Planets.

[Vasher]

By the planets I mean the heated pieces of metal that move faster than the stars but not as fast as meteors. The ones given names like Mars, Venus and Mercury.
How would I go about predicting the position of the planets on a day in the future, there is lots of data online I could use to see where the planets have been in the sky from my towns perspective in the past. How do I use this data to find there position tomorrow or next month.
Ill do the calculations myself, but I can't think of a method.

[JRowe]

Just note the speed they move at with respect to the Sun: as the Sun is at the center of the whirlpool, they will appear to rotate around it. Their behavior won't alter any substantial amount, so just note down past behavior, and find the relative position bearing that in mind.

Just to quickly clarify on your definition of planets, they're metal encased in rock, and speed is a trickier thing to calculate simply because they're observed in a different way to stars. After all, for example, the Sun just rotates rather than moves under DET, and yet it seems to move faster than most celestial objects.

[Vasher]

How would I measure their speed, since they are under the disk their light has been bent around and upwards onto the disk, how to I find their actual location. I would calculate the sun as being below the north poll as I am in the northern hemisphere, but how would I find the position of Venus, the distance traveled by the light is known, but what would the shape of the curve of light be.

[JRowe]

Dec 25, 2015 17:17:18 GMT Vasher said:

How would I measure their speed, since they are under the disk their light has been bent around and upwards onto the disk, how to I find their actual location. I would calculate the sun as being below the north poll as I am in the northern hemisphere, but how would I find the position of Venus, the distance traveled by the light is known, but what would the shape of the curve of light be.

If you mean the precise location beneath the Earth, that should be determinable by cross-referencing with other planets and their locations relative to the Sun. If we want to find their location in polar coordinates (origin at the Sun), the angle would be found by drawing a straight line from a Pole to the planet. The radius should be found by a sufficient scaling of the relative distances of each planet from the Sun. (Closer to the center, the closer to the Earth they appear: more of a flow carries their image, hence appearing at a lower whirlpool's arch inwards).
The concentration of aether will decrease subject to the inverse square law depending on distance from the Sun (in the horizontal plane). Bearing its relationship to distance in mind, and the fact it is negligible at and near the rim, this gives us the scaling (once the radius of the Earth is known. I don't have anywhere near the resources to calculate it with any accuracy), and so the coordinate of the planet is known, and subsequently the curve of light can be calculated.
I hope that makes sense.

[Vasher]

Ok I get finding the angle, I'm still confused about the distance, call the apparent distance a, the radius of earth r, and actual distance b, what would the formula relating them be if I was standing at the poll.
Also what is apparent distance, how do I find that.
And with rotation of the planet's, how do I account for the reverse whirlpools causing retrograde motion.

[Vasher]

Ok I think I get what apparent distance is, its what the planets distance would be if the light had traveled in a straight line, so you would need to find the planets size to find apparent distance, any ideas on calculating size of a planet?

[Marcus]

I don't get it though. If I'm doing the same thing to find the future position of a planet that I would on another model then why wouldn't I just go by the already existing model? It doesn't seem like this model changed anything other then just saying the reason is different.

[JRowe]

Ok I think I get what apparent distance is, its what the planets distance would be if the light had traveled in a straight line, so you would need to find the planets size to find apparent distance, any ideas on calculating size of a planet?

Approximately, so long as the variations of aether are taken into account. A curved path of light wouldn't alter the distance travelled.
The size of a planet's tricky. Easiest would be to work in terms of the size of another object, like the Sun. My feeling is that the Sun's size can be calculated by comparing the length of a day (its rotational speed being once a day) to rotation caused by a similar source: the full-scale Coriolis effect or, easier to measure, circumpolar stars. Using speed equals distance over time, that would give us the circumference of the Sun: from that, the diameter is easy.

I don't get it though. If I'm doing the same thing to find the future position of a planet that I would on another model then why wouldn't I just go by the already existing model? It doesn't seem like this model changed anything other then just saying the reason is different.

I'm not sure what you're saying. The existence, location and movement of the planet is observed: that behavior isn't going to alter because it's brute fact. Why it happens is what's important to any model. The reason for the behavior is all that can possibly change.

[JRowe]

Dec 25, 2015 21:29:22 GMT Vasher said:

And with rotation of the planet's, how do I account for the reverse whirlpools causing retrograde motion.

Also, on this, the whirlpools above a hemiplane all travel the same direction.

[Marcus]

Dec 26, 2015 21:44:12 GMT JRowe said:

Ok I think I get what apparent distance is, its what the planets distance would be if the light had traveled in a straight line, so you would need to find the planets size to find apparent distance, any ideas on calculating size of a planet?

Approximately, so long as the variations of aether are taken into account. A curved path of light wouldn't alter the distance travelled.
The size of a planet's tricky. Easiest would be to work in terms of the size of another object, like the Sun. My feeling is that the Sun's size can be calculated by comparing the length of a day (its rotational speed being once a day) to rotation caused by a similar source: the full-scale Coriolis effect or, easier to measure, circumpolar stars. Using speed equals distance over time, that would give us the circumference of the Sun: from that, the diameter is easy.

I don't get it though. If I'm doing the same thing to find the future position of a planet that I would on another model then why wouldn't I just go by the already existing model? It doesn't seem like this model changed anything other then just saying the reason is different.

I'm not sure what you're saying. The existence, location and movement of the planet is observed: that behavior isn't going to alter because it's brute fact. Why it happens is what's important to any model. The reason for the behavior is all that can possibly change.

That's what I'm saying, I don't see anything in the model to say why yours is more believable then another. I can see your why, but if all the observations and predictions are the same what is your model bringing to the table that is new? I was looking for something that could only be explained by your model but I did come across anything. I'm trying to convince someone about this but without anything unique to this model I don't have much to go on. Is there anything in your model that can only be explained by your model.

[JRowe]

Dec 26, 2015 22:04:18 GMT Marcus said:

That's what I'm saying, I don't see anything in the model to say why yours is more believable then another. I can see your why, but if all the observations and predictions are the same what is your model bringing to the table that is new? I was looking for something that could only be explained by your model but I did come across anything. I'm trying to convince someone about this but without anything unique to this model I don't have much to go on. Is there anything in your model that can only be explained by your model.

There are difference between the models (given in the overview), but I don't have the resources to test them.
If someone is insisting that a new model must explain something new however, they're either lying or evading: that's simply not true. if that were the case, science would be ruled by tradition: oldest model wins. If two models explain equal amounts however (predictions aside), it does not follow that they are equally valid. It's times like that Occcam's Razor comes into play.
The evidence section of the overview goes into much more detail as to your answer.

[Marcus]

Dec 26, 2015 22:16:19 GMT JRowe said:

Dec 26, 2015 22:04:18 GMT Marcus said:

That's what I'm saying, I don't see anything in the model to say why yours is more believable then another. I can see your why, but if all the observations and predictions are the same what is your model bringing to the table that is new? I was looking for something that could only be explained by your model but I did come across anything. I'm trying to convince someone about this but without anything unique to this model I don't have much to go on. Is there anything in your model that can only be explained by your model.

There are difference between the models (given in the overview), but I don't have the resources to test them.
If someone is insisting that a new model must explain something new however, they're either lying or evading: that's simply not true. if that were the case, science would be ruled by tradition: oldest model wins. If two models explain equal amounts however (predictions aside), it does not follow that they are equally valid. It's times like that Occcam's Razor comes into play.
The evidence section of the overview goes into much more detail as to your answer.

Well my issue with him is that he brought up the definition of scientific theory on me and it does say if the observation can be explained by something else then it can not be a valid scientific hypotheses. If all observations are the same I don't really know how to rebut that :/

[JRowe]

Dec 26, 2015 22:39:19 GMT Marcus said:

Dec 26, 2015 22:16:19 GMT JRowe said:

There are difference between the models (given in the overview), but I don't have the resources to test them.
If someone is insisting that a new model must explain something new however, they're either lying or evading: that's simply not true. if that were the case, science would be ruled by tradition: oldest model wins. If two models explain equal amounts however (predictions aside), it does not follow that they are equally valid. It's times like that Occcam's Razor comes into play.
The evidence section of the overview goes into much more detail as to your answer.

Well my issue with him is that he brought up the definition of scientific theory on me and it does say if the observation can be explained by something else then it can not be a valid scientific hypotheses. If all observations are the same I don't really know how to rebut that :/

It's simply not true: that's all. There will be an alternative explanation for every possible observation: the cliche "God did it," is the perfect example, as is "Actually everything's all a dream." Both would rely on fundamentally different explanations, and are valid in every situation.
What matters is the assumption that relies on the fewest assumptions. "God did it," assumes a deity, that the deity has the power to do 'it,' and the desire. Three assumptions, many with their own inherent assumptions. "All a dream," assumes an 'overworld' in which we really exist, the fact that there is life in this overworld, that dreams and sleep of some description exist in this world, and that this is one such dream: and again, many contain their own inherent assumptions.
They're valid alternative explanations, but are rejected in scientific theory as relying on too many assumptions.

[Marcus]

Dec 27, 2015 13:59:17 GMT JRowe said:

Dec 26, 2015 22:39:19 GMT Marcus said:

Well my issue with him is that he brought up the definition of scientific theory on me and it does say if the observation can be explained by something else then it can not be a valid scientific hypotheses. If all observations are the same I don't really know how to rebut that :/

It's simply not true: that's all. There will be an alternative explanation for every possible observation: the cliche "God did it," is the perfect example, as is "Actually everything's all a dream." Both would rely on fundamentally different explanations, and are valid in every situation.
What matters is the assumption that relies on the fewest assumptions. "God did it," assumes a deity, that the deity has the power to do 'it,' and the desire. Three assumptions, many with their own inherent assumptions. "All a dream," assumes an 'overworld' in which we really exist, the fact that there is life in this overworld, that dreams and sleep of some description exist in this world, and that this is one such dream: and again, many contain their own inherent assumptions.
They're valid alternative explanations, but are rejected in scientific theory as relying on too many assumptions.

Ok, now you are arguing with the exact definition of a term. I can't take this seriously anymore, I'm done. Good luck with... whatever this is...

[JRowe]

Dec 31, 2015 18:10:13 GMT Marcus said:

Ok, now you are arguing with the exact definition of a term. I can't take this seriously anymore, I'm done. Good luck with... whatever this is...

I'm not sure what you're saying. You were referencing an incoherent definition of evidence or a justified belief, it seems entirely valid to point that out.
If you aren't interested in discussion, goodbye.