On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 8:10:10 AM UTC+1, Mike Collins wrote:

You haven't answered the question because it's hard to spot what's wrong in
a correct answer.


There is no question to answer, the original heliocentric astronomers got it right when it came to the observed motions of the slower moving outer planets as the faster moving Earth overtakes them thereby proving the Earth travels through space and around the Sun and not the other way around as the geocentric astronomers thought. The next step in the 21st century is probably using these so-called VR imaging techniques to help people visualize the observed planetary motions and putting them in context although I am perfectly content with the few time lapse images which exist presently which infers moving planets around a central star -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112/JuSa2000_tezel.gif

There is no such thing as true and apparent motions or absolute/relative space and motion into which Isaac tried to shove his backward notion of the observed motions into, there are just the normal judgments people use every day when they exercise relative motions when they walk or drive. The analogy of a car on a roundabout watching slower moving cars fall behind in view is a fair example of this as it applies to planetary motions and what the ancients seen as 'wandering'.







It is a deficiency in your reasoning process resulting in an artificial
structured view. The planets define themselves as 'wanderers' as seen by
the geocentric astronomers when thy thought everything moved around the
stationary Earth but it is an illusion once the relative speeds of the
Earth in its orbital motion around the Sun takes over -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

I could show you that time lapse footage a million times and back it up
with the comments of Galileo, Kepler or whoever, any observer with the
slightest trace of intellectual courage would tell you the slower moving
planets are falling behind in view as they appear to go backwards
temporarily as the faster Earth overtakes them but it is all done from a moving Earth.


You have shown that time lapse footage. Most of the viewers have watched
conjunctions for themselves and understand exactly what happens.

You haven't ever commented on the same view from a viewpoint stationary
with respect to the Sun.

This is one.


http://youtu.be/8fdrF9-g8us

This shows the smell conjunction. Point to the retrogrades.



No doubt it is some celestial sphere monstrosity which misses the whole point even when imaging tools display a wonderful view of the observed motions of the planets. The original heliocentric astronomers would have understood the need to partition the observed behavior of the outer planets from the inner planets but as telescopes only started to emerge around the time of Galileo and sequential imaging photography only lately, the present generation generally do quite well with Venus with the motion of Mercury implied in the same type of heliocentric perspective -

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Venus2.svg.png

Unlike the looping motions of the outer planets which are accounted for by the faster moving Earth, the loop of Venus and Mercury has very little to so with relative speeds between our planet and them but simply a grandstand view of the inner planets as they make a complete circuit of the Sun.

The loop of the outer planets Jupiter and Saturn look like this -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0112...loop_tezel.jpg

So planets are called 'wanders' for good reason but their wandering motions are account for in two different ways whereas the original heliocentric astronomers only used one way due to a technical issue in the transition from geocentric to heliocentric astronomer, in other words, they missed out on an observation which is now easily resolved at this time.

Newton is not worth my time but his followers sure are convinced he is right and they are generally found standing in front of students hence the problem.





Just goes to show the house of cards 'relativity' is insofar as Newton
conjured up absolute/relative space and motion based on his careless view
of the observed motions just as his followers can't bear to look at his
absolute/relative time in terms of the Equation of Time.


A house of cards can be easily toppled. Newton's laws are more like a
pyramid.





You are driven by an agenda which tries to substitute observed motions
which define planets with a weak minded vacuous appeal to size or
composition and make fools of yourselves in the process, it was this way
10 years ago when the debacle occurred as it remains so today.

If there is no lower limit to the size of planets every meteoroid counts as
a planet.
The ancients only called the wandering objects which were visible to the
naked eye planets. That rules out Neptune as well as Pluto.



The ancients couldn't see Uranus either but it too goes retrograde as the
Earth overtakes it -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031216.html

The people who make up the empiricist IAU vehicle have not made it to
adulthood in astronomical matters so they introduced a meaningless
problem about planetary size in order to distract from what actually
defines a planet whether it goes retrograde or not and there are no
images of the Earth overtaking Neptune but who needs affirmation that it
does and that is the whole point.




When you see the planets wander then you will know that the description
is contained in the word and the word contained in the description -

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html

We have a word for wander - it's "wander". For all who are not ancient
Greeks "planet" has a different meaning. We're talking about astronomy not
philology.


Empiricists look like kids running amok with astronomical language and
although words like retrograde, conjunctions,elongations, ect should be
left behind in the 21st century as people take it for granted that
observations seen from a moving Earth create the perspective of our
position and motion through space, your kind never made the transition
from geocentric to heliocentric reasoning and went backwards in celestial
sphere notions and a clockwork solar system.




If you don't set a lower levels to planetary size then 3834 Zappafrank is a
planet.

If you don't have a minimum size for a planet every meteoroid is a planet
and the word takes on a completely different meaning.