Hello, guys! As you remember, we started just reasoning about parallax and magical squares. Our goal was to define the trajectory of the sun, the moon, and the planets. We were also curious about their relative distances and their orbit radiuses.
To recap a bit, you could try again the article published on this blog “Planets trajectory over the flat Earth”.
Going on through my research I believe that there are some confirmation and improvement of the theory.
Attached below you can see the table with all data previously found.
Somebody could object against this model and, consequently, I just want to check the theory. I only want to know if it is robust enough, or if it falls under intelligent attacks.
Planet Venus transits in front of the moon.
A clever objection could be expressed in these terms. Moon is positioned quite near to the sun, at 6642 km at the higher position. It occupies also a higher position in respect of the internal planets. If this is a real situation why did they never observe a passage of Venus over the moon? Passages over the sun are visible, why not over the moon?
This objection seems to be smart. If Venus orbits under the moon it could happen sometime that Venus passes in front of it. In that case, we should see a little black point passing in front of the moon. But to answer this objection we briefly review the trajectories of the sun, the moon, and Venus.
The sun, as I have often explained, has a conical trajectory with these orbit radiuses: 6660km – 13320 km. The cone is run up and down in 365,25 days.
On the other hand, the moon travels a very similar but rather smaller cone. This cone is run in a much shorter period: up and down in 27,32 days.(27,32 days is the sidereal period of the moon). It appears thus evident that the sun and the moon will be for the major part of the time at different heights. Only two times every 27,32 days it happens that the moon passes over the ecliptic (the sun’s trajectory). Even more rarely the moon and the sun will be near on the ecliptic. What about Venus?
We have to consider that Venus is an internal or inferior planet. That means that it orbits a cone smaller than that of the sun. On a heliocentric system, an inferior planet is nearest to the sun in comparison with the earth. Watched from the Earth, Venus never runs too distant from the sun. So the maximum angle from Venus and the sun is of 47°. Venus is a planet, and as all the planets do, it moves on an orbit that is near to the ecliptic. It never averts from the sun ecliptic more than a few degrees.
Maybe you could think that Venus quite often passes in front of the sun. Why? Since Venus is always near to the ecliptic and seems to orbit around the sun. Moreover, it budges with a retrograde movement that keeps it at a maximum distance angle of 47°. That means that it lingers too and fro in similar positions for a time.
The first observation of a transit was done by twenty-one Jeremiah Horrocks on 4 December 1639. This transit had been foreseen by Kepler(1571-1630), but only Horrocks (1618-1641) succeeded in observing it.
Horrocks was concerned that the weather would be unfavorable for the transit. It was the beginning of December at his location in Much Hoole. He had determined the latitude of the site to be 53° 35′. He believed the rare planetary conjunction could produce severe weather:
“The chance of a clouded atmosphere caused me much anxiety; for Jupiter and Mercury were in conjunction with the Sun almost at the same time as Venus. This remarkable assemblage of the planets (as if they were desirous of beholding, in common with ourselves, the wonders of the heavens, and of adding to the splendor of the scene), seemed to forebode great severity of the weather. Mercury, whose conjunction with the Sun is invariably attended with storm and tempest, was especially to be feared. In this apprehension I coincide with the opinion of the astrologers because it is confirmed by experience; but in other respects, I cannot help despising their more puerile vanities”.
— Jeremiah Horrocks, Venus in sole visa
Horrocks had a friend, William Crabtree, another astronomer. They probably never met in person but from 1636 they corresponded regularly.
Crabtree made his observations too but had insufficient time to make any measurements. It was cloudy in Broughton, and thus he only saw the transit briefly. According to Horrocks: “Rapt in contemplation he stood for some time, scarcely trusting his own senses, through excess of joy … In a little while, the clouds again obscured the face of the Sun, so that he could observe nothing more than that Venus was certainly on the disc at the time.” Afterward, he made “so rapid a sketch” of Venus as it had passed across the Sun’s disc. It allowed Crabtree to estimate the angular size of Venus to be 1′ 3″. Horrocks’s estimate of 1′ 12″ was less accurate.
Incidentally, about Horrock’s raptures of joy, upon discovery of the flat earth astronomy, I often feel the same.
In October 1639, Horrocks had calculated that transits of Venus occur not singly, but in pairs eight years apart. He realized that the second transit would occur in less than four weeks. He wrote to his younger brother and to Crabtree in Broughton, advising them to observe the event on Sunday, 4 December. To quote Horrocks: ” I rejoiced exceedingly in the prospect of seeing Venus”. Of course, I can only share his feelings.
So Horrocks understood that Venus transits happen in couples in 8 years. But attention, Venus transits are between the rare astronomical events. They happen with a scheme that repeats every 243 years, with couples of transits divided by 8 years that repeat in larger periods of 121,5 and 105,5 years.
The last but one couple of transit happened in 1874 and 1882. The nearest transit of the current couple happened in 2004 and the next one on 6-6-2012. Above I have attached a table with the transits occurred in the last 400 years.
It is so rare to see Venus passing in front of the sun, even if Venus stays constantly near the sun. Consequently, we can understand why a transit of Venus in front of the moon has never been registered. The motions of Venus and the Moon are completely independent and the moon doesn’t remain on the ecliptic. On the contrary, Venus tends to remain very near to the sun and the ecliptic.
I want here to discuss another objection that some time has been moved from my theory. I have often described planets as laying on a conical trajectory more or less near to the sun’s cone. The objection is that planets orbiting so near one to the other should project a shadow one over the other. This point, for example, should be clearly evident when considering Jupiter and Saturn. Their cones seem to be quite near.
But I need to ask you one question: are you sure that planets cast shadows? See the image below.
A light doesn’t cast a shadow. So if planets are lights without mass, they don’t cast shadows.
It is very likely that planets, the sun, and the moon have no mass. They are light sources that follow electromagnetic laws. Another consideration is concerning planet dimensions. Are they so big that their shadow could hide the planet behind? How can we calculate planets dimension?
Let’s start to calculate the diameter of the sun. Seen from the Earth the Sun covers an angle of 0,5 degrees. Let’s suppose to see the sun from a distance of 7000kms that seems to be a good average for Europe latitude.
Looking at the picture aside, we can calculate the diameter of the sun that would result respecting the following data d=61kms. d=2*7000*tg(0,5°/2).
If we think about the numbers used till now in relation to the sun the number 6 immediately catches the eye.
If we think to the sun magical square, we can suppose that sun diameter is maybe 66,6kms. For the moon, that covers an angle of 0,5° too, the diameter could be 66,4kms.This is also a result that corresponds to the moon magical square (369x9x2). You can here, possibly, revise the numerical table on top of the post.
Let’s search for the other planets.
Jupiter covers an angle of 40” that means a diameter (for a distance of 7000kms) of 1,35kms. The magical square of Jupiter has magical constant 34 and order 4 from which we obtain d=34*4=136. d=1,36kms. Horrocks would have been ravished for the result. So am I!
By the way, what about you? Maybe you would prefer not to consider the magical squares. Granted. You can, however, understand that planets are small. How could a planet less than 1,5km in diameter cast a shadow on another planet hundreds of kilometers far away?
My theory, up to now, seems to resist well. Let’s wait some more time to see if it will keep on. Bye, bye, my reader.