ecliptic

  • 32 Replies
  • 12327 Views
?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
ecliptic
« on: December 04, 2007, 08:53:47 AM »
if the planets really do orbit the sun in fe model (which has yet to yield a description of orbital mechanics or testable predictions based on it), then why does every planet - along with the sun and moon - line up very close to the ecliptic, from our point of view anywhere on earth, according to their orbital inclinations?

in the fe model, they should be scattered all about the sky, and furthermore be in different relative geometric configurations depending on where on earth you are at a given moment in time.  (e.g. two people on the phone would describe different relative arrangements.)

why is that *not* what we see?

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2007, 04:14:12 PM »
if the planets really do orbit the sun in fe model (which has yet to yield a description of orbital mechanics or testable predictions based on it), then why does every planet - along with the sun and moon - line up very close to the ecliptic, from our point of view anywhere on earth, according to their orbital inclinations?

in the fe model, they should be scattered all about the sky, and furthermore be in different relative geometric configurations depending on where on earth you are at a given moment in time.  (e.g. two people on the phone would describe different relative arrangements.)

why is that *not* what we see?

bump.  if the fe'ers don't know what the ecliptic is, it's the line the sun traces through the sky as the earth rotates. 

every planet visible by eye or telescope will fall very close to this line (depending on the inclination of it's orbit and ours). 

the fe predicts that the planets will be all over the sky, "ignoring" the ecliptic...and observation.

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2007, 04:18:24 PM »
if the planets really do orbit the sun in fe model (which has yet to yield a description of orbital mechanics or testable predictions based on it), then why does every planet - along with the sun and moon - line up very close to the ecliptic, from our point of view anywhere on earth, according to their orbital inclinations?

in the fe model, they should be scattered all about the sky, and furthermore be in different relative geometric configurations depending on where on earth you are at a given moment in time.  (e.g. two people on the phone would describe different relative arrangements.)

why is that *not* what we see?


But the planets are not scattered randomly around in the sky, and they do follow an ecliptic orbit, which can e proven since you can predict where the planets will be at any given time. You will not get a response refuting this, it cannot be done.


bump.  if the fe'ers don't know what the ecliptic is, it's the line the sun traces through the sky as the earth rotates. 

every planet visible by eye or telescope will fall very close to this line (depending on the inclination of it's orbit and ours). 

the fe predicts that the planets will be all over the sky, "ignoring" the ecliptic...and observation.

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2007, 04:45:39 PM »
I forget what I had originally posted, it did not show up, heh.

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2007, 05:01:17 PM »
Where did you get that the planets orbit the sun? They're just other celestial bodies which are manipulated also by the Universal Accelerator.


~D-Draw

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2007, 05:52:45 PM »
Where did you get that the planets orbit the sun? They're just other celestial bodies which are manipulated also by the Universal Accelerator.


~D-Draw

bishop - and another fe'er if i recall - recently said that the planets orbit the sun in much the same way as the re model.  (while explaining the wanderings of the planets.)

*

Dioptimus Drime

  • 4531
  • Meep.
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2007, 05:56:53 PM »
Tom Bishop does not equal the flat Earth theory. In fact, most people around here, FEers or otherwise disagree with pretty much everything he says and for the most part disown him as an actual flat Earth theory proponent.


~D-Draw

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2007, 08:18:36 PM »
Tom Bishop does not equal the flat Earth theory. In fact, most people around here, FEers or otherwise disagree with pretty much everything he says and for the most part disown him as an actual flat Earth theory proponent.


~D-Draw

yeah, i know, but like it not, bishop has fairly hijacked the fe viewpoint, in the minds of at least most new visitors, simply due to the sheer volume of his idiocy.  i've kind of been trying to police his posts but i just don't have the time to keep up with the volume (except for today).

anyway, he's not the only fe'er to believe it.  i'd search for the post that backs that up, but i'm not debating an fe'er, so it seems kind of pointless, and you probably don't distrust me enough to require said evidence.

it's curious that bishop is absent on this thread.  (well, not really, it is in fact completely expected, since he is a coward and avoids all topics he thinks or knows he'll lose.)

i'd be curious to see what username thinks about this.  he might have been the other one subscribing to the re orbital model, but i really don't remember and don't want to malign his name.  he's the only fe'er who seems to be making a legitimate effort to get reality worked out, and you gotta respect that.


?

eric bloedow

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2007, 08:39:17 PM »
let's put it this way: if the UA was the ONLY force effecting the planets, they would not move at all! (relative to any observer on earth, that is)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2007, 08:41:00 PM »
Tom Bishop does not equal the flat Earth theory. In fact, most people around here, FEers or otherwise disagree with pretty much everything he says and for the most part disown him as an actual flat Earth theory proponent.


~D-Draw

If the planets are not moving around the sun, perhaps you can explain the retrograde motion of mars.

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2007, 10:44:36 PM »


If the planets are not moving around the sun, perhaps you can explain the retrograde motion of mars.

Quite a good non mathematic representation here:

http://www.lasalle.edu/~smithsc/Astronomy/retrograd.html

I'm aware your comments were directed at D,Draw Tom but this explanation reinforces the mainstream argument.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2007, 11:27:12 PM »
Tom Bishop does not equal the flat Earth theory. In fact, most people around here, FEers or otherwise disagree with pretty much everything he says and for the most part disown him as an actual flat Earth theory proponent.


~D-Draw

If the planets are not moving around the sun, perhaps you can explain the retrograde motion of mars.

i'm so glad you asked that, because i'd like to see how you get retrograde motion out of mars with *your* model, over the timespan it is actually observed to occur.  (as opposed to a 24-hour period like you tried to unscrupulously pull off with the lunar libration gif.)  an animated gif like those presented against your argument would be nice, but at the very least static diagrams.

?

Bushido

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2007, 11:41:15 PM »
bump.  if the fe'ers don't know what the ecliptic is, it's the line the sun traces through the sky as the earth rotates. 

No it isn't.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2007, 11:50:44 PM »
bump.  if the fe'ers don't know what the ecliptic is, it's the line the sun traces through the sky as the earth rotates. 

No it isn't.


yes it is.

?

Bushido

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2007, 11:53:53 PM »
bump.  if the fe'ers don't know what the ecliptic is, it's the line the sun traces through the sky as the earth rotates. 

No it isn't.


yes it is.

seriously, it is not.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2007, 04:44:34 AM »
seriously, it is not.

Wikipedia first sentence:
"The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky"...
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

JohnDavidson

  • 51
  • I'm sitting on the fence and it hurts my...
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2007, 05:29:51 AM »
Thought I show a RE'ers idea of retrograde motion



I'm gonna imagine the FE'er's idea is something similar
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 05:35:06 AM by JohnDavidson »

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2007, 10:38:23 AM »
seriously, it is not.

Wikipedia first sentence:
"The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky"...

The definition is incomplete, and a bit deceptive.

The ecliptic is the apparent path that the sun traces out in the sky throughout a YEAR, not a DAY.  It is the great circle that will be drawn on the sky if you plotted the suns position relative to the background stars over the course of a full year.  It is the same plane that the planets roughly orbit in.

Wikipedia makes it sound like the ecliptic is horizon to horizon path that the sun traces in the single course of a day, which is false.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2007, 10:42:33 AM »
I see. I was thinking the proper term for that was Earth's alalema.
Enjoy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analema
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2007, 11:32:46 AM »
seriously, it is not.

Wikipedia first sentence:
"The ecliptic is the apparent path that the Sun traces out in the sky"...

The definition is incomplete, and a bit deceptive.

The ecliptic is the apparent path that the sun traces out in the sky throughout a YEAR, not a DAY.  It is the great circle that will be drawn on the sky if you plotted the suns position relative to the background stars over the course of a full year.  It is the same plane that the planets roughly orbit in.

Wikipedia makes it sound like the ecliptic is horizon to horizon path that the sun traces in the single course of a day, which is false.

that would result in a figure 8 shape.  the ecliptic is an averaged *plane* of planetary orbits, with the sun's path across the sky in a day providing a convenient approximation.

edit: an anelma (the figure eight) as singularity said.  i wouldn't have remembered if even known the name.
edit: forum software interpreted the number eight plus right paren as a smiley.  fixed.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 11:35:52 AM by cpt_bthimes »

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #20 on: December 05, 2007, 05:07:04 PM »
that would result in a figure 8 shape.  the ecliptic is an averaged *plane* of planetary orbits, with the sun's path across the sky in a day providing a convenient approximation.

edit: an anelma (the figure eight) as singularity said.  i wouldn't have remembered if even known the name.

I'm sorry, but that is not correct.  Trust me on this; observational astronomy is my field.  You are confusing the effects of Earth's axial tilt and rotation, with the effects of the Earth's orbital motion about the sun.  The analemma and the ecliptic plane result from different effects.

The ecliptic is not an average of anything.  The ecliptic is not an average of the orbital planes of the other planets.  The ecliptic is precisely defined as a plane emanating form the sun which intersects Earth's entire orbit.

Nor is the ecliptic an approximation of anything.  The ecliptic is also precisely defined as a projected great circle onto the background stars, which the sun follows throughout the year.  By definition, the sun is ALWAYS on the ecliptic.

The simplest way to think about it is this:

The ecliptic results if one plots the sun's position from day to day relative to the fixed stars.  The shape traced out is a great circle.

The analemma results if one plots the sun's position from day to day relative to terrestrial references (like the horizon.)  The shape traced out is (as you correctly stated) a figure-8.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 05:09:19 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2007, 05:13:06 PM »
A more detailed way to think about it is this:

There are three* component motions to the sun's apparent motion across the sky.  One of them manifests itself as the sun's precession along the ecliptic, the other two manifest themselves as an apparent shift of the sun and ecliptic plane (together).

In components, the solar motions are these:

1) A regular precession of about 1 degree from west to east per sidereal day, caused by the Earth's orbit about the sun.  This is what causes the stars to shift form night to night, and why the winter sky is different than the summer sky.

For time keeping purposes, we have defined a 'day' to be a solar day (The time the sun progresses through 360 degrees), instead of a sidereal day (The time the fixed stars progress through 360 degrees.)  Consequentially, this 1-degree of precession is not seen in the sun.  If terrestrial time were kept with respect to the stars, this effect would manifest itself by shifting sunrise and sunset by about 4 minutes a day as the year progressed.

2) A vertical shift to the North or South. This is caused by the Earth's axial tilt relative to the ecliptic, and manifests itself as the vertical 'height' of the analemma.  This effect is also used to define the Equinoxes and Solstice.

Equinoxes are defined as occurring when the sun occupies one of the two fixed locations in the sky where the great circle of the ecliptic crosses the projected great circle of Earth's equator.


3) A minuscule shift to the east or west.  This is a minuscule effect which results from the Earth's orbit not being perfectly circular.  Consequentially, Earth's orbital velocity is not perfectly constant, compared to our rotation rate, which is more or less constant.  This effect manifests itself as the 'width' of the analemma, and also as +/- 16-minute deviation from 'solar time' to 'true time.'



You are right that the sun traces out a figure 8 (analemma) over a course of a year, but this is due to terrestrial effects (3) and (2), and has no effect on the shape of the ecliptic.

Only effect (1) causes the sun to trace out the ecliptic.


*To be perfectly fair, there are actually four.  The fourth apparent motion of the sun is caused by the precession of the equinoxes, which results from the Earth's axis slowly shifting orientation in a 26,000-year cycle.  But this effect is insignificant compared to those listed above.

« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 05:30:56 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #22 on: December 05, 2007, 07:49:39 PM »
A more detailed way to think about it is this:

There are three* component motions to the sun's apparent motion across the sky.  One of them manifests itself as the sun's precession along the ecliptic, the other two manifest themselves as an apparent shift of the sun and ecliptic plane (together).

In components, the solar motions are these:

1) A regular precession of about 1 degree from west to east per sidereal day, caused by the Earth's orbit about the sun.  This is what causes the stars to shift form night to night, and why the winter sky is different than the summer sky.

For time keeping purposes, we have defined a 'day' to be a solar day (The time the sun progresses through 360 degrees), instead of a sidereal day (The time the fixed stars progress through 360 degrees.)  Consequentially, this 1-degree of precession is not seen in the sun.  If terrestrial time were kept with respect to the stars, this effect would manifest itself by shifting sunrise and sunset by about 4 minutes a day as the year progressed.

2) A vertical shift to the North or South. This is caused by the Earth's axial tilt relative to the ecliptic, and manifests itself as the vertical 'height' of the analemma.  This effect is also used to define the Equinoxes and Solstice.

Equinoxes are defined as occurring when the sun occupies one of the two fixed locations in the sky where the great circle of the ecliptic crosses the projected great circle of Earth's equator.


3) A minuscule shift to the east or west.  This is a minuscule effect which results from the Earth's orbit not being perfectly circular.  Consequentially, Earth's orbital velocity is not perfectly constant, compared to our rotation rate, which is more or less constant.  This effect manifests itself as the 'width' of the analemma, and also as +/- 16-minute deviation from 'solar time' to 'true time.'



You are right that the sun traces out a figure 8 (analemma) over a course of a year, but this is due to terrestrial effects (3) and (2), and has no effect on the shape of the ecliptic.

Only effect (1) causes the sun to trace out the ecliptic.


*To be perfectly fair, there are actually four.  The fourth apparent motion of the sun is caused by the precession of the equinoxes, which results from the Earth's axis slowly shifting orientation in a 26,000-year cycle.  But this effect is insignificant compared to those listed above.



ok, i'll trust you.  thanks for the detail.  you did make one false assumption though, that i was confusing anelma with ecliptic.  i wasn't.  the wording of the response i was responding to (too lazy to post the reference but it's just a few posts up) clearly indicated seemed to confuse the ecliptic with the anelma, i was merely clearing up that confusion.

a second mistake i believe you made (or i interpreted), is that the earth's tilt has any relation to how the sun's path through the sky can be said to define the ecliptic.  throughout a given year, that path through the sky will be different primarily due to axial tilt and orbital inclination.  but no matter, it still approximates the ecliptic.  the changing path the sun takes through the sky is the same as our changing perspective of the relatively (by comparison) "fixed" ecliptic.

in other words, i still think the path the sun traces in the sky is a reasonable approximation of the ecliptic, and a reasonable quick 'n dirty explanation that the layman could understand (s/he would not understand yours...unfortunately). 

but i'm not just making up my own rules (like many fe'ers do), many references - admittedly targeted to the layman - say about the same thing.

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #23 on: December 05, 2007, 08:19:46 PM »
Very well, sorry if I missed interpreted you.

But again, the sun's path in the sky does not approximate the ecliptic.  The sun's path defines the ecliptic.  Even when all other apparent sources of motion are taken into account, the sun never leaves the plane/path of the ecliptic.  Never.

"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2007, 11:15:12 AM »
Very well, sorry if I missed interpreted you.

But again, the sun's path in the sky does not approximate the ecliptic.  The sun's path defines the ecliptic.  Even when all other apparent sources of motion are taken into account, the sun never leaves the plane/path of the ecliptic.  Never.


ok.  i think we're pretty much in agreement then and i think i understand the problem you had with my description.

so now we are left with the original question of needing an fe explanation for why the planets in the fe model would not all be lined up close to the ecliptic, as is observed.  (the model in question is bishop's and at least one other fe'er.)

bishop is notably quiet on this topic.

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2007, 12:34:56 PM »
bump.

now we are left with the original question of needing an fe explanation for why the planets in the fe model would not all be lined up close to the ecliptic, as is observed.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17848
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2007, 12:37:12 PM »
bump.

now we are left with the original question of needing an fe explanation for why the planets in the fe model would not all be lined up close to the ecliptic, as is observed.

Why wouldn't they?

Re: ecliptic
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2007, 01:13:05 PM »
Tom, how do you explain the retrograde motion of Mars?
And the forces that cause the observation?

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2007, 01:24:01 PM »
bump.

now we are left with the original question of needing an fe explanation for why the planets in the fe model would not all be lined up close to the ecliptic, as is observed.

Why wouldn't they?

you said the planets orbit the sun, correct?  and the planets can be seen at night, correct?

?

cpt_bthimes

  • 553
  • exposer of lies
Re: ecliptic
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2007, 10:21:01 AM »
bump.

now we are left with the original question of needing an fe explanation for why the planets in the fe model would not all be lined up close to the ecliptic, as is observed.

Why wouldn't they?

you said the planets orbit the sun, correct?  and the planets can be seen at night, correct?

bump.  bishop has posted several times on this thread and completely evaded the question.  but this also means he is listening. 

bishop, you seem to be the only fe'er to believe this model.  so it is incumbent upon you (if you want to be taken seriously that is) to explain in your model the obvious observational phenomenon of the planets always and only appearing very close to the ecliptic.  this would not be possible with a sun 3,000 miles above the earth, and the planets orbiting the sun.  (and before you idiotically dodge the question again with "why wouldn't it", answer your own damn question about your own damn hypothesis and draw a diagram...try to make it work.  you'll find you can't.)