Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.

  • 28 Replies
  • 4291 Views
Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« on: April 14, 2016, 12:27:14 PM »
If you track the motions of the planets over a long period of time, you'll eventually see a planet suddenly switch directions and do a loop before continuing on its original path, like this image of Mars illustrates:



This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts. The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:



This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model. I'm interested to hear if you have any counterarguments.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2016, 04:21:05 PM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 04:26:20 PM by Uninvited Guest »
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2016, 04:44:57 PM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol
It's not something made up, it is a phenomenon that any can observe so it happens in reality. The orbits of the planets explain this in RET. Since you cannot say this event does not happen, and if RET is wrong, then how does FET explain this?
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 05:14:00 PM by CaptainMagpie »
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2016, 05:03:13 PM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 07:38:25 PM by Poko »
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2016, 06:41:21 AM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2016, 06:44:27 AM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol
It's not something made up, it is a phenomenon that any can observe so it happens in reality. The orbits of the planets explain this in RET. Since you cannot say this event does not happen, and if RET is wrong, then how does FET explain this?

Why is so difficult to understand that I didn't say it was impossible to be observed? The explanation is the problem, which follows the old formula, as my first post suggests.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 06:53:00 AM by Uninvited Guest »
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2016, 06:55:44 AM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

The convincing thing is that it's such an oddly specific thing for a celestial object to do. If the loop, like the one you see in the image, was just a few degrees to the side, or just a tiny bit smaller, it would mean that planetary retrograde motion couldn't be responsible. And yet, it's exactly - and by that, I mean with an accuracy of pretty much 100% - where the Round Earth predicts it would be. In addition to that, retrograde motion appears more often in planets further away from the Earth, since it takes longer for them to complete their orbits relative to the Earth, and we can use all these factors to predict when the next retrograde event will occur. This isn't just a coincidence.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23023
  • Waiting for God's Apologize
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2016, 06:59:32 AM »
How do you the planets exactly moving? Maybe their normally route is that. And how can you prove their movement like your drawn. Why sould we believe your draving?
All these people are dead.



No ways remained us but counterattack as a self defence.





The destruction process of globalists has started legally

?

Woody

  • 1144
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2016, 07:00:17 AM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

You are failing to understand.  It is what is expected to happen for the heliocentric model.  Planets in retrograde was one of the things that led people many, many years ago to begin thinking the Earth was not flat and revolved around the sun with the other planets.  Simply because it was hard to explain the observations of planets and everything revolving around the Earth.  The reality is the movements and positions of planets can be reliably predicted using the RE and heliocentric models.

While not definitive proof it is evidence that the Earth revolves around the sun.  You then add other stuff like eclipses, tides, the ISS and some satellites being observable, Foucault pendulums, plate tectonics, seismology, pictures, videos, celestial navigation, etc.  It really begins to seem the Earth is round and revolves around the sun.

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2016, 07:56:28 AM »
How do you the planets exactly moving? Maybe their normally route is that. And how can you prove their movement like your drawn. Why sould we believe your draving?

This stuff is easy to document. I've seen it loads of times. You don't even need a telescope, all you need a is a clear sky and to be there at the right time.

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2016, 08:17:11 AM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

Because you are ignorant of planetary motions, you really shouldn't be critiquing the original posters statement.

That is your arguement correct? You don't understand why something is happening so therefore you don't agree with the explanation?

I personally don't know much about retrograde planetary motions, so I don't go spouting my ignorance to the world.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2016, 01:15:55 PM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

You are failing to understand.  It is what is expected to happen for the heliocentric model.  Planets in retrograde was one of the things that led people many, many years ago to begin thinking the Earth was not flat and revolved around the sun with the other planets.  Simply because it was hard to explain the observations of planets and everything revolving around the Earth.  The reality is the movements and positions of planets can be reliably predicted using the RE and heliocentric models.

While not definitive proof it is evidence that the Earth revolves around the sun.  You then add other stuff like eclipses, tides, the ISS and some satellites being observable, Foucault pendulums, plate tectonics, seismology, pictures, videos, celestial navigation, etc.  It really begins to seem the Earth is round and revolves around the sun.

No, it's a loop within a loop, and not merely a movement around the sun.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2016, 01:27:50 PM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

Because you are ignorant of planetary motions, you really shouldn't be critiquing the original posters statement.

That is your arguement correct? You don't understand why something is happening so therefore you don't agree with the explanation?

I personally don't know much about retrograde planetary motions, so I don't go spouting my ignorance to the world.

You don't need a PhD on planetary motion for this thread, I suppose.lol Just read the OP.

It describes an unusual loop within a loop and the explanation is more awkward than the event itself. My opinion is that the explanation of this movement is pure fiction. You observe a planet giving an extra short loop, then you search for the explanation and naively believe that "the planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun". lol
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2016, 01:31:31 PM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

Because you are ignorant of planetary motions, you really shouldn't be critiquing the original posters statement.

That is your arguement correct? You don't understand why something is happening so therefore you don't agree with the explanation?

I personally don't know much about retrograde planetary motions, so I don't go spouting my ignorance to the world.

You don't need a PhD on planetary motion for this thread, I suppose.lol Just read the OP.

It describes an unusual loop within a loop and the explanation is more awkward than the event itself. My opinion is that the explanation of this movement is pure fiction. You observe a planet giving an extra short loop, then you search for the explanation and naively believe that "the planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun". lol
That problem with that is that we can use the math to accurately predict when this will happen. If this was just some random thing happening then we wouldn't be able to use the model to predict it.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2016, 01:52:26 PM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

Because you are ignorant of planetary motions, you really shouldn't be critiquing the original posters statement.

That is your arguement correct? You don't understand why something is happening so therefore you don't agree with the explanation?

I personally don't know much about retrograde planetary motions, so I don't go spouting my ignorance to the world.

You don't need a PhD on planetary motion for this thread, I suppose.lol Just read the OP.

It describes an unusual loop within a loop and the explanation is more awkward than the event itself. My opinion is that the explanation of this movement is pure fiction. You observe a planet giving an extra short loop, then you search for the explanation and naively believe that "the planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun". lol
That problem with that is that we can use the math to accurately predict when this will happen. If this was just some random thing happening then we wouldn't be able to use the model to predict it.

Yes, very convincing indeed.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2016, 03:25:22 PM »
You don't need a PhD on planetary motion for this thread, I suppose.lol Just read the OP.

It describes an unusual loop within a loop and the explanation is more awkward than the event itself. My opinion is that the explanation of this movement is pure fiction. You observe a planet giving an extra short loop, then you search for the explanation and naively believe that "the planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun". lol
That problem with that is that we can use the math to accurately predict when this will happen. If this was just some random thing happening then we wouldn't be able to use the model to predict it.

Yes, very convincing indeed.

I'm glad that you finally understand.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 03:33:46 PM by CaptainMagpie »
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2016, 03:31:15 PM »
They mostly write off things like this as coincidence. The fact that the planets decribe a loop in their magic path which looks EXACTLY like what you'd see in a heliocentric model? Coincidence. The fact that the light patterns on the moon caused by migration of bioluminescent lifeforms EXACTLY resembles the illumination of a sphere orpbiting the earth and lit from the direction of the sun? Coincidence. The fact that the anti-moon slides in front of the moon to cause a lunar eclipse EXACTLY when heliocentric theory predicts it would enter earth's shadow cone? Coincidence. The fact that these three completely unrelated phenomena EXACTLY mimic what you'd expect in heliocentric theory from one simple explanation? Coincidence.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Poko

  • 216
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2016, 05:46:18 PM »
I'm going to make this real simple for you, Uninvited Guest. Earth and Mars both orbit the sun in the same direction. If we view the north pole as the "top" they are orbiting counter-clockwise. Earth orbits faster than Mars (This fact can be shown using observation or derived mathematically). Most of the time we see Mars going across the sky towards the East. However, when our motion is close to parallel with Mars' motion, it appears to be moving West. This is because we are moving faster than Mars, so relative to us, Mars looks like it's going backwards in its orbit. It's like when you're driving on the freeway, any cars that are moving slower than you appear to be moving backwards, even though you are both moving in the same direction.
"In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2016, 07:07:58 PM »
I'm going to make this real simple for you, Uninvited Guest. Earth and Mars both orbit the sun in the same direction. If we view the north pole as the "top" they are orbiting counter-clockwise. Earth orbits faster than Mars (This fact can be shown using observation or derived mathematically). Most of the time we see Mars going across the sky towards the East. However, when our motion is close to parallel with Mars' motion, it appears to be moving West. This is because we are moving faster than Mars, so relative to us, Mars looks like it's going backwards in its orbit. It's like when you're driving on the freeway, any cars that are moving slower than you appear to be moving backwards, even though you are both moving in the same direction.
Well, here's a post that will set you mind back a few millenia! Even Ptolemy would have been horrified! Geocentric Model of the Universe (! Think).
Poor old Copernicus will be turning in his grave at the thought of anyone in the 21st century suggesting it!

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2016, 12:29:01 AM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.

Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun.

Why? It revolves around the Sun but suddenly it makes an odd loop? I'm not saying one cannot observe it (personally I've never seen though). Im saying that I don't agree that 'it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun'. See, I read the OP.

Because you are ignorant of planetary motions, you really shouldn't be critiquing the original posters statement.

That is your arguement correct? You don't understand why something is happening so therefore you don't agree with the explanation?

I personally don't know much about retrograde planetary motions, so I don't go spouting my ignorance to the world.

You don't need a PhD on planetary motion for this thread, I suppose.lol Just read the OP.

It describes an unusual loop within a loop and the explanation is more awkward than the event itself. My opinion is that the explanation of this movement is pure fiction. You observe a planet giving an extra short loop, then you search for the explanation and naively believe that "the planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun". lol
That problem with that is that we can use the math to accurately predict when this will happen. If this was just some random thing happening then we wouldn't be able to use the model to predict it.

Yes, very convincing indeed.

And once again, when the Flat Earther has no demonstrable evidence, he turns to sarcastic non-arguments.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2016, 06:08:24 AM »
Geocentric retrograde motion, from Galileo Was Wrong:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040413183325/http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/geo18.html


Someone mentioned Copernicus here.

HOW COPERNICUS' BIOGRAPHY WAS FORGED/FALSIFIED:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2016, 08:32:27 AM »
Geocentric retrograde motion, from Galileo Was Wrong:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040413183325/http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/geo18.html


Someone mentioned Copernicus here.

HOW COPERNICUS' BIOGRAPHY WAS FORGED/FALSIFIED:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1643860#msg1643860

The Geocentric model is very different from the Flat Earth. The explanation in your link assumes that the Earth is a sphere and that celestial objects rotate around it; the FE model is completely different, so it doesn't work here.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2016, 08:51:07 AM »
Geocentric model = Flat Earth model

The shape of the Earth CANNOT be a sphere, and at the same time be stationary (not rotating around its own axis).

This is something that most noted researchers into this field (geocentricity) must understand.

They cannot explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of the Earth: terrestrial gravity is not attractive.

Gravity is a force of pressure, but this can only happen on a flat surface of the Earth.

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2016, 09:34:54 AM »
Geocentric model = Flat Earth model

The shape of the Earth CANNOT be a sphere, and at the same time be stationary (not rotating around its own axis).

This is something that most noted researchers into this field (geocentricity) must understand.

They cannot explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of the Earth: terrestrial gravity is not attractive.

Gravity is a force of pressure, but this can only happen on a flat surface of the Earth.

Geocentrism is not the same as the FE model; the link you referred explicitly said that planets, stars and the Sun orbit the Earth, and presumably accepts the existence of gravity. This is not the case on the FE, where in most models, celestial objects are rotating above a flat plain.
Also, I don't really see what you mean by "terrestrial gravity is not attractive." There's no such thing as "terrestrial gravity". Gravity is a single force that causes mass to attract mass. You say that gravity is a force of pressure - even though you haven't demonstrated or proven this - and then say that this can only happen on the Flat Earth. You are committing to a logical fallacy to argue; you say "I assume Earth is flat, therefore gravity must work this way." This will not do. You have to demonstrate that this is how gravity works.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6765
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2016, 10:21:19 AM »
You are new here.

The link that I referred you to contains a bibliographical reference from Galileo Was Wrong, by R. Sungenis. He and other geocentrists cannot explain gravity in any sense of the word, and they are at a loss to explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere. Nor can they explain how the explosion of Tunguska was seen instantaneously from London. The explanation offered for the retrograde motion of Mars holds just as well for a flat surface of the Earth.


There's no such thing as "terrestrial gravity". Gravity is a single force that causes mass to attract mass.

Newton says otherwise.

Newton believed that there are TWO GRAVITATIONAL FORCES AT WORK:

1. Terrestrial gravity

2. Planetary/stellar gravity


Here is a letter from Newton to Halley, describing how he had independently arrived at the inverse square law using his aether hypothesis, to which he refers as the 'descending spirit':

....Now if this spirit descends from above with uniform velocity, its density and consequently its force will be reciprocally proportional to the square of its distance from the centre. But if it descended with accelerated motion, its density will everywhere diminish as much as the velocity increases, and so its force (according to the hypothesis) will be the same as before, that is still reciprocally as the square of its distance from the centre'


A clear description of PRESSURE GRAVITY.

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity was due to a circulating ether.

Isaac Newton speculated that gravity was caused by a flow of ether, or space, into celestial bodies. He discussed this theory in letters to Oldenburg, Halley, and Boyle.


Newton, student notes on Descartes:

Gravity is a force in a body impelling it to descend. Here, however, by descent is not only meant a motion towards the centre of the Earth but also towards any part or region...

His belief at that time was that, to quote Westfall, ‘gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle invisible matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down'.


You say that gravity is a force of pressure - even though you haven't demonstrated or proven this.

I always provide proofs for my statements: this is the difference between my messages and anybody else.

Here are not one, not two, but FOUR DIFFERENT PROOFS, experiments performed by some of the greatest physicists of the 20th century: terrestrial gravity is not related at all to mass.


EXPERIMENT #1

http://depalma.pair.com/gyrodrop.html (experiment carried out by the team of researchers which worked with Dr. Bruce DePalma)

Gyro Drop Experiment

In this experiment a fully enclosed, electrically driven gyroscope is released to fall freely under the influence of gravity. The elapsed time taken to fall a measured distance of 10.617 feet was measured, with the rotor stopped and also with the rotor spinning at approximately 15,000 RPM.

Data was gathered on a Chronometrics Digital Elapsed Dime Clock measuring 1/10,000 second, actuated by two phototransistor sensors placed in the paths of two light beams which were consecutively interrupted by the edge of the casing of the falling gyroscope.

A fully encased, spinning gyroscope drops faster than the identical gyroscope non-spinning, when released to fall along its axis.



Runs 3-7 show clearly what is going on: the rotating gyroscope is falling faster than its non-rotating counterpart.


EXPERIMENT #2

Spinning Gyroscope Experiment

According to the theory developed by N.A.Kozyrev, the greatest astrophysicist of the former Soviet Union, time and rotation are closely interconnected.

In order to verify his theory, N.A.Kozyrev conducted a series of experiments with spinning gyroscopes. The goal of these experiments was to make a measurement of the forces arising while the gyroscope was spinning.

N.A.Kozyrev detected that the weight of the spinning gyroscope changes slightly depending on the angular velocity and the direction of rotation. The effect he discovered was not large, but the nature of the arising forces could not be explained by existing theories.

Kozyrev torsion fields: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/tors1a.html

In the 1970s, in order to verify N.A.Kozyrev's theory, a major research of gyroscopes and gyroscopic systems was conducted by a member of Belarus Academy of Sciences, professor A.I.Veinik. The effect discovered earlier by N.A.Kozyrev was completely confirmed.


Dr. Kozyrev (see The Pendulum of the Universe article in the Sputnik magazine) made sure that his experiments were screened from any factors usually taken into account in such experiments: air currents, mechanical actions/causes, electrical fields, e/m fields.

Dr Kozyrev's experiments began in the 1950s and were conducted since the 1970s with the ongoing assistance of Dr V. V. Nasonov, who helped to standardise the laboratory methods and the statistical analysis of the results. Detectors using rotation and vibration were specially designed and made that would react in the presence of torsion fields.

It is important to remember that these experiments were conducted under the strictest conditions, repeated in hundreds or in many cases thousands of trials and were written about in extensive mathematical detail. They have been rigorously peer-reviewed, and Lavrentyev and others have replicated the results independently.


EXPERIMENT #3

Spinning Ball Experiment

Bruce DePalma graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1958. He attended graduate school in Electrical Engineering and Physics at M.I.T. and Harvard University. At M.I.T. he was a lecturer in Photographic Science in the Laboratory of Dr. Harold Edgerton and directed 3-D color photographic research for Dr. Edwin Land of Polaroid Corporation.

He set up this experiment using two one-inch diameter pinball machine ball bearings where one was not spinning and one was made to spin at 18,000 rpm by a hand held router motor with cups to hold the balls, one on the spinning shaft and one affixed to the casing of the motor. He then he gave the assembly a thrust at an appropriate angle and in the dark with a 60 cycle strobe light and open camera lens he photographed the parallel trajectories of the two ball bearings. Repeating this numerous times and analyzing the photographs, this experiment showed that there is indeed a variation in the gravitational behavior of the spinning vs non-spinning ball bearing. The spinning ball, given the same thrust, went to a higher point in its trajectory, fell faster and hit the bottom of the trajectory before the non-spinning ball.

The results of the Spinning Ball Experiment were published in the British Scientific Research Association Journal in 1976. This experiment was also outlined personally by DePalma to Dr. Edward Purcell, one of the most eminent experimental physicists from Harvard at that time. According to DePalma, Purcell, after contemplating the experiment for several minutes, remarked "This will change everything."

Within a complete vacuum, DePalma took two steel balls and catapulted them into the air at equal angles, with an equal amount of force.

The only difference was that one ball was rotating 27,000 times per minute and the other was stationary. The rotating ball traveled higher into the air and then descended faster than its counterpart, which violated all known laws of physics.

The only explanation for this effect is that both balls are drawing energy into themselves from an unseen source, and the rotating ball is thus “soaking up” more of this energy than its counterpart – energy that would normally exist as gravity, moving down into the earth.

With the addition of torsion-field research we can see that the spinning ball was able to harness naturally spiraling torsion waves in its environment, which gave it an additional supply of energy.


A ball spinning at 27,000 RPM and a non-spinning ball were catapulted side-by-side with equal momentum and projection angle. In defiance of all who reject the ether as unrealistic, the spinning ball actually weighed less, and traveled higher than its non-spinning counterpart. Those who attribute this to an aerodynamic or atmospheric effect, please note that it works just as well in a vacuum. Also note, this effect has since been verified by other [enlightened] researchers. The decrease in weight of the spinning ball - anti-gravity - can explain why the spinning object goes higher and falls faster than the identical non-rotating control. Current thinking is that there is no special interaction between rotation and gravity. The behavior of rotating objects is simply the addition of ether energy to whatever motion the rotating object is making.


Laevorotatory torsion waves were harnessed/attracted by the high torsion/rotational movement and caused the antigravitational effect: left to its own devices, the ball with no torsion was subjected to the dextrorotatory wave effect, that is, terrestrial gravity.


EXPERIMENT #4

Vacuum Chamber Pressure of Gravity Experiment


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1616174#msg1616174

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

starts at 9:31 (negative energy and pressure gravity experiment)

Dr. Steve Lamoreaux (Yale University)

The zero-point fluctuations of free space won't fit between those plates, as well, so when you bring these two plates together, there are fewer fluctuations between the plates than there are outside the plates.

The force builds up, and it actually gets stronger and stronger as the plates get closer together, and that force we refer to as arising from negative energy.
The zero-point energy fluctuations outside the plates are stronger than those between, so pressure from the outside pushes them together.

Or think of it another way.
The negative energy between the plates expands space around it.

Steve's years of meticulous labor have made him the first person on Earth to have measured a force produced by negative energy.


Negative energy = effect of telluric waves/strings upon matter (see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/9803/9803039.pdf )


Four classic experiments which contradict Newton's alleged law of universal gravitation.

Steve Lamoreaux's vacuum chamber experiment establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that the plates are PUSHED TOGETHER by an outside force: ether waves.

Here is the Biefeld-Brown experiment with videos:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg759935#msg759935


Francis Nipher, one of the most distinguished professors of physics of the 20th century, showed that electricity is absolutely linked to terrestrial gravity, thereby invalidating the failed Cavendish experiment.


http://www.accessgenealogy.com/missouri/biography-of-francis-eugene-nipher-ll-d.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.


http://www.rexresearch.com/nipher/nipher1.htm

The relationship between gravitation and the electric field was first observed experimentally by Dr. Francis Nipher. Dr. Francis Nipher conducted extensive experiments during 1918, on a modified Cavendish experiment. He reproduced the classical arrangements for the experiment, where gravitational attraction could be measured between free-swinging masses, and a large fixed central mass. Dr. Nipher modified the Cavendish experiment by applying a large electrical field to the large central mass, which was sheilded inside a Faraday cage. When electrostatic charge was applied to the large fixed mass, the free-swinging masses exhibited a reduced attraction to the central mass, when the central mass was only slightly charged. As the electric field strength was increased, there arose a voltage threshold which resulted in no attraction at all between the fixed mass and the free-swinging masses. Increasing the potential applied to the central mass beyond that threshold, resulted in the free-swinging masses being repelled (!) from the fixed central mass. Nipher's conclusion was that sheilded electrostatic fields directly influence the action of gravitation. He further concluded that gravitation and electrical fields are absolutely linked.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 10:24:26 AM by sandokhan »

*

CaptainMagpie

  • 331
  • Aristibird of Knowledge
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2016, 11:11:22 AM »
Dear lord. The wall of text that explains nothing is back.
fuck off penguin.  I'll take my ban to tell you to go fuck your self.  Ban please.   I am waiting.

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2016, 11:18:13 AM »
Geocentric model = Flat Earth model

The shape of the Earth CANNOT be a sphere, and at the same time be stationary (not rotating around its own axis).

This is something that most noted researchers into this field (geocentricity) must understand.

They cannot explain how four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of the Earth: terrestrial gravity is not attractive.

Gravity is a force of pressure, but this can only happen on a flat surface of the Earth.

Geocentrism is not the same as the FE model; the link you referred explicitly said that planets, stars and the Sun orbit the Earth, and presumably accepts the existence of gravity. This is not the case on the FE, where in most models, celestial objects are rotating above a flat plain.
Also, I don't really see what you mean by "terrestrial gravity is not attractive." There's no such thing as "terrestrial gravity". Gravity is a single force that causes mass to attract mass. You say that gravity is a force of pressure - even though you haven't demonstrated or proven this - and then say that this can only happen on the Flat Earth. You are committing to a logical fallacy to argue; you say "I assume Earth is flat, therefore gravity must work this way." This will not do. You have to demonstrate that this is how gravity works.

It is probably best not to ask any questions about gravity of sandokhan or you will get a wall of text with links to references back on these forums, like he posted in his reply.

You could ask him about who wrote all the Beatles songs, the time Jesus was crucified in the 1700s, or when Nimrod from the Bible found America. At least those answers are interesting.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #27 on: April 17, 2016, 01:42:18 AM »
This is exactly what the Round Earth model predicts.
I see.
The planets aren't actually moving like this, of course; it's simply an illusion caused by the movement of the planets around the Sun:
I saw it coming...

This behavior is not possible to explain using the FE model.
Of course not. This is pure fiction.

It goes like: "Round Earth model predicts this phenomenon beautifully. But wait, it is not what it seems. You have to imagine it as we did. See how it works perfectly according to our theory?". lol

Sounds like you either didn't read or didn't understand the OP. Retrograde motion is exactly what we would expect to see if the planets revolved around the sun. If we didn't see retrograde motion, that would be a strike against the current model.

Once again, no real objection to the point brought up, just a meaningless argument from incredulity. I'm going to be remarkably generous and assume that was a joke, so now is your chance to present your actual rebuttal.
I wouldn't hold my breath.  Here is part of a post about the south celestial pole.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
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? 
It was Jane, I think that said maybe they aren't all like that, but I wonder!
Their "model" has "epi-cycles" (the planets rotate about the Sun, which rotates about the Earth) to explain this, but that brings up more problems than it solves - such as the phases of Mercury and Venus.

I posted "the Wiki" bit on "Retrograde motion" in How does the FE model explain the motion of the planets? « Reply #3 on: April 15, 2016, 08:27:33 PM »

Even though it was mainly just a Wiki quote, I don't think any FEer knew what I was talking about, no-one discussed it anyway.
Probably just the way I presented it!

Re: Planets moving backwards prove Round Earth.
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2016, 12:55:08 PM »
You are new here.
**WALL OF TEXT**

Yes, most of us have been here less time than you. You're like the sad 90 year old trombonist who can only play Three Blind Mice, but insists that he has more right to lead the orchestra than all the young whippersnappers who can play Mozart symphonies.
You may have been here since the dawn of time, but you still haven't grasped how to write posts that anyone will actually read. The new guy has.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.