Mercury and Venus at Night Debunk Heliocentrism

In the heliocentric model of the universe, our Sun is at the center of a solar system, orbited by the planets in the order of Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Due to this arrangement, as you can see in the following image, since Mercury and Venus are situated closer to the Sun than the Earth, an observer on Earth would have to always be facing the Sun in order to view them. If an Earth observer was on the dark half facing away from the Sun, it would of course be impossible to see Mercury or Venus because the entire mass of the globe-Earth they believe they're standing on would be in the way blocking their ability to see Mercury, Venus and the Sun. This means that in the heliocentric model, the only time an observer on Earth should ever be able to see Mercury and Venus is during the day when the Sun is also visible. For an observer on the globe-Earth to be able to see Mercury and/or Venus at night time is simply impossible.

As you can see in the following clips, however, and you can find by filming or searching for yourself, depending where and when you're shooting from, Mercury and Venus can and are both visible at night. For hours before dawn and hours after dusk, these luminaries can be seen shining bright with the Sun nowhere to be found. Again, if these luminaries were truly orbiting around the heliocentric solar system, the ONLY times they could be visible to an observer on Earth, the Sun would also be visible. Naysayers will claim that seeing these luminaries before dawn or after dusk is due to some perfect angle achieved where the Sun is being totally blocked by their ball-Earth but the inner planets are somehow still visible. When we film Venus two hours before sunrise or two hours after sunset, however, the reality is that the globe-Earth would be 210 degrees away from the Sun, with hundreds of miles of curved Earth blocking their view to anything on the other side and no line of sight possible.

This is just one of hundreds of such proofs that you are not living on a tilting, wobbling, spinning space-ball in a CGI solar system. When ready to finally cure your chronic vertigo and cease your dizzying spin around the galaxy, please sit down with an open-mind and humble-heart to watch or read the following presentation 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball. Thank you: https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-a-spinning-ball-english/

Great stuff Eric!

Looks like a Porsha asked this very same question in a physics forum back in 2016 and she does not receive an answer she deems satisfactory. I’ll include the link.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/mercury-can-be-seen-at-night.890099/

The common answer is elongation. But the answer doesn’t make any sense. When an inferior planet (closest to the sun) is visible after sunset, it is near its greatest eastern elongation. When an inferior planet is visible before sunrise, it is near its greatest western elongation. One user included a picture explaining elongation. Admits the earth’s size is exaggerated. However the exaggerated size of the earth is the reason why mercury is visible at night. None of the answers make sense.

Hello everyone.  Last night here on the South Carolina coast, I observed Venus shining brightly way above the horizon in the night sky. It remained visible and at a high angle to my vantage point for hours. There is absolutely no way that this wandering star (or "planet" as we've been taught) should be visible at all during the nighttime.  The inner "planets" Mercury and Venus would only be viewable from Earth during daylight hours, if we actually lived on a spinning globe.  This one fact alone seems to totally disprove the heliocentric model which most of the world believes.  However, on a flat earth with circling moon, sun and stars above, it makes 100% perfect sense.  

_Gary_ wrote:Hello everyone.  Last night here on the South Carolina coast, I observed Venus shining brightly way above the horizon in the night sky. It remained visible and at a high angle to my vantage point for hours. There is absolutely no way that this wandering star (or "planet" as we've been taught) should be visible at all during the nighttime.  The inner "planets" Mercury and Venus would only be viewable from Earth during daylight hours, if we actually lived on a spinning globe.  This one fact alone seems to totally disprove the heliocentric model which most of the world believes.  However, on a flat earth with circling moon, sun and stars above, it makes 100% perfect sense.  

Yes... exactly.

I would love the video! It should happen for the next few nights. You can rent a nikon p900 for 3 days for 22 bucks.
https://www.lensfly.com/product_p/n-ca-p900.htm

it would be great to compare what you shoot with stellarium or other simple phone apps.

I'm going to look tonight. Thanks for posting.

Hi all.
I'm down in Tasmania, Australia and I've been seeing Venus in the night sky at about 50° above the horizon or so. Crazy high.
Absolutely not possible on spinning ball, but globers always use their elongation excuse to try to justify it. As a flat earther you know its bullshit, but for globers, its enough to keep that cognitive dissonance from becoming so unstable that it pries open their minds just enough to see the truth.
Anyway, I decided to see if I could quantify the angles and duration of Venus visibility and ended up having great success.
I used paint.net to craft a to scale model of the solar system up to Earth's orbit, no need to go any farther than that. Being the ridiculous distances the Nassholes give us, I had to start off with a 20,000 x 20,000 pixel canvas size to get everything correct.
I used a Nasa site and timeanddate.com as sources of info, of which I added the screen shots and links in the diagram.
Anyway, once I finished, I reduced the canvas size as much as possible (6,000 x 6,000 pixels) and found that if I reduce any smaller than this, the tiny to scale planets start to get lost.
This is too big to just post on here, but I'd love to share it with you all for 2 reasons...firstly to double check that my math and logic are correct and secondly, assuming it checks out, to share my work for further evidence and a quantified version of the Venus visible at night conundrum that the globers have a weak response for.
So can someone please advise a way for me to somehow post this picture, or somewhere I can embed it and link it or something?
Cheers,
Justin

Ok, so I've decided to just take screen shots of each part of the diagram.  I've combined them into a couple of images and then my math and logic on its own picture.

This is the whole image plus the zoomed in parts of the diagram that show angle of the 'greatest western elongation' of Venus' orbit.


This is the info I used for data.


This is my math and reasoning of what is visible from the above to scale diagram, verified by multiple sources.


Please let me know if it doesn't make sense or whether I've missed something that a baller would use to dismiss the whole thing.

Cheers, Justin

My simplistic drawing of how I guess at quite some moments they're visible, but not around midnight:

On the heliocentric model, the size of Venus would significantly change throughout its observational cycle in accordance with the distance between itself and the Earth.

Based on the "data" presented by NASA, the distance between Earth and Venus at its closest point is around 30-million miles.. yet at it's furthest from the Earth (within observation), it would place it over 5x that distance away .. around 150-million miles .. that's further than the distance between Earth and the Sun

Yet it's observed as being the same size the entire cycle; morning and night.

Dactylion wrote:On the heliocentric model, the size of Venus would significantly change throughout its observational cycle in accordance with the distance between itself and the Earth.

Based on the "data" presented by NASA, the distance between Earth and Venus at its closest point is around 30-million miles.. yet at it's furthest from the Earth (within observation), it would place it over 5x that distance away .. around 150-million miles .. that's further than the distance between Earth and the Sun  

Yet it's observed as being the same size the entire cycle; morning and night.

This is also the same with the other "planets" in our solar systems. Also as the solar system shoots through the universe and other stars move towards or away from us the stars that we are moving close to should seem to grow brighter, bigger and should seem to move apart due to the law of perspective and subsequently stars and constellations that we are moving away from in the universe should appear to dim and the visible size between the stars grow shorter. However in all of recorded history the stars and constellations have never changed, no parallax and no observable movement through the universe proven bye the fact that stars all appear at the same distance and never change angular in angular size after thousands of years.