Transits of Mercury and Venus

Venus and Mercury have been observed transiting the Sun many times. Venus last transited in 2012 and Mercury in 2008.

We can watch the movement of these 2 planets with ease and predict easily when they will transit...following their movement as they begin the transit phase and when it ends. The next Mercury transit will take place on May 9th this year.

How is this possible with the Sun only 3000 miles overhead?...

Venus and Mercury have been observed transiting the Sun many times. Venus last transited in 2012 and Mercury in 2008.

We can watch the movement of these 2 planets with ease and predict easily when they will transit...following their movement as they begin the transit phase and when it ends. The next Mercury transit will take place on May 9th this year.

How is this possible with the Sun only 3000 miles overhead?...

I asked about transits of Venus once. The reply was basically "Who cares about a little black spot on the Sun?"

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:41:44 PM

Venus and Mercury have been observed transiting the Sun many times. Venus last transited in 2012 and Mercury in 2008.

We can watch the movement of these 2 planets with ease and predict easily when they will transit...following their movement as they begin the transit phase and when it ends. The next Mercury transit will take place on May 9th this year.

How is this possible with the Sun only 3000 miles overhead?...

I asked about transits of Venus once. The reply was basically "Who cares about a little black spot on the Sun?"

That's so pathetic. It's a pretty solid argument and a pretty solid debunking of this 'Spotlight Sun' nonsense!

It's fairly apparent that no Flat Earthers have an argument for this one. Maybe it'll make them think...but more likely, they'll just pretend it doesn't happen.

The DE model allows for the planets to pass in front of the Sun very easily.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is trickier to give, simply because space is a variable.

The DE model allows for the planets to pass in front of the Sun very easily.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is trickier to give, simply because space is a variable.

I think I need to start including "in the standard FE model" into my questions so that you don't keep piping in with DET responses. Thank you JRowe, but please assume that I'm not referring to your model as I've already confessed in another post to not knowing it.

So just to clarify, I'm only challenging the Flat Earth model that has the Earth accelerating upwards and the 32 mile-wide Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles above.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2016, 08:00:41 AM

The DE model allows for the planets to pass in front of the Sun very easily.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is trickier to give, simply because space is a variable.

I think I need to start including "in the standard FE model" into my questions so that you don't keep piping in with DET responses. Thank you JRowe, but please assume that I'm not referring to your model as I've already confessed in another post to not knowing it.

So just to clarify, I'm only challenging the Flat Earth model that has the Earth accelerating upwards and the 32 mile-wide Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles above.

Who cares about that model? Circumpolar stars firmly refute the uniplanar model.
DET is the only working FE model.

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 08:07:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2016, 08:00:41 AM

The DE model allows for the planets to pass in front of the Sun very easily.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is trickier to give, simply because space is a variable.

I think I need to start including "in the standard FE model" into my questions so that you don't keep piping in with DET responses. Thank you JRowe, but please assume that I'm not referring to your model as I've already confessed in another post to not knowing it.

So just to clarify, I'm only challenging the Flat Earth model that has the Earth accelerating upwards and the 32 mile-wide Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles above.

Who cares about that model? Circumpolar stars firmly refute the uniplanar model.
DET is the only working FE model.

"Who cares about that model?" 99% of this forum's members do! They swear by that model and fervently defend it! That's the only reason I spend time on here to disprove the uniplanar model. When I have time to read through the DET then I might like to debate that model with you but until then my argument are only intended as a challenge to that model.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2016, 08:20:21 AM

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 08:07:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2016, 08:00:41 AM

The DE model allows for the planets to pass in front of the Sun very easily.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is trickier to give, simply because space is a variable.

I think I need to start including "in the standard FE model" into my questions so that you don't keep piping in with DET responses. Thank you JRowe, but please assume that I'm not referring to your model as I've already confessed in another post to not knowing it.

So just to clarify, I'm only challenging the Flat Earth model that has the Earth accelerating upwards and the 32 mile-wide Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles above.

Who cares about that model? Circumpolar stars firmly refute the uniplanar model.
DET is the only working FE model.

"Who cares about that model?" 99% of this forum's members do! They swear by that model and fervently defend it! That's the only reason I spend time on here to disprove the uniplanar model. When I have time to read through the DET then I might like to debate that model with you but until then my argument are only intended as a challenge to that model.

80% of the claimed FEers on this forum are obvious trolls.

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 08:46:37 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2016, 08:20:21 AM

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 08:07:15 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on February 24, 2016, 08:00:41 AM

The DE model allows for the planets to pass in front of the Sun very easily.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is trickier to give, simply because space is a variable.

I think I need to start including "in the standard FE model" into my questions so that you don't keep piping in with DET responses. Thank you JRowe, but please assume that I'm not referring to your model as I've already confessed in another post to not knowing it.

So just to clarify, I'm only challenging the Flat Earth model that has the Earth accelerating upwards and the 32 mile-wide Sun and Moon circling 3000 miles above.

Who cares about that model? Circumpolar stars firmly refute the uniplanar model.
DET is the only working FE model.

"Who cares about that model?" 99% of this forum's members do! They swear by that model and fervently defend it! That's the only reason I spend time on here to disprove the uniplanar model. When I have time to read through the DET then I might like to debate that model with you but until then my argument are only intended as a challenge to that model.

80% of the claimed FEers on this forum are obvious trolls.

be the way how you talk you  just another troll.

be the way how you talk you  just another troll.

Because your post provided so much content.

I get frustrated when having to deal with dozens of people who do nothing but lie, insult and misrepresent. What the hell would you expect?!
I have a working model that REers are apparently incapable of addressing. Oh, sure, they'll make claims that it doesn't work, but it's like pulling teeth to find any justification.

Let me know when you can make an actual argument.

Quote from: racionador on February 24, 2016, 09:22:12 AM

be the way how you talk you  just another troll.

Because your post provided so much content.

I get frustrated when having to deal with dozens of people who do nothing but lie, insult and misrepresent. What the hell would you expect?!
I have a working model that REers are apparently incapable of addressing. Oh, sure, they'll make claims that it doesn't work, but it's like pulling teeth to find any justification.

Let me know when you can make an actual argument.

JRowe! Please? Regardless of whether they are trolls or not... For argument's sake I would like to debate Planetary transits with a FEer please? Is that possible? You'll readily criticise others for deviating or distracting from the topic so don't be a hypocrite!

Venus and Mercury have been observed transiting the Sun many times. Venus last transited in 2012 and Mercury in 2008.

We can watch the movement of these 2 planets with ease and predict easily when they will transit...following their movement as they begin the transit phase and when it ends. The next Mercury transit will take place on May 9th this year.

How is this possible with the Sun only 3000 miles overhead?...

the possibilite that i can see is that every planet on the skies are in the same  altitude as the sun and moon, but still dont explain much about eclipses and transitions would inplain maybe that they are actually very small bodys ? i dont know.

but for what you already can see here, must of the FE prefer just ignore the details or come with magical explanations.

Quote from: richaddis on February 23, 2016, 02:41:44 PM

Venus and Mercury have been observed transiting the Sun many times. Venus last transited in 2012 and Mercury in 2008.

We can watch the movement of these 2 planets with ease and predict easily when they will transit...following their movement as they begin the transit phase and when it ends. The next Mercury transit will take place on May 9th this year.

How is this possible with the Sun only 3000 miles overhead?...

the possibilite that i can see is that every planet on the skies are in the same  altitude as the sun and moon, but still dont explain much about eclipses and transitions would inplain maybe that they are actually very small bodys ? i dont know.

but for what you already can see here, must of the FE prefer just ignore the details or come with magical explanations.

Indeed. The only possible way transits could take place in the Uniplanar model is if the planets were at the same altitude... But if that was the case they would have to be tiny! When either planet transits it's seen as a small black silhouette, minuscule in comparison to the sun, and so the planets would have to be less than a mile in diameter. This is plainly not the case!

I'd say it completely debunks the Spotlight Sun model which is heavily valued by FEers.

Challenge?

Indeed. The only possible way transits could take place in the Uniplanar model is if the planets were at the same altitude... But if that was the case they would have to be tiny! When either planet transits it's seen as a small black silhouette, minuscule in comparison to the sun, and so the planets would have to be less than a mile in diameter. This is plainly not the case!

I'd say it completely debunks the Spotlight Sun model which is heavily valued by FEers.

Challenge?

No "challenge", the maximum angular size of Venus is about 60" of arc, or about 0.032 the angular size of the sun. So yes the size of Venus would have to a bit under a mile.

Another interesting question is why there are:

• regular transits of Venus and Mercury,
• many more transits of Mercury than Venus,
• NEVER any transits of the other planets.

Also it is interesting that both Mercury and Venus show phases, somewhat like the moon, and
Venus varies dramatically in apparent size, Mercury less so. etc, etc.
So much we can learn from these "little lights in the sky"!

Quote from: richaddis on February 24, 2016, 02:40:37 PM

Indeed. The only possible way transits could take place in the Uniplanar model is if the planets were at the same altitude... But if that was the case they would have to be tiny! When either planet transits it's seen as a small black silhouette, minuscule in comparison to the sun, and so the planets would have to be less than a mile in diameter. This is plainly not the case!

I'd say it completely debunks the Spotlight Sun model which is heavily valued by FEers.

Challenge?

No "challenge", the maximum angular size of Venus is about 60" of arc, or about 0.032 the angular size of the sun. So yes the size of Venus would have to a bit under a mile.

Another interesting question is why there are:

• regular transits of Venus and Mercury,
• many more transits of Mercury than Venus,
• NEVER any transits of the other planets.

Also it is interesting that both Mercury and Venus show phases, somewhat like the moon, and
Venus varies dramatically in apparent size, Mercury less so. etc, etc.
So much we can learn from these "little lights in the sky"!

On the FE it just happens! On the heliocentric globe these are very simply explained.

There is clearly no other explanation for these observations!

Do all you FEers really have no rebuttal? 156 views and nothing?!

The DE model allows for the planets to pass in front of the Sun very easily.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is trickier to give, simply because space is a variable.

Sure space is a variable, but not utterly plastic as is required in DET!

Can a FEer please explain to be how Transits of Mercury and Venus across the Sun can possibly take place under the FE Uniplanar Model with the Sun 3000 miles overhead? There have been over 200 views now and I'm still waiting for an answer? If there is no answer then we may as well close the forum and disband the society because it's useless if it can't answer simple problems like this one.

Can a FEer please explain to be how Transits of Mercury and Venus across the Sun can possibly take place under the FE Uniplanar Model with the Sun 3000 miles overhead? There have been over 200 views now and I'm still waiting for an answer? If there is no answer then we may as well close the forum and disband the society because it's useless if it can't answer simple problems like this one.

Don't hold your breath!

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 
In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 
http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

I don't believe this view is restricted to this poster - I'll show more posts if anyone needs them.

Quote from: richaddis on February 26, 2016, 08:46:52 AM

Can a FEer please explain to be how Transits of Mercury and Venus across the Sun can possibly take place under the FE Uniplanar Model with the Sun 3000 miles overhead? There have been over 200 views now and I'm still waiting for an answer? If there is no answer then we may as well close the forum and disband the society because it's useless if it can't answer simple problems like this one.

Don't hold your breath!

Quote from: Marciano on January 09, 2016, 09:18:51 PM

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 
In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. 
http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za30.htm

I don't believe this view is restricted to this poster - I'll show more posts if anyone needs them.

Yeah, no point in worrying about the lights in the sky... Just keep your head down and don't ask questions and everything will be ok

As I have repeatedly said, astronomy supports/proves or falsifies/disproves/destroys/annihilates various Earth models. It is very hard to get things "right" in the heavens as viewed from Earth.

A single plane FE model with the N.Pole in the middle can not explain why the S. Celestial Pole (center of southern star trails) is a single point and not a 50,000+ mi circle along the ground in Antarctica. FE debunked right there. Period.

Hence the Dual Earth model with 2 disks, one with a N.Pole and the other with a S.Pole to the rescue. Of course it needs a magical mythical Aether with a bunch of contradictory as-needed properties to explain everything in a hand-waving manner. None of these models have a map. They both don't know where anything actually is on the model so can't say what people can/will see. There is nothing to discuss until there is an actual MAP.

Since the Sun is supposed to be a "spotlight" facing down and therefore its light does not illuminate the Moon (Moon is self-illuminating), Mercury and Venus would have to go across its "spotlight" (observable during only the daytime). When not in front of the Sun, they would have to appear as various crescents (like the Moon) and be flat or they would appear differently for everyone on Earth and be self-illuminating like the Moon. Their phases would have to imitate shadows going across spherical surfaces (like the Moon). How do these phases form? I guess those Keebler Elves with hand puppets making curved shadows behind the bodies or bugs(?) migrating and illuminating their surfaces. Any other explanations?

Venus (crescents, 9" telescope):

(http://sci.esa.int/observational-astronomy/38833-venus-amateur-observing-project/?fbodylongid=1862)

Mercury (crescent, 11" telescope):

(http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/celestial-objects-to-watch/catching-the-messenger-of-the-gods/)

Venus transit:

(http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/05/opinion/urry-venus-transit/)

Mercury transit (upper right dot, 10" telescope):

(https://cosmicriver.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/mercury-transit-of-2003/)

Precisely. Thanks for the images, they help to illustrate the point...

I'm going to be viewing and photographing Mercury's transit in May. I challenge any FEers to do so also and recognise exactly what you are seeing!