far as other less liberal occupations allow,  I  am wholly  occupied  with  trying to  understand the  foundations upon  which  the Rudolphine  rules and  tables are based,  and I  am  using for this purpose the Epitome  of  Astronomy  previously  published  by  Kepler  as  an  introduction to  the  tables. This  epitome which  previously I  had  read so many times  and so  little  understood and  so  many  times  thrown  aside,  I  now  take  up  again and  study with  rather more success seeing that  it  was intended  for use with the  tables and is itself clarified by them  .  .  . I  am  no  longer repelled by the elliptical  form  of  the  planetary  orbits;  Kepler's  proofs,  in  his  Commentaria de Marte [i.e.  Astronomia  Nova] have  convinced me."

Instead of rereading ENaG over and over again, you should tackle New Astronomy, or Epitome, or any other of Kepler's texts.

This is entirely false.  You are a fake intellectual.

1.  Rudolphine Tables were calculated using Kepler's laws of planetary motion.  Your own link describes this.

Incorrect. My link describes the tables as being an aggregation of observation form multiple astronomers.

  They were based on the mathematical principles he outlined in Epitome of Copernican Astronomy and others.  Here are more descriptions that verify this claim, taken from Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion.  Sorry for the terrible formatting.  I'm hosting these from a dropbox, so if the links aren't working, someone let me know.

<snip>

As you can see, your description cannot be accurate.  If it were, there couldn't be rival tables.

None of that says that the data in the tables was calculated. It says right in the Wikipedia page several times that the tables are a list of observations collected over time.

Why can't there be rival tables of observations?

This passage also indicates that you are incorrect that Rudolphine Tables are equally valid for any solar system model.  They are not.  I cannot find any source that indicates this to be the case.  Please provide me with a citation that verifies your claims.

Seeing that Kepler's master Tacho Banche used his tables to make predictions, and Tacho believed that the earth was center of the universe which everything revolved around, I would beg to differ that Kepler's tables of historic observations are not applicable to different solar system models.

Astronomy is purely a science of observation and interpretation.

You'll notice that this paper includes numerous mathematical descriptions of the derivation of some of Kepler's laws.

Kepler may have created laws for planetary motion, but the equation we see on this page are unconnected to what actually happens. All he can do is look in the sky and observe and interpret.

The wiki page on Kepler's Laws even gives an excuse for why Kepler's laws don't really work out:

"Because of the nonzero planetary masses and resulting perturbations, Kepler's laws apply only approximately and not exactly to the motions in the solar system."

I imagine the sentiment is "Ehh, good enough."

But regardless, the Flat Earth model has the planets revolving around the sun in Keplian orbits, albeit at a smaller scale.

3.  Here is a modern method for calculating ephemerides.  It is extremely accurate, and it relies on a round Earth.

That document was authored by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a NASA entity. It references a bunch of bogus NASA projects as a source for its data. For the historical data they are just stealing the trigonometric equations astronomers of antiquity have used for pattern analysis.

Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse in Earth Not a Globe (scroll to the bottom), but as he describes, the whole concept of prediction in astronomy is based on pattern recognition and nothing more.

Oh, and here is a cool quote from some book-nerd contemporary of Kepler's, found just a page above the passage I quoted in Kepler's Laws, cited above:

Quote from: some book-nerd

'First,  concerning  the  Danish  Astronomy,  which  you  mention  at  the beginning  of your second letter. You hope that someone will  give these tables a further polishing and you say that all astronomers would be grateful for this. But  I  should  have  thought  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  now  that  the Rudolphine Tables have been published, since all astronomers will undoubtedly use these  .  .  . For myself, so far as other less liberal occupations allow,  I  am wholly  occupied  with  trying to  understand the  foundations upon  which  the Rudolphine  rules and  tables are based,  and I  am  using for this purpose the Epitome  of  Astronomy  previously  published  by  Kepler  as  an  introduction to  the  tables. This  epitome which  previously I  had  read so many times  and so  little  understood and  so  many  times  thrown  aside,  [/b]I  now  take  up  again and  study with  rather more success seeing that  it  was intended  for use with the  tables and is itself clarified by them  .  .  .[/b] I  am  no  longer repelled by the elliptical  form  of  the  planetary  orbits;  Kepler's  proofs,  in  his  Commentaria de Marte [i.e.  Astronomia  Nova] have  convinced me."

Instead of rereading ENaG over and over again, you should tackle New Astronomy, or Epitome, or any other of Kepler's texts.

I'm sorry, but how does a quote by someone who freely admits that they do not understand what the tables mean go towards telling us what they mean?

Incorrect. My link describes the tables as being an aggregation of observation form multiple astronomers.

1.  Your link is a wikipedia page.  I can't speak for you, but I find peer-reviewed publications in scholarly journals much more compelling than wikipedia pages.  For all I know, you're the author of those words.  I don't think that you are, but the fact remains that my data can be (and has been) verified, and it comes from trustworthy sources.  Those sources disagree with your description of how ephemerides are calculated.

2.  Your link says the following things:

"Until the end of the 16th century, the most widely used had been the Alphonsine tables, first produced in the 13th century and regularly updated thereafter. These were based on a Ptolemeic, geocentric model of the solar system. Although the Alphonsine tables were not very accurate, nothing else was available and so they continued to be used."

Geocentric models were inaccurate.

"Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets."

Kepler combined Tycho's observations with his heliocentric model.

"They contain positions for the 1,006 stars measured by Tycho Brahe, and more than 400 stars from Ptolemy and Johann Bayer, with directions and tables for locating the planets of the solar system. The tables included many function tables of logarithms and antilogarithms, and instructive examples for computing planetary positions."

This sentence encapsulates exactly the way these tables are used.  Initial conditions (past observations) are fed into Kepler's model.  The model uses these initial conditions to create an output (future prediction) that can be compared to the outputs of other models.  Tycho's observations, and Kepler's Rudolphine Tables, were useful only inasmuch as they were finally accurate enough to begin constructing models that could be meaningfully compared. 

None of that says that the data in the tables was calculated. It says right in the Wikipedia page several times that the tables are a list of observations collected over time.

Why can't there be rival tables of observations?

Are you serious?  How are you not getting this?  The data for past events were based on observations.  The predictions for future events were based on mathematics derived from the past observations.  Different models constructed to explain the data set of past observations can be compared based on their different predictions.  The passages make this abundantly clear.  for instance: "In  I629  he  published  a volume  of  Ephemerides  based  upon  Kepler's  tables,  but  calculated  for the  locality  of  Strasbourg.  In  it  he  spoke  of  Kepler's  theories  in  terms  of high  praise,  but  did  not  expound  them.  Instead,  he  referred  the  reader to  the  Epitome  for  the  theoretical  principles  on  which  the  tables  were based."

There were rival tables of future predictions, created by different models (heliocentric/geocentric, circular orbits/elliptical orbits, etc.).  Geocentric models failed.  Circular orbits failed.  Elliptical heliocentrism prevailed.   

Seeing that Kepler's master Tacho Banche used his tables to make predictions, and Tacho believed that the earth was center of the universe which everything revolved around, I would beg to differ that Kepler's tables of historic observations are not applicable to different solar system models.

Astronomy is purely a science of observation and interpretation.

Kepler published the Rudolphine Tables at the end of his life.  Tycho Brahe was dead.  Kepler used Brahe's observations to construct the tables, but their predictions were very different.  Kepler won.

That document was authored by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a NASA entity. It references a bunch of bogus NASA projects as a source for some of its data.

Nonetheless, for the historical data they are just stealing the trigonometric equations astronomers of antiquity have used for pattern analysis.

Rowbotham provides equations for predicting the Lunar Eclipse in Earth Not a Globe (scroll to the bottom), but as he describes, the whole concept of prediction in astronomy is based on pattern recognition and nothing more.

Big on claims, short on evidence.  You're just making assertions at this point.  Feel free to come back to any of the NASA threads you've fled from.  You have no reason at all to be suspicious of NASA, other than the fact that it would disrupt the worldview you can't relinquish.  It's the very definition of irrational.

Congratulations to Rowbotham on predicting lunar eclipses.  That's not really evidence of anything.  I can predict the exact time Venus will transit the Sun, and I can tell you precisely where on Earth you can view it.  Even if the timing follows a regular pattern, its visibility on Earth isn't.
2004 Venus Transit Visibility
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/venus/Map2004-1.GIF

2012 Visibility
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/transit/venus/Map2012-1.GIF

Quote from: garygreen on May 30, 2012, 10:51:25 AM

Oh, and here is a cool quote from some book-nerd contemporary of Kepler's, found just a page above the passage I quoted in Kepler's Laws, cited above:

Quote from: some book-nerd

'First,  concerning  the  Danish  Astronomy,  which  you  mention  at  the beginning  of your second letter. You hope that someone will  give these tables a further polishing and you say that all astronomers would be grateful for this. But  I  should  have  thought  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  time  now  that  the Rudolphine Tables have been published, since all astronomers will undoubtedly use these  .  .  . For myself, so far as other less liberal occupations allow,  I  am wholly  occupied  with  trying to  understand the  foundations upon  which  the Rudolphine  rules and  tables are based,  and I  am  using for this purpose the Epitome  of  Astronomy  previously  published  by  Kepler  as  an  introduction to  the  tables. This  epitome which  previously I  had  read so many times  and so  little  understood and  so  many  times  thrown  aside,  [/b]I  now  take  up  again and  study with  rather more success seeing that  it  was intended  for use with the  tables and is itself clarified by them  .  .  .[/b] I  am  no  longer repelled by the elliptical  form  of  the  planetary  orbits;  Kepler's  proofs,  in  his  Commentaria de Marte [i.e.  Astronomia  Nova] have  convinced me."

Instead of rereading ENaG over and over again, you should tackle New Astronomy, or Epitome, or any other of Kepler's texts.

I'm sorry, but how does a quote by someone who freely admits that they do not understand what the tables mean go towards telling us what they mean?

He clearly says that his misunderstandings have been alleviated by carefully studying the relationship between the tables and the mathematics.  More importantly, here is a first hand observer of these events describing that the tables of future predictions are, in fact, derived from mathematical models.

I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.

I love how I go into these threads expecting an argument covering the topic but instead find arguments of the stupidest things.

Flat Earthers - It's your job to debunk the world, right?  You want people to see the world the way it is, yes?  You spend your time being so defensive and critiquing every little thing in people's arguments.  Instead you should rise at the chance to prove your model of the world we live on.

What does this black dot traveling in front of the sun mean to Flat Earthers? Surely a flat-disc model of the solar system vs. the huge orb solar system would produce different results over this great big Earth.  Now's your chance to unveil the curtain of conspiracy.  Seize the moment.

I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.

Your understanding of this process is too reductionist.  It's also incomplete.  You seem to think that any model can be made to fit any data set, and that Kepler's observations fit a FET as well as a RET.  You merely assert this, and it's false on its face.  For instance, measuring the appearance of Venusian transits from different locations allows one to calculate how far away the Earth and Venus are from the Sun.  These measurements directly contradict the belief that the Sun and Venus are small and nearby.  And, as I've already illustrated, because they are only visible from particular locations on Earth (locations that correspond precisely to what we would expect if the Earth were a large spheroid), they directly contradict the notion that we are all on a flat slab of rock.

Observations lead to models.  Models make predictions.  Different models make different predictions.  These predictions can be tested.  Some are more accurate than others.  Kepler's mathematics require the Sun to be at the center of the solar system, and for the planets to have elliptical orbits around it.  These requirements have been tested, born out, and verified.

You've said in this thread, "But regardless, the Flat Earth model has the planets revolving around the sun in Keplian orbits, albeit at a smaller scale."  Please explain to me how these two different models lead to identical predictions on the apparent locations of the planets.

Quote from: markjo

Yes, tables that Kepler generated based on his own laws of planetary motion.

It says multiple times on the Wikipedia page that they were based on observations.

Yes, they were based on Kepler's and Tycho's observations which were more accurate than observations used in previous tables.  Observations that, when used with his heliocentric model, produce significantly more accurate tables than were previously available.

Those earlier 13th century astronomers did not use more modern methods to create their tables. They couldn't record events near to the sun because the sun blotted everything out. This is also why the Ancient Greeks and Babylonians never predicted the Transit of Venus. The special tinted lenses and darkroom projection methods were not used.

Kepler used, among other things, a camera obscura for his observations.  This is a tool that was well known and available to the ancient Greeks.

Kepler was a freaking genius but he couldn't have done it without Brahe.  Too bad drinking mercury was a common 'cure' back then.

Read the biography of Kepler, The Watershed.  It's amazing.  And after that read The Sleepwalkers.  Your eyes will be opened.

I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.

Yes, it's pattern recognition.  Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts.  Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2012, 12:14:44 PM

I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.

Yes, it's pattern recognition.  Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts.  Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.

RE models have both pattern recognition and equations based on a theory to back observations of Venus (and Mercury) transits.

FET ? Zilch!

These measurements directly contradict the belief that the Sun and Venus are small and nearby.  And, as I've already illustrated, because they are only visible from particular locations on Earth (locations that correspond precisely to what we would expect if the Earth were a large spheroid), they directly contradict the notion that we are all on a flat slab of rock.

If the earth were flat and Venus were passing between the sun and earth, the event wouldn't be seen from everywhere. Some people would be positioned at an angle where Venus does not intersect the sun. Think about it.

Observations lead to models.  Models make predictions.  Different models make different predictions.  These predictions can be tested.  Some are more accurate than others.  Kepler's mathematics require the Sun to be at the center of the solar system, and for the planets to have elliptical orbits around it.  These requirements have been tested, born out, and verified.

The math isn't based on Kepler's three laws. It's based on tables of previous occurrences. His three laws are an attempt to explain what's happening in the background. But the actual predictions are predicted based on patterns.

You've said in this thread, "But regardless, the Flat Earth model has the planets revolving around the sun in Keplian orbits, albeit at a smaller scale."  Please explain to me how these two different models lead to identical predictions on the apparent locations of the planets.

Kepler's Three Laws aren't used to predict the position of the planets. Historic tables are. Historic tables and pattern analysis have been used to predict astronomical events for thousands of years.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2012, 12:14:44 PM

I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.

Yes, it's pattern recognition.  Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts.  Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.

Incorrect. The heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. Neither the heliocentric model or the 3 laws are used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.

Quote from: Nolhekh on May 30, 2012, 02:42:45 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2012, 12:14:44 PM

I know that the predictions in astronomy are derived based on mathematical models. Those algebraic models are based on historical observations. Pattern recognition. Looking at prior occurrences to predict the next.

Yes, it's pattern recognition.  Kepler only found this pattern, however, by using math based on a heliocentric elliptical orbit to make his charts.  Therefore, the fact that these charts are the most accurate, means that this model which involves Earth and the planets having heliocentric elliptical orbits is currently the most accurate model for our solar system.

RE models have both pattern recognition and equations based on a theory to back observations of Venus (and Mercury) transits.

FET ? Zilch!

Pattern recognition isn't based on any particular theory of the solar system. I can predict that the sun will come up tomorrow, in almost exactly the same manner as it did today. I can predict that the North Star will point North, just as it did last night. Does my prediction prove that the earth is a globe, a pear, or a cube?

grammer nazi, its the content, not how its written. i cant be bothered to constantly press shift for your entertainment. a child of 5 would be able to see that the content is worth reading even if the sentence is missing capitals

i refer your arguemnt as the lalalalala fingers in ears technique

Wrong, the heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. The heliocentric model or the 3 laws are not used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.

For crying out loud Tom, do you even read your sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables#Tycho.27s_data_and_Kepler.27s_model_of_the_solar_system

Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets. Accurate calculation was aided by the newly published system of logarithms which simplified accurate calculation and made them less prone to errors.

According to the FE Wiki - the current hypothesis is the orbit of planets around the sun is parallel to the surface of the disk as the sun rotates around the north pole.

However real world observations such as transits seem to indicate that the planets - at least mercury and venus - are orbiting the sun perpendicular to the surface of the disk.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2012, 03:10:41 PM

Wrong, the heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. The heliocentric model or the 3 laws are not used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.

For crying out loud Tom, do you even read your sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables#Tycho.27s_data_and_Kepler.27s_model_of_the_solar_system

Quote

Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets. Accurate calculation was aided by the newly published system of logarithms which simplified accurate calculation and made them less prone to errors.

What you quoted does not contradict my post.

Indeed, the section you quoted directly states that the tables list OBSERVATIONS, not calculations based on Kepler's Three Laws. It's a table of observations of historical astronomical events.

Can you provide me with any sources or citations that verify these claims?  I'm specifically interested in knowing your justification for claims like these:

It's not model specific. The predictions are applicable to both models of the earth.
...
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.

How do you know that this is the case?  I have provided material that demonstrates that Kepler's predictions were comparable to, and distinct from, geocentric models.  The first link I provided on the second page of this thread, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion describes the history of these conflicts, and the success of Kepler's mathematics, in great detail.

This link also provides a clear description of the concepts outlined in New Astronomy and Epitome.
This particular section illustrates the way that his observations were combined with geometric arguments (the model) to make distinct and verifiable predictions.

If the earth were flat and Venus were passing between the sun and earth, the event wouldn't be seen from everywhere. Some people would be positioned at an angle where Venus does not intersect the sun. Think about it.

Can you provide me with a schematic or diagram that illustrates that this is the case, that some locations on the plane will be so angled?  How do you know that there are no differences in what the two models predict, in terms of visibility?  Can you demonstrate this? 

So far, our observations perfectly match what we would expect if we're on a rotating, spherical Earth.  I have provided you with two diagrams that illustrate this point.

The math isn't based on Kepler's three laws. It's based on tables of previous occurrences. His three laws are an attempt to explain what's happening in the background. But the actual predictions are predicted based on patterns.

Do you have a source for this?  The sources I have provided indicate otherwise.  If you'll read them in full, you'll encounter more nuanced descriptions of the relationship between his observations and his mathematical arguments. 

Kepler's Three Laws aren't used to predict the position of the planets. Historic tables are. Historic tables and pattern analysis have been used to predict astronomical events for thousands of years.

You're not even making an argument.  You're just repeating your assertions.  The material I have provided indicates conclusively that this is not the way ephemerides are constructed.  Historical tables are used for initial conditions.  Kepler's mathematics and geometry makes the predictions.

Can you provide me with any sources or citations that verify these claims?  I'm specifically interested in knowing your justification for claims like these:

Quote from: Tom Bishop

It's not model specific. The predictions are applicable to both models of the earth.
...
I already told you that the predictions are not RE specific. As they are derived from the analysis of previous events, predicted based on patterns in the sky and nothing else, Kepler's predictions are equally applicable to the Flat Earth or any other model of the earth.

How do you know that this is the case?  I have provided material that demonstrates that Kepler's predictions were comparable to, and distinct from, geocentric models.  The first link I provided on the second page of this thread, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion describes the history of these conflicts, and the success of Kepler's mathematics, in great detail.

This link also provides a clear description of the concepts outlined in New Astronomy and Epitome.
This particular section illustrates the way that his observations were combined with geometric arguments (the model) to make distinct and verifiable predictions.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2012, 03:07:55 PM

If the earth were flat and Venus were passing between the sun and earth, the event wouldn't be seen from everywhere. Some people would be positioned at an angle where Venus does not intersect the sun. Think about it.

Can you provide me with a schematic or diagram that illustrates that this is the case, that some locations on the plane will be so angled?  How do you know that there are no differences in what the two models predict, in terms of visibility?  Can you demonstrate this? 

So far, our observations perfectly match what we would expect if we're on a rotating, spherical Earth.  I have provided you with two diagrams that illustrate this point.

Quote

The math isn't based on Kepler's three laws. It's based on tables of previous occurrences. His three laws are an attempt to explain what's happening in the background. But the actual predictions are predicted based on patterns.

Do you have a source for this?  The sources I have provided indicate otherwise.  If you'll read them in full, you'll encounter more nuanced descriptions of the relationship between his observations and his mathematical arguments. 

Quote

Kepler's Three Laws aren't used to predict the position of the planets. Historic tables are. Historic tables and pattern analysis have been used to predict astronomical events for thousands of years.

You're not even making an argument.  You're just repeating your assertions.  The material I have provided indicates conclusively that this is not the way ephemerides are constructed.  Historical tables are used for initial conditions.  Kepler's mathematics and geometry makes the predictions.

O Tom! A lot of dithering, and still no size and distance of Venus! No mathematical explanations of it's orbit in FE!

Why do you spend so much time contradicting RET when you should work on a plausible FET?

We know there are astronomical tables, most of them done by RE'ers and probably some by FE'ers, but we are in the XXIst century, where we can go a little further in research and science.

Incorrect. The heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. Neither the heliocentric model or the 3 laws are used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.

Sorry, Tom, but I have to take you to school again.  You keep citing Wikipedia as if it's trustworthy and terminal source material.  In fact, the only available reference that it cites is this page, and it says this:

The Tables was far more accurate than its predecessors - its margin of error staying within 10 seconds compared to up to 5 degrees with earlier tables. Instead of providing a sequence of planetary positions for specified days (which Kepler did in his Ephemerides), the Rudolphine Tables were set up to allow calculations of planetary positions for any time in the past or future. The finding of the longitude of a given planet at a given time was based on Kepler's equation and he exploited logarithms for this tabulation. The precise geocentric positions had to be worked out from combining the heliocentric positions of the planets and the earth that were calculated separately. Logarithmic tabulations were used again to facilitate calculation. Thus, although Brahe wished the Tables to be based on his own system, it is clear from the way Kepler set up his tabulations that they were based on Kepler's own heliocentric system with elliptical planetary orbits.

Devastating. 

Oh, and there's this article.  It describes a method for using Kepler's calculations in the mathematics software "Mathematica 7."

In fact, what many people consider the very first computer—made of wood by Wilhelm Schickard in 1623—was built specifically to help in getting solutions to equations of the form x == 1 - e Sin[ x ].
...
Johannes Kepler was in the process of constructing his Rudolphine astronomical tables—and his killer technology for finding the longitude of a planet at a given time required solving what’s now called Kepler’s equation: essentially the transcendental equation x == 1 - e Sin[ x ]. With considerable effort, and probably computer support, Kepler made a table of solutions to this equation.
...
It’s also nice to realize that—after 385 years—Kepler’s killer technology for constructing astronomical tables can be reduced to just a single line of Mathematica 7 input.

Do you have any evidence at all to support your claims, other than your misinterpretation of a Wikipedia page?

while the transit doesn;t prove a spherical or planar earth, it does prove the sun is not  a spotlight.
Mercury and Mars will be "lit up" just fine during the transit. (unless of course they too create there own light).

Wouldn't we notice if other planets had their own stars giving them light? The more I read about FET the more non sense enters my brain.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2012, 03:28:27 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2012, 03:10:41 PM

Wrong, the heliocentric elliptical orbits Kepler describes are an interpretation of the data. The heliocentric model or the 3 laws are not used to make the data in the tables. It says very clearly on the Wikipedia page that the tables are based on collected observations from multiple astronomers over a long period of time. They were not computed.

For crying out loud Tom, do you even read your sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolphine_Tables#Tycho.27s_data_and_Kepler.27s_model_of_the_solar_system

Quote

Kepler was able to prepare these new tables using Tycho's accurate observations together with a heliocentric model of the solar system and his own discovery of the elliptical orbits of the planets. Accurate calculation was aided by the newly published system of logarithms which simplified accurate calculation and made them less prone to errors.

What you quoted does not contradict my post.

Indeed, the section you quoted directly states that the tables list OBSERVATIONS, not calculations based on Kepler's Three Laws. It's a table of observations of historical astronomical events.

You're right, there is no mention of calculations whatsoever in that passage. 

BTW Tom, did you ever read the Rudolphine Tables or are you just assuming that it's nothing more than a series of observations based on your selective comprehension of other people's descriptions?

another thing this transist proves is James is right, the Universe has to be a lot younger than sicentists theorize. Because at times venus shares the same plane as the sun, eventually the Sun will hit it.

another thing this transist proves is James is right, the Universe has to be a lot younger than sicentists theorize. Because at times venus shares the same plane as the sun, eventually the Sun will hit it.

For statement to hold any weight at all you would have to prove that the Sun and Venus do in fact share the same "plane" at times.  Even then you would still have to prove that their paths of travel would actually cross at some point.  Then you would have to calculate out their paths and locations and determine if at any time they would both be at that crossing point at the same time.  You would then have to calculate out their paths throughout all of history and see if the claimed age of the Earth would have necessarily caused a collision at some point in that history given their paths of travel. 

Until then this statement is a random assumption based on virtually nothing.

how else do you conclude that Venus (rarely) transists venus than at tiomes being closer to the sun.
at one point they would have to collide. a 32 mile sun and a .25 mile planet only oscilaating between 100 miles apart...odds say after billions of years they would collide.

how else do you conclude that Venus (rarely) transists venus than at tiomes being closer to the sun.
at one point they would have to collide. a 32 mile sun and a .25 mile planet only oscilaating between 100 miles apart...odds say after billions of years they would collide.

Again, this is pure assumption and random speculation.  Why would they have to collide?  You say that the odds are that they would eventually collide.  What are the odds?  Have you actually calculated them?  In FET all the celestial objects are fairly small and moving in unexplained patterns in relatively close proximity to each other all the time.  What calculations or observations have you made to convince you that the Sun and Venus will inevitably collide, or must already have done so if the universe is as old as some claim? 

Regardless, I really don't see how you can conclude that this event provides evidence of the age of the universe.  In your opinion Venus is relatively tiny right?  Maybe it has only been floating around up there for a short time.  Imagine that it was absolutely proven that Venus (the small spec that FET claims Venus is) has only been in it's present pattern for 1,000 years.  How would that prove that was the age of the universe?  How could you prove that the small chunk that is Venus has been around and on it's current path since the beginning of the universe?

You say that Venus transiting the Sun means that at times it is closer to the Sun.  Do you have proof of this, or that their paths ever actually cross?  And if you do, what evidence do you have that they couldn't continue on their current paths/pattern without ever colliding, even after a trillion years?  How do you know Venus actually passes nearer the Sun at the times it doesn't actually cross in front of it from our viewpoint?  Maybe the times we see Venus transit the Sun it is actually passing it from a further distance than normal. 

I ask this in part because I am curious if there has been any attempt to actually model the paths of the planets, moon, etc.  I know the basic way they move has been touched upon (epicycles, etc.) but to my knowledge their track through the sky hasn't been really mapped out in such a way that you could accurately predict the paths of an object as supposedly tiny as Venus.  If this has been done I would be very interested to see the results.

Got bored this morning and decided to see if I could find a full description of the method for calculating ephemerides like The Rudolphine Tables.  First hit, first search string.

This link contains a complete description of how to use Kepler's three laws to calculate the positions of the planets for any time in the future, based on their current positions, within a margin of error.  You'll notice that we need no additional information beyond the three laws and the present position of the planets.

This chapter of this celestial mechanics textbook explains the process in even greater detail.

So, there you have it.