The trajectory of the planets over the flat Earth.
First of all, we have to remember that, when considering the flat earth, the heliocentric model is absolutely not reliable, misleading and completely far from the truth. Thus, just for a change, someone of the readers could imagine the geocentric model as a possible alternative.
The geocentric model in planets trajectory
As you can deduce from the side picture, planets are considered to move on concentric spheres of growing diameter.
According to this model, the sun and the moon are directly pictured as orbiting on a flat earth. Probably this pattern, at first view, would be considered acceptable by many “flat-earthers”, but we can easily prove that the model presented in the picture is illogical and scientifically wrong.
As indicated throughout many posts in this blog and proved in many different ways, the sun trajectory is a cone over the Earth and the orbits of this cone can be calculated at the time of the solstices. In order to reach the first approximation, these orbits can be traced by the help of trigonometry.
By using Demlo numbers and the magic square of the sun we have discovered that all numbers linked to the solar disk are multiple of 111.
Here are the numbers of the cone of the sun:
|Radius of the orbit||
Height of the orbit
The cone of planets along their trajectories
Now we have to consider the quite astonishing point that planets are always seen in the celestial hemisphere near the ecliptic, that is the trajectory of the sun in the sky. Astronomers approach this phenomenon by saying that it happens because each planet follows an orbit moving on the same plane of the ecliptic or presenting a very small angle in respect of it: this situation should immediately appear to the observer as something totally strange and the Newtonian gravitational theory could never explain such incredible layout of the planetary system since gravity should consent to the planets to rotate in very different orbits.
Now, considering the flat Earth model with the sun moving on a cone, how near to the ecliptic can a planet be seen, if it is far from the sun? If it is seen on the ecliptic when the sun is on the top of the cone, the same will be impossible when the sun will be on the bottom of it.
In the above picture, you can see the situation just described. The observer could actually see the sun and the planet on the ecliptic only once a year, proving thus this model is not correct. (I’ve represented the sun and the planet as being aligned to simplify comprehension: the basic model is that the sun and the planet on that day should follow trajectories that are running alongside).
At the sight of this picture you could think that, simply, the planet trajectory should be a cone that follows the sun during the year.
Yes, that’s true and, at first, it could be perceived as a good idea but only up to a certain point and not at all definitely. We should have to comprehend also how far from the sun the cone of the planet should be traced. In fact, when we consider a planet on a cone far from the cone of the sun, two observers, A and B, staying in two different points of the Earth, would not be able to watch contemporarily the sun and the planet on the ecliptic.
It can thus be proved that the cone of a planet has the necessity to follow closely the cone of the sun, in order to avoid problems with parallax and to allow the observers to see the planet near the ecliptic from all the places of the Earth. Here, of course, there’s no reference to the astronomical parallax, whose unreality has been proved in a previous article, since the Earth is motionless. The parallax we are referring to is simply the different sight that two people in two different points of the Earth can have of the planet. The observer B sees the planet on the ecliptic as it should be, but, when the observer A beholds the ecliptic he can’t find the planet if it is not aligned. It appears thus clear that the planet can’t be far from the ecliptic.
The movement of the planets, along with their cones, has to follow the motion of the sun in relation to the height, while it can be independent of the sun in longitude. These cones must then be traced considering the fact that there are internal and external planets. Mercury and Venus are internal, i.e. nearby the Earth, nearly inside the cone of the sun. The other planets are external, i.e. further outside the cone of the sun. In the images below you can behold the transits of Mercury and of Venus across the disk of the sun. This phenomenon drives the observer to believe that the cones of the two planets are internal, below the cone of the sun. When reading these considerations we should all be aware that things can be much more complicated than they appear. But this is a first step that will allow, in the near future, open-minded astronomers to make further improvements in scientific matters.
Mercury in front of the sun Venus in front of the sun
Magic squares and the planets trajectories
Now, after all these evaluations, I would like to use the magic squares to better define the trajectories of the several planets. About magic squares you could visit this blog and read the articles: “Magic Squares, Sator-Rotas and the “magic” numbers of the Sun and Moon”, or else “A theory on planets”.
|Planet||Order of the square||Constant|
We are obviously only trying to make hypothesis. I hope, in a probably not too distant future, calculations and/or observations, will confirm these data or correct them. Science always means making hypothesis and we should be given a chance to try. In the following table I’ll report the results that I have found.
I’ve highlighted in green planets for which the calculation is forced and there are no alternatives because the order of the square and the constant are big, so that it is the single possibility to calculate a cone near to the cone of the sun. For the three other planets, since digits are smaller, there are many other possibilities. What is not completely sure, and could be changed, is the multiplying factor I’ve highlighted in red. That variable will be probably better defined in the future. Let’s add to the series of planets also the moon and the sun, for which we possess more certain data.
I believe that the red numbers are potentially very interesting. They represent a series that can remind us of the law of Titius. The Titius-Bode Law is a rough rule that predicts the spacing of the planets in the Solar System. The relationship was first pointed out by Johann Titius in 1766 and was formulated as a mathematical expression by J.E. Bode in 1778. The law relates the mean distances of the planets from the sun to a simple mathematic progression of numbers.
Titius wrote:”Take notice of the distances of the planets from one another, and recognize that almost all are separated from one another in a proportion which matches their bodily magnitudes. Divide the distance from the Sun to Saturn into 100 parts; then Mercury is separated by four such parts from the Sun, Venus by 4+3=7 such parts, the Earth by 4+6=10, Mars by 4+12=16. But notice that from Mars to Jupiter there comes a deviation from this so exact progression. From Mars, there follows a space of 4+24=28 such parts, but so far no planet was sighted there. But should the Lord Architect have left that space empty? Not at all. Let us, therefore, assume that this space, without a doubt, belongs to the still undiscovered satellites of Mars, let us also add that perhaps Jupiter still has around itself some smaller ones which have not been sighted yet by any telescope. Next to this for us, still unexplored space there rises Jupiter’s sphere of influence at 4+48=52 parts, and that of Saturn at 4+96=100 parts”.
And in 1772, in the second edition of his astronomical compendium, Johann Elert Bode wrote:
“This latter point seems, in particular, to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts”.
Leaving apart these historical notations, when we consider 1 to be the distance of the earth from the sun (in a globular model) the distance of all planets can be described by this series:
0,39; 0,72; 1; 1,52; 5,20; 9,54; 19,18; 30,06; 39,51
Titius said that these values can be obtained with some approximation by writing this series of numbers:
0; 3; 6; 12; 24; 48; 96; 192
if you add 4 to each number and divide by 10:
0,4; 0,7; 1; 1,6; 2,8; 5,2; 10; 19,6
Could our red number be the new flat Earth Titius series?
2; 3; 5; 10; 21; 51; 155
It is certainly a fascinating hypothesis and I hope to reach soon the necessary knowledge and scientific proofs to validate or discard it. Bye, bye.