They've lied to the world about the stars

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 28, 2023, 11:06:46 AM

Have you honestly just created a thread saying technology which is informed by science, is now refuting science? So, the same camera technology which is used in super powerful telescopes which take us up close and personal to planets and other galaxies, is now disproving stars as suns?

Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

I haven't taken their pills, swallowed their bs, accepted their endless excuses for hiding rockets from us after the first 3-4 minutes, claiming they've seen millions of things in 'space' through their telescopes, and never once allowing us to see or confirm if it is actually TRUE or not!

When you tell me this is all about 'SCIENCE', it SHOULD BE about science, and not about HIDING things from us, preventing others from CONFIRMING the CLAIMS of scientists, with a pack of BS excuses for hiding things from us!

THAT is the pill YOU'VE been taking all this time, sadly. 

Science IS, in it's true form, it's proper form, about the truth, seeking the truth, finding the truth, whenever possible, and - MOST IMPORTANT - it is about being OPEN, HONEST, and TRANSPARENT in all things, all claims made, all actions, findings, and conclusions...

Do you even REALIZE what those bunch of liars, known as 'astronomers', have always DONE, since day one? 

They've always made claims, about seeing things, in 'outer space', to the whole world, and have NEVER, EVER, let others, let us, the public, SEE what THEY have claimed to see, through their telescopes, and never WILL let anyone else see through them, at any object, or 'distant, unknown galaxies', etc. which we have NEVER seen, nor CAN see, because those BS artists don't ever LET anyone else see through them, using BS excuses, which are NEVER, EVER allowed, with any ACTUAL sciences, which, as I've just said, are open, honest, and fully transparent, in all actions, all claims, all findings, results, tests, and conclusions.

When a so-called 'science', is about observations of something nobody can even SEE by eye, or by our OWN instruments, our OWN telescopes, or after we DO have such instruments, have made up a story about how stars cannot be seen properly using the same methods used for ALL things we see, through the same instruments! 

After they made up a BS story, that claims only ONE object, must use this, um...unique method, which is absurd, and NEVER used, because it makes objects with light, in the distance, look like BLOBS of light, if it WAS done, by letting in all EXTERNAL light, from elsewhere, which does NOT come from the object itself!

How can anyone not UNDERSTAND that it does NOT work, in any way? 

You can keep on arguing that it DOES work, and I'll keep on explaining to you why it can NEVER work, and say using that 'method' for objects with light, in the distance, ON EARTH, which ALSO appear to us as 'tiny points of light' in the distance, they ALSO would look like blobs of light, and then sharpen them, into a SHARP blob of light!

Even if stars WERE 'trillions of miles away from Earth', and even if there WERE an 'endless space or universe, and somehow, it is PITCH BLACK everywhere else, but stars, even though they've also told us there's COUNTLESS stars out there, in 'endless space', which would BLANKET our skies at night, with those countless stars out in 'space', but whatever, it's all TRUE, because they've TOLD US it is all true!  And they've SEEN it! And TOLD us what they have seen, through their powerful telescopes, nobody else is allowed to see through!

That's NOT a science, it may be CALLED a 'science', and believed by the masses as a 'science', because all of us were TOLD, and TAUGHT, it was a 'science', so I ONCE DID believe it was a 'science', without any clue about it as the very OPPOSITE of a science, which I later found out.

So over 10000 years, or so, until the telescope was invented, we used many, many different instruments, for magnification of objects in the distance, land in the distance, while at sea, and it became standard to use these instruments on ships, and in surveying land, and so forth.

Those instruments were very, very important, and they made ever more advanced instruments, that saw things ever further out in the distance, saw things closer up, etc.

We had small scopes, and binoculars, among many others, as rival companies worked on developing ever better, more powerful instruments, and did so, and sold many, many of these instruments, around the world.

Everyone here has binoculars, or most of us do, for example. A lot of us have telescopes, or had one, or can get one, but never, ever, can get one as good as 'astronomers' have!

If we had all those instruments, before the telescope came along, it would make sense to build them, sell them, around the world, in the same way, right?

But what was done, with the telescope, was to PREVENT them from us, to build them for a great, newly created field of 'science', that will use those powerful instruments, which will make stars, and planets, seen very, very close up, as never before could be! 

Because up to that point, we were told, and taught, over and over again, for absolutely NO reason, nor useful or worthwhile to know, no matter if it IS true, or is NOT true, because it's entirely irrelevant, and useless to bleat about to children, of any age, let alone a 7 year old, or 12 year old, clueless about basic geography, at that point!  What a joke!

If you cannot understand, it is simply a ruse, a con, a trick to fool people about how to 'see stars', up close....you choose not to see it as a ruse, a trick.

Isn't it odd, that if all we could ever hope to see of all the stars, with any instrument, right now, or ever made in the future, will always show stars as nothing more than tiny points of light, from using them on Earth, anyway!

While they also claim to see unknown, much more distant stars, and galaxies, nobody else has ever seen, or allowed to see!   This is a complete perversion of any sort of actual science.

This is how any science can be used two ways, one is for reality, and truth, and transparent, the other way is in hiding all of the truth, making up lies about truths, and so on.

See the distinction here?

For anyone thinking about subscribing to flat earth belief just read the above post which must rate as one of the most non thinking pieces of rubbish ever.

For example what exactly were they on about when they said this:-

“So over 10000 years, or so, until the telescope was invented, we used many, many different instruments, for magnification of objects in the distance, land in the distance, while at sea, and it became standard to use these instruments on ships, and in surveying land, and so forth.”

If anyone knows what they are on about could they please explain.

That poster has clearly lost the plot!

My argument is based on all the valid evidence, which is from valid and independent sources, each of them unrelated or linked to the other sources, and unbiased and not linked to them.

No, your argument is based upon ignore the limitations of the evidence, and doing things like claiming there is no outside, because all you see in the windows is curtains, and cells don't exist because you can't see them with a magnifying glass.

The issue is you are claiming things which this evidence cannot support.

and that’s not evidence at all.

Because you hate that it shows you are wrong, so you reject it.

Any sort of bs like ‘space’ is so easily proven as bs

Yet you continually fail to do so.
What proves it as BS?
That it contradicts your fantasy?

They’ve told us many times before, that they DO want to prove that their story is true

Where?

See, they are far more likely to realise that for honest, sane people, there is already plenty of evidence to show it is true.
But for dishonest or insane people (like you), NOTHING will ever be good enough.
Even if you went into a space ship, and went all the way to Saturn, to see the 5 belts clearly with your own eyes, you would still dismiss it as fake.
Because people like you are not interested in the truth. You are just interested in pretending your fantasy is true.

When I hear your same old excuse that they don’t need to prove something I consider as proof of this, just because I say they should do it…..

Try saying that again properly.
It isn't an excuse.
It is them not meeting your pathetic demands.
They do not need to provide the proof in the exact way you demand it.
There are mountains of evidence showing you are wrong. But you reject it all, and come up with more and more ridiculous demands as an excuse to dismiss it all.

No, this would prove it

No more so than it is already proven. And liars like you will still dismiss it.

by launching one rocket straight upward

They already did, and you dismissed it, showing yet again that you are lying to everyone.

If you want to know the truth, that will show us the truth.

You have already been shown the truth, you just reject it because you don't want the truth. You want your fantasy.

And worse, you can’t say how it was better than all of our telescopes are today!

Why do you keep clinging to this strawman?
We do have better telescopes today.
That does not mean EVERY telescope today is better.
There is still cheap crap which is far worse.

Stop with this crap as if it supports you in any way.
All it does is show how desperate and pathetic you and your position are.

What you don’t understand about their claims of seeing those things on Saturn, were the reason it became thought of as another ‘planet’, like Earth was said to be, in ‘endless space’

No, it wasn't.
It was already known to be a planet before then.
So this BS of yours doesn't work.

Again, it just shows how pathetic and desperate you and your position is.

They didn't need any of what you claim is a lie to show Saturn was a planet.

The obvious large area in the middle of Saturns orb, turned into 5 distinct belts

Did you even bother reading the claim?
Try again, this time with your eyes open.

Those claims are not ever seen to exist at all on Saturn.

By people like you who choose to remain wilfully ignorant.
It is hard to see things when you keep your eyes closed.

We see only that Saturn is in a constant, endless, rapid rotational movement, among other motions as well.

No, we don't.
That is just your fantasy.

if I don’t do all that, you say I have no proof of them lying at all!!

Because you don't.
Again, if you want to show they are lying, you need to show that they couldn't have seen what they claimed.
This means using an instrument as good or better, and in conditions as good or better.
You cannot honestly use your wilful ignorance to pretend that inferior crap is good enough.

The alternative is something else you have refused to do, demonstrate the instruments in question should be capable of seeing what they claimed.
Such as by making a 1 m wide circle with lots of details for you to observe, and then observing it from a distance of 10 km through sea level atmosphere and showing it appear perfectly motionless.

What you are doing is like saying someone who saw cells through a microscope must be lying, because you can't see it through a magnifying glass and you don't want to know the details of the microscope that was used.

Those superior telescopes have never taken videos of anything like Saturn at all

Because such videos are pointless.
And they wouldn't convince dishonest people like you, so there really is no point in them.
You wanting people to do it doesn't mean they have to.

if I find an equally amazing telescope like they had, and it will show these same things on Saturn that they saw, right?

If you find a telescope as good or better, and use it in the same atmospheric conditions or better, with Saturn in the appropriate relative position and orientation, then yes.
But you don't want to do that.
You want to use crap you know is inferior to pretend it couldn't have been seen.

Like all flat earth based arguments no thinking is ever used in constructing their so called arguments.

The claim;

 “ we have been lied to about the stars”

Is rather ironic as the claim itself and the nature of the limp non-argument that supports it is based on a whole series of lies and ignorance, such is the nature of the flat earth belief system.

The amount of information about the stars or the cosmos in general is, like the universe itself, expanding every day. The claim by the idiot who started this discussion that powerful telescopes are not available to the public is not only a lie but a grossly stupid one as anyone who has the slightest power of thought can easily fact check that particular whopper.

This whole discussion is, like all other flat earth claims, based on nothing more than lies, ignorance and a distortion of the truth to such an extent that to believe the claim any individual must have zero power of individual thought.

Part of the fault for this situation sits with certain people who in the way they approach such discussions lend legitimacy to the flat earth point of view.

Just as this particular question is based on lies, distortion of the truth and unthinking ignorance so resides all flat earth thinking which is why there is no way such anti-thought could ever yield any thing that could be considered a model.

Just as there is no such thing as a flat earth model there is no such thing as a globularist or globe believer. For to subscribe to that way of thinking suggests there is an alternative to the truth of reality itself. 

The truth and reality are independent of what one chooses to believe which is clearly demonstrated by the individual who began this discussion. Any lies that exist are all their own making .

https://www.astroshop.eu/telescopes/officina-stellare-ritchey-chretien-rc-800-6400-pro-rc-cgc-ota/p,56218

Just to demonstrate how this post like flat earth belief is based on nothing more than lies. If you have the cash then this is one of the most powerful off the shelf telescopes any individual can purchase. In reality the only limiting factor to how powerful a telescope you can buy is all down to how deep your pockets are.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 02, 2023, 07:24:01 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 28, 2023, 11:06:46 AM

Have you honestly just created a thread saying technology which is informed by science, is now refuting science? So, the same camera technology which is used in super powerful telescopes which take us up close and personal to planets and other galaxies, is now disproving stars as suns?

Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

I haven't taken their pills, swallowed their bs, accepted their endless excuses for hiding rockets from us after the first 3-4 minutes, claiming they've seen millions of things in 'space' through their telescopes, and never once allowing us to see or confirm if it is actually TRUE or not!

When you tell me this is all about 'SCIENCE', it SHOULD BE about science, and not about HIDING things from us, preventing others from CONFIRMING the CLAIMS of scientists, with a pack of BS excuses for hiding things from us!

THAT is the pill YOU'VE been taking all this time, sadly. 

Science IS, in it's true form, it's proper form, about the truth, seeking the truth, finding the truth, whenever possible, and - MOST IMPORTANT - it is about being OPEN, HONEST, and TRANSPARENT in all things, all claims made, all actions, findings, and conclusions...

Do you even REALIZE what those bunch of liars, known as 'astronomers', have always DONE, since day one? 

They've always made claims, about seeing things, in 'outer space', to the whole world, and have NEVER, EVER, let others, let us, the public, SEE what THEY have claimed to see, through their telescopes, and never WILL let anyone else see through them, at any object, or 'distant, unknown galaxies', etc. which we have NEVER seen, nor CAN see, because those BS artists don't ever LET anyone else see through them, using BS excuses, which are NEVER, EVER allowed, with any ACTUAL sciences, which, as I've just said, are open, honest, and fully transparent, in all actions, all claims, all findings, results, tests, and conclusions.

When a so-called 'science', is about observations of something nobody can even SEE by eye, or by our OWN instruments, our OWN telescopes, or after we DO have such instruments, have made up a story about how stars cannot be seen properly using the same methods used for ALL things we see, through the same instruments! 

After they made up a BS story, that claims only ONE object, must use this, um...unique method, which is absurd, and NEVER used, because it makes objects with light, in the distance, look like BLOBS of light, if it WAS done, by letting in all EXTERNAL light, from elsewhere, which does NOT come from the object itself!

How can anyone not UNDERSTAND that it does NOT work, in any way? 

You can keep on arguing that it DOES work, and I'll keep on explaining to you why it can NEVER work, and say using that 'method' for objects with light, in the distance, ON EARTH, which ALSO appear to us as 'tiny points of light' in the distance, they ALSO would look like blobs of light, and then sharpen them, into a SHARP blob of light!

Even if stars WERE 'trillions of miles away from Earth', and even if there WERE an 'endless space or universe, and somehow, it is PITCH BLACK everywhere else, but stars, even though they've also told us there's COUNTLESS stars out there, in 'endless space', which would BLANKET our skies at night, with those countless stars out in 'space', but whatever, it's all TRUE, because they've TOLD US it is all true!  And they've SEEN it! And TOLD us what they have seen, through their powerful telescopes, nobody else is allowed to see through!

That's NOT a science, it may be CALLED a 'science', and believed by the masses as a 'science', because all of us were TOLD, and TAUGHT, it was a 'science', so I ONCE DID believe it was a 'science', without any clue about it as the very OPPOSITE of a science, which I later found out.

So over 10000 years, or so, until the telescope was invented, we used many, many different instruments, for magnification of objects in the distance, land in the distance, while at sea, and it became standard to use these instruments on ships, and in surveying land, and so forth.

Those instruments were very, very important, and they made ever more advanced instruments, that saw things ever further out in the distance, saw things closer up, etc.

We had small scopes, and binoculars, among many others, as rival companies worked on developing ever better, more powerful instruments, and did so, and sold many, many of these instruments, around the world.

Everyone here has binoculars, or most of us do, for example. A lot of us have telescopes, or had one, or can get one, but never, ever, can get one as good as 'astronomers' have!

If we had all those instruments, before the telescope came along, it would make sense to build them, sell them, around the world, in the same way, right?

But what was done, with the telescope, was to PREVENT them from us, to build them for a great, newly created field of 'science', that will use those powerful instruments, which will make stars, and planets, seen very, very close up, as never before could be! 

Because up to that point, we were told, and taught, over and over again, for absolutely NO reason, nor useful or worthwhile to know, no matter if it IS true, or is NOT true, because it's entirely irrelevant, and useless to bleat about to children, of any age, let alone a 7 year old, or 12 year old, clueless about basic geography, at that point!  What a joke!

If you cannot understand, it is simply a ruse, a con, a trick to fool people about how to 'see stars', up close....you choose not to see it as a ruse, a trick.

Isn't it odd, that if all we could ever hope to see of all the stars, with any instrument, right now, or ever made in the future, will always show stars as nothing more than tiny points of light, from using them on Earth, anyway!

While they also claim to see unknown, much more distant stars, and galaxies, nobody else has ever seen, or allowed to see!   This is a complete perversion of any sort of actual science.

This is how any science can be used two ways, one is for reality, and truth, and transparent, the other way is in hiding all of the truth, making up lies about truths, and so on.

See the distinction here?

For anyone thinking about subscribing to flat earth belief just read the above post which must rate as one of the most non thinking pieces of rubbish ever.

For example what exactly were they on about when they said this:-

“So over 10000 years, or so, until the telescope was invented, we used many, many different instruments, for magnification of objects in the distance, land in the distance, while at sea, and it became standard to use these instruments on ships, and in surveying land, and so forth.”

If anyone knows what they are on about could they please explain.

That poster has clearly lost the plot!

No, you didn’t understand or perhaps read through the plot.

If you look at the entire paragraph, you’ll see that I’m comparing how every one of our other instruments, before or after the first telescopes existed, were produced in numbers, to be SOLD in numbers, and get more money from it. 

That’s the first part, and the next part is what you forgot to read or whatever…

All these instruments, including those which magnified on distant objects, had become better and better, magnified more and more over time, etc. 

They built larger lens, and larger scopes, which were not built in numbers, they said they’re very costly to build, when they finally do build one.

And they weren’t anything we’d buy or use anyway, not used on ships, they are used to see the stars, high above Earth, and all things in the heavens above with.

Ok, they are expensive, same as others were more expensive than those before.

Lots of things at that time were also very expensive, but they sold them to rich people, and more expensive things sell for bigger profits too, that’s why they sell as many of them as possible, and make more money.

The point is, they knew they couldn’t sell them to us, or the rich folk, even though they’d make a fortune from it!

Why are telescopes not being sold in numbers, like the others were, and are today?

One guy in Italy built the first telescope, apparently.

But he didn’t build another one, or have others build more, and sell them to other rich people in Europe, to make a profit like all the others did.

That’s the only reason we know his name, and later on, they built other telescopes, didn’t build more and sell them all for a profit, and only one or a few guys had them, and that’s why we know THEIR names too!!

And do you know how many years after that, nobody else had a telescope?

The first telescopes they sold to people, came out some 400 years later on, and were complete garbage. No better than the best binoculars, scopes used on ships, were actually better than that crappy telescope they sold us.

Yes, they often were massive in size, and very expensive to build, but some were much smaller too, and less expensive to build. 

Even the smaller ones were never built in numbers, and sold for profit.

They sold everything that was often much more expensive to rich people, fancy cars, huge yachts, grandiose mansions that only the richest could afford.

They were just fancy toys that were status symbols, that only a select few could afford.

So this bs about telescopes being too expensive to build, to buy, doesn’t wash.

Why wouldn’t they not ask rich people, or print flyers, showing their latest and greatest telescopes which were small enough to put in their acres of land? Even their biggest ones would fit in many yards they had.

It certainly would be a great status symbol, and a new toy to play with, during their parties at night.

What is also very odd about telescopes, is that they didn’t have to develop them over time, supposedly, when the first ones were already the best ones, and the ONLY ones, or only a few others that existed then.

I don’t believe that for a minute. I’m sure they had to develop other ones before those ones, no other way it is EVER not done that way.

They just never showed them at all, like they hide everything from us.

That’s the whole point I’m making, so now you know the plot.

They do not need to provide the proof in the exact way you demand it.
There are mountains of evidence showing you are wrong. But you reject it all, and come up with more and more ridiculous demands as an excuse to dismiss it all

There is absolutely NO valid evidence for it.

Only rockets would ever prove it, only rockets would disprove it, and there is nothing else that ever COULD prove it.

Your space probes are nonsense, we don’t see them, we cannot see them, or know they exist at all. It is obviously NOT valid evidence at all.

What is evidence in your world?

Things that we see ourselves and see what they do, ourselves, and film it all over from Earth, which confirms what we see is true, and see it many times again, film it many times again, would certainly be proof of it.  Both sides see the proof of it, and cannot dispute this is proof of it.

Saying there’s evidence for your claim is complete bs. We see nothing ourselves, it proves only that you have no clue what valid evidence is, or what is just crap you call ‘evidence’

Tell me what else but rockets launched straight upward in clear blue skies would ever prove this….

It has to be seen ourselves, not any videos or images they say were taken in ‘space’, which is the bs place they made up to put their other bs within!

A lie of this endless place where every other lie is placed within, and all of that crap is never seen or found to exist at all by us.

Space is just the same skies we see every day, without the light of the Sun.

Look at stars or the moon at night, and then in daylight skies.

They are all below the blue skies, and block out the blue skies above them.

Space is simply our skies at night, which are blue in daylight, from the waters of the Firmament holding them above its domed walls.

The blackness we see of our skies at night was their great illusion to create ‘space’, which is our same skies throughout the time.

We’ve seen Saturn close up, seen countless videos of Saturn close up, and every way possible to see it, for much longer in all, than they ever did back then. Nobody else did see it but them, millions of us have seen it, filmed it, used many telescopes to see it, so we’ve certainly seen it much more than they did.

So when only they claimed to see 5 distinct belts all the time, see a feature on the edge of one belt at one fixed position, which they claimed to see at other fixed positions later on….

You’d really believe they saw all that, unless you see videos taken by all other telescopes that haven’t taken videos of it yet?

And that all the videos, show Saturn in motion, and never show multiple distinct belts, or a fixed feature on a belts edge,
isn’t more likely the truth, than some highly paid liars who said they saw all that over 200 years ago through scrapped junk?

Calling all the evidence crap, while saying a long scrapped piece of junk from 200 years ago was not crap, is purely being in denial of the reality

The only ignorance is to see details and movements and colours of the stars, every one unique from the others, and think it’s all an atmospheric effect causing all these millions of stars as unique from the others.

Anyone here has seen what those effects do, and what objects look like at the time.

We all know they don’t act out on objects eternally, nor act on Saturn for eternity either.

To still say it’s due to an effect, knowing that no effects act out on objects for eternity, can only create internal conflict, when knowing the truth of no eternal effect is denied by a false belief that there is an eternal effect, because that’s the only way you can believe this story is true, all of it must be true, Saturn must be motionless, because they saw it motionless, and you would rather believe what they claimed to see than what you always have seen with your own eyes!

That’s just sad, nobody should believe others instead of themselves, it doesn’t make any sense at all

The only ignorance is to see details and movements and colours of the stars, every one unique from the others, and think it’s all an atmospheric effect causing all these millions of stars as unique from the others.

Anyone here has seen what those effects do, and what objects look like at the time.

We all know they don’t act out on objects eternally, nor act on Saturn for eternity either.

To still say it’s due to an effect, knowing that no effects act out on objects for eternity, can only create internal conflict, when knowing the truth of no eternal effect is denied by a false belief that there is an eternal effect, because that’s the only way you can believe this story is true, all of it must be true, Saturn must be motionless, because they saw it motionless, and you would rather believe what they claimed to see than what you always have seen with your own eyes!

That’s just sad, nobody should believe others instead of themselves, it doesn’t make any sense at all

"Nobody should believe others instead of themselves, it doesn't make any sense at all."

This is where Jack Black applauds you and Tiemeup condemns you for having dollars and no cents, like I do.

So, I guess you self diagnose yourself all the time with doctor google, instead of going to see a doctor? Likewise, you wouldn't know which end of a telescope you put your eye up to, but think youre an expert on astronomy . But here you are telling everybody not to believe Herschel who was an expert in astronomy. The guy was an expert telescope builder in his day, on top of everything else. His music symphonies are lovey too.

Flat Earth is a metaphor for morons who choose to ignore all life beyond their own tiny sphere of existence within what their eyes can see. If flat earthers could keep this embarrassing detail to themselves, they might still be able to function half normally in society. But no, they feel entitled enough to argue that they know better than the smartest humans on the planet. Forums such as this, are guilty of giving such morons a voice and condoning outright stupidity.

Go and do an IQ test, Turbonium, with your pals, Bulma, and sceptimatic, and report back to us how you each scored.

The only ignorance is to see details and movements and colours of the stars, every one unique from the others, and think it’s all an atmospheric effect causing all these millions of stars as unique from the others.

Anyone here has seen what those effects do, and what objects look like at the time.

We all know they don’t act out on objects eternally, nor act on Saturn for eternity either.

To still say it’s due to an effect, knowing that no effects act out on objects for eternity, can only create internal conflict, when knowing the truth of no eternal effect is denied by a false belief that there is an eternal effect, because that’s the only way you can believe this story is true, all of it must be true, Saturn must be motionless, because they saw it motionless, and you would rather believe what they claimed to see than what you always have seen with your own eyes!

That’s just sad, nobody should believe others instead of themselves, it doesn’t make any sense at all

Come on how about some basic honesty from you.

It’s been clearly demonstrated that you clearly lied about the availability of  telescopes to the public. The information on that one is available to anyone with an open mind  can think for themselves and go look it up.

It’s also been clearly demonstrated that you lied about the nature of Saturn. Once more anyone with an ounce of common sense and an open mind can fact check from a wide variety of different sources both professional and amateur. A look through a decent telescope would also prove what you claim is utter nonsense .

Basically you are making claims about a subject, astronomy, that you know less than nothing about.

How you imagine you can make claims about things you are ignorant about just demonstrates the depth of both your ignorance and powers of deception

If you look at the entire paragraph, you’ll see that I’m comparing how every one of our other instruments, before or after the first telescopes existed, were produced in numbers, to be SOLD in numbers, and get more money from it.

Where they though?
And if so, how large are those numbers?

But so what?
A bespoke instrument being produced in small quantities doesn't mean it is fake.

All these instruments, including those which magnified on distant objects, had become better and better, magnified more and more over time, etc.

Yet cheap crap still remained.

Why are telescopes not being sold in numbers, like the others were, and are today?

Supply and demand.
How many people want a telescope? Not many.

Have you bought yourself a telescope?

They sold everything that was often much more expensive to rich people, fancy cars, huge yachts, grandiose mansions that only the richest could afford.

Things they would use which there is demand for.
There isn't much demand for a large telescope you aren't going to use.

It certainly would be a great status symbol

Prove it.

What is also very odd about telescopes, is that they didn’t have to develop them over time

And that is another outright lie from you.

They did develop them over time, and still are.

That just doesn't mean every telescope today is better than the ones in the past.

They just never showed them at all, like they hide everything from us.

You are the one hiding from yourself. You are choosing to be wilfully ignorant.

There is absolutely NO valid evidence for it.

There are mountains of evidence which you just dismiss as fake.
We have videos from rockets going to space.
We have video from space.
We have videos of rockets flying up and not hitting any magical dome.

But because you don't care about the truth at all, you look for any excuse you can to dismiss this evidence so your can lie and claim there is none.
But that is just your dishonesty and your wilful ignorance and wilful rejection of reality.

To you, it doesn't matter what evidence is provided, you will still dismiss it.
So no, they are not obligated to meet your pathetic, dishonest demands.
There is sufficient proof for any honest person.
You not being honest is your problem, not theirs.

Things that we see ourselves and see what they do

So go make a rocket yourself and launch it into space.
If you can't do it yourself, try joining a hobby rocket club.

Both sides see the proof of it, and cannot dispute this is proof of it.

Sure they can. Because one side is full of lying scum that will reject anything that doesn't match their fantasy.
Nothing will ever be enough for people like you.

Tell me what else but rockets launched straight upward in clear blue skies would ever prove this….

Video from a rocket going from the ground into space.
But if you just want space, the pressure gradient of the atmosphere and simple extrapolation.

It has to be seen ourselves

Then go see it yourself and stop demanding others provide it for you.

They are all below the blue skies

No, they aren't.

Space is simply our skies at night, which are blue in daylight, from the waters of the Firmament holding them above its domed walls.

Pure delusional BS.
If this was the case, there would be no reason for them to turn red.

The sky is blue from the air scattering light.

You have literally no evidence at all for your BS dome. Yet here you are baselessly asserting it exists, along with magic waters.

every one unique from the others

And another baseless claim you are yet to demonstrate.

We all know they don’t act out on objects eternally

Quite the opposite.
We know the atmosphere is never still, so there will always be some level of turbulence, so there will always be an effect, with just a question about the magntitude.

This is why you refuse to do the simple thing to try justifying your claims, taking a crappy telescope or a nikon camera, and filming a 1 m wide object from a distance of 10 km. Because you know you have no chance to have it appear perfectly still and undistorted.

If you want to prove the atmosphere can be perfectly still to take such a video, PROVE IT!


And again, the fact that different optics produce different images shows at least a large portion of it IS due to atmospheric/camera effects, not the object itself.

Quote from: Timeisup on May 04, 2024, 11:50:08 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 02, 2023, 07:24:01 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 28, 2023, 11:06:46 AM

Have you honestly just created a thread saying technology which is informed by science, is now refuting science? So, the same camera technology which is used in super powerful telescopes which take us up close and personal to planets and other galaxies, is now disproving stars as suns?

Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

I haven't taken their pills, swallowed their bs, accepted their endless excuses for hiding rockets from us after the first 3-4 minutes, claiming they've seen millions of things in 'space' through their telescopes, and never once allowing us to see or confirm if it is actually TRUE or not!

When you tell me this is all about 'SCIENCE', it SHOULD BE about science, and not about HIDING things from us, preventing others from CONFIRMING the CLAIMS of scientists, with a pack of BS excuses for hiding things from us!

THAT is the pill YOU'VE been taking all this time, sadly. 

Science IS, in it's true form, it's proper form, about the truth, seeking the truth, finding the truth, whenever possible, and - MOST IMPORTANT - it is about being OPEN, HONEST, and TRANSPARENT in all things, all claims made, all actions, findings, and conclusions...

Do you even REALIZE what those bunch of liars, known as 'astronomers', have always DONE, since day one? 

They've always made claims, about seeing things, in 'outer space', to the whole world, and have NEVER, EVER, let others, let us, the public, SEE what THEY have claimed to see, through their telescopes, and never WILL let anyone else see through them, at any object, or 'distant, unknown galaxies', etc. which we have NEVER seen, nor CAN see, because those BS artists don't ever LET anyone else see through them, using BS excuses, which are NEVER, EVER allowed, with any ACTUAL sciences, which, as I've just said, are open, honest, and fully transparent, in all actions, all claims, all findings, results, tests, and conclusions.

When a so-called 'science', is about observations of something nobody can even SEE by eye, or by our OWN instruments, our OWN telescopes, or after we DO have such instruments, have made up a story about how stars cannot be seen properly using the same methods used for ALL things we see, through the same instruments! 

After they made up a BS story, that claims only ONE object, must use this, um...unique method, which is absurd, and NEVER used, because it makes objects with light, in the distance, look like BLOBS of light, if it WAS done, by letting in all EXTERNAL light, from elsewhere, which does NOT come from the object itself!

How can anyone not UNDERSTAND that it does NOT work, in any way? 

You can keep on arguing that it DOES work, and I'll keep on explaining to you why it can NEVER work, and say using that 'method' for objects with light, in the distance, ON EARTH, which ALSO appear to us as 'tiny points of light' in the distance, they ALSO would look like blobs of light, and then sharpen them, into a SHARP blob of light!

Even if stars WERE 'trillions of miles away from Earth', and even if there WERE an 'endless space or universe, and somehow, it is PITCH BLACK everywhere else, but stars, even though they've also told us there's COUNTLESS stars out there, in 'endless space', which would BLANKET our skies at night, with those countless stars out in 'space', but whatever, it's all TRUE, because they've TOLD US it is all true!  And they've SEEN it! And TOLD us what they have seen, through their powerful telescopes, nobody else is allowed to see through!

That's NOT a science, it may be CALLED a 'science', and believed by the masses as a 'science', because all of us were TOLD, and TAUGHT, it was a 'science', so I ONCE DID believe it was a 'science', without any clue about it as the very OPPOSITE of a science, which I later found out.

So over 10000 years, or so, until the telescope was invented, we used many, many different instruments, for magnification of objects in the distance, land in the distance, while at sea, and it became standard to use these instruments on ships, and in surveying land, and so forth.

Those instruments were very, very important, and they made ever more advanced instruments, that saw things ever further out in the distance, saw things closer up, etc.

We had small scopes, and binoculars, among many others, as rival companies worked on developing ever better, more powerful instruments, and did so, and sold many, many of these instruments, around the world.

Everyone here has binoculars, or most of us do, for example. A lot of us have telescopes, or had one, or can get one, but never, ever, can get one as good as 'astronomers' have!

If we had all those instruments, before the telescope came along, it would make sense to build them, sell them, around the world, in the same way, right?

But what was done, with the telescope, was to PREVENT them from us, to build them for a great, newly created field of 'science', that will use those powerful instruments, which will make stars, and planets, seen very, very close up, as never before could be! 

Because up to that point, we were told, and taught, over and over again, for absolutely NO reason, nor useful or worthwhile to know, no matter if it IS true, or is NOT true, because it's entirely irrelevant, and useless to bleat about to children, of any age, let alone a 7 year old, or 12 year old, clueless about basic geography, at that point!  What a joke!

If you cannot understand, it is simply a ruse, a con, a trick to fool people about how to 'see stars', up close....you choose not to see it as a ruse, a trick.

Isn't it odd, that if all we could ever hope to see of all the stars, with any instrument, right now, or ever made in the future, will always show stars as nothing more than tiny points of light, from using them on Earth, anyway!

While they also claim to see unknown, much more distant stars, and galaxies, nobody else has ever seen, or allowed to see!   This is a complete perversion of any sort of actual science.

This is how any science can be used two ways, one is for reality, and truth, and transparent, the other way is in hiding all of the truth, making up lies about truths, and so on.

See the distinction here?

For anyone thinking about subscribing to flat earth belief just read the above post which must rate as one of the most non thinking pieces of rubbish ever.

For example what exactly were they on about when they said this:-

“So over 10000 years, or so, until the telescope was invented, we used many, many different instruments, for magnification of objects in the distance, land in the distance, while at sea, and it became standard to use these instruments on ships, and in surveying land, and so forth.”

If anyone knows what they are on about could they please explain.

That poster has clearly lost the plot!

No, you didn’t understand or perhaps read through the plot.

If you look at the entire paragraph, you’ll see that I’m comparing how every one of our other instruments, before or after the first telescopes existed, were produced in numbers, to be SOLD in numbers, and get more money from it. 

That’s the first part, and the next part is what you forgot to read or whatever…

All these instruments, including those which magnified on distant objects, had become better and better, magnified more and more over time, etc. 

They built larger lens, and larger scopes, which were not built in numbers, they said they’re very costly to build, when they finally do build one.

And they weren’t anything we’d buy or use anyway, not used on ships, they are used to see the stars, high above Earth, and all things in the heavens above with.

Ok, they are expensive, same as others were more expensive than those before.

Lots of things at that time were also very expensive, but they sold them to rich people, and more expensive things sell for bigger profits too, that’s why they sell as many of them as possible, and make more money.

The point is, they knew they couldn’t sell them to us, or the rich folk, even though they’d make a fortune from it!

Why are telescopes not being sold in numbers, like the others were, and are today?

One guy in Italy built the first telescope, apparently.

But he didn’t build another one, or have others build more, and sell them to other rich people in Europe, to make a profit like all the others did.

That’s the only reason we know his name, and later on, they built other telescopes, didn’t build more and sell them all for a profit, and only one or a few guys had them, and that’s why we know THEIR names too!!

And do you know how many years after that, nobody else had a telescope?

The first telescopes they sold to people, came out some 400 years later on, and were complete garbage. No better than the best binoculars, scopes used on ships, were actually better than that crappy telescope they sold us.

Yes, they often were massive in size, and very expensive to build, but some were much smaller too, and less expensive to build. 

Even the smaller ones were never built in numbers, and sold for profit.

They sold everything that was often much more expensive to rich people, fancy cars, huge yachts, grandiose mansions that only the richest could afford.

They were just fancy toys that were status symbols, that only a select few could afford.

So this bs about telescopes being too expensive to build, to buy, doesn’t wash.

Why wouldn’t they not ask rich people, or print flyers, showing their latest and greatest telescopes which were small enough to put in their acres of land? Even their biggest ones would fit in many yards they had.

It certainly would be a great status symbol, and a new toy to play with, during their parties at night.

What is also very odd about telescopes, is that they didn’t have to develop them over time, supposedly, when the first ones were already the best ones, and the ONLY ones, or only a few others that existed then.

I don’t believe that for a minute. I’m sure they had to develop other ones before those ones, no other way it is EVER not done that way.

They just never showed them at all, like they hide everything from us.

That’s the whole point I’m making, so now you know the plot.

You are correct. It is a plot, a fictional plot, one that  exists in your head and not reality.

Big powerful telescopes are available for anyone to buy. The problem is you need the cash, a place to house it and the know how to use it. That is open to very few people. How many people do you know who own a diamond Rolex? Using your fictional logic is it all part of a plot to keep time a secret!

The problem is, like all flat earthers, you close your eyes and mind to reality. A simple search about astronomy will reveal the situation. A situation where powerful telescopes are readily available and used by the many thousands of amateur astronomers around the world. People who spend their free time looking at the stars and the nearby planets. The thing is none of these people would agree with you about the nature of the stars or Saturn, Why do you think that is?

Has it never occurred to you why no astronomer, amateur or professional would agree with you?

You imagine you are free thinking but the truth is you are the opposite,  a non thinker. All what you imagine is true is no more than a made up fiction. The evidence is there if you care to look. The only lies are the ones you yourself come out with and believe in.

The fact is nobody has ever seen anything they claimed to see all the time over years, nor claim to, but if any have, there’s no videos to prove it, so it would be worthless anyway.

The number of people or number of ‘experts’ don’t make it fact, excuses they make up don’t make it true, nor the opposite either.

Evidence, valid, conclusive evidence makes it fact, not how many people say it is fact.

If ten thousand astronomers claim they saw 5 distinct belts on Saturn and saw a feature in an exact position on Saturn, while it appeared motionless to see, until seeing it later on in another position on Saturn….

We’d say ok let’s see these 5 distinct rings, or some of them anyway, right?

Those who made those claims had a 200-300 year old telescope, scrapped long ago for better telescopes, which were also scrapped or put in museums, when better telescopes came along.

Their telescope was the best of the day, and was massive in size, had a large aperture, etc. Yet it was inferior to later telescopes, because it was inferior in many other features, like its lens for example, crude and inaccurate and blurry by comparison to those which replaced it afterwards.

You can’t say it was better than our best telescopes, nor can I say it’s worse, it doesn’t exist anymore, it’s irrelevant.

Argue for an existing telescope, that can be used and proves these claims, either side, and that’s a valid argument, for both sides, and proves one side right, the other side wrong.

He also claimed to see forests on the moon and cities in craters on the moon, too.

Then he said his claims of moon forests and cities couldn’t be confirmed true. How come? He didn’t explain why not.  But he didn’t retract those claims, either. I’m sure he knew we’d find out his claims were pure bs later on, so he dropped it as not yet confirmed true..

So what? He claimed to see moon forests and cities through the same telescope he claimed to see 5 distinct rings on Saturn!

Nobody has seen that either, and never will. It’s also bs.

They saw the ring, and a large feature on the orbs middle, same as we see them today.

And he saw craters on the moon, as we do today.

Their other claims were all bs, for their story.

If one part of their story is proven as bs, like with Saturn, the rest is most likely bs too!

There’s clearly nothing that supports these claims, nobody has ever seen such things, or even close to it. 

Those who still think their claims were true, or possibly true, because all our videos were taken with crappy telescopes, compared to theirs, which doesn’t even exist anymore, scrapped as junk 200 years ago, proving it wasn’t better than 200 year old telescopes that replaced it, they don’t scrap instruments if they’re better or equal to other instruments, obviously.

Our best telescopes don’t show moon forests or crater cities either, but you’d believe that theirs did!? 

If they made reports and documents about moon forests and cities, you’d say our telescopes are crap compared to theirs, say that better telescopes have yet to take videos of the moon, but would show forests and cities on the moon if they did!!

Or say they saw it in perfect seeing conditions, unlike we haven’t seen it in as yet! 

 

If they didn’t fake moon landings, they could have said it!

The fact is nobody has ever seen anything they claimed to see

That isn't a fact.
That is your delusional fantasy based upon nothing more than your wilful ignorance.

Evidence, valid, conclusive evidence makes it fact, not how many people say it is fact.

So go get that evidence for your claims that they lied.

Argue for an existing telescope

If you want to talk about what THEY saw, you need to focus on THEIR telescopes. You can't just ignore that and substitute in whatever cheap crap you want.
Again, that is like saying people who say they saw cells must be lying, because you can't see it through a shitty magnifying glass.

He also claimed

Again, if you want to claim they said something, then provide a reference. Otherwise, your claim is entirely baseless.

Their other claims were all bs, for their story.

Prove it.

If one part of their story is proven as bs

No, that isn't how it works at all.
That is like saying proving Harry Potter isn't really a wizard proves that London doesn't exist.

There’s clearly nothing that supports these claims

You mean nothing you are willing to accept. Because you will not accept anything that supports those claims.

But more importantly, there is nothing supporting your claims that they lied.
That is the issue at hand, your claims that they lied.
Care to prove they lied?

they don’t scrap instruments if they’re better or equal to other instruments, obviously.

Sure they do. If a different instrument is better or equal to them.

If they made

Again, stick to reality, not your fantasy.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on May 28, 2023, 11:06:46 AM

Have you honestly just created a thread saying technology which is informed by science, is now refuting science? So, the same camera technology which is used in super powerful telescopes which take us up close and personal to planets and other galaxies, is now disproving stars as suns?

Did you forget to take your pills this morning?

I haven't taken their pills, swallowed their bs, accepted their endless excuses for hiding rockets from us after the first 3-4 minutes, claiming they've seen millions of things in 'space' through their telescopes, and never once allowing us to see or confirm if it is actually TRUE or not!

When you tell me this is all about 'SCIENCE', it SHOULD BE about science, and not about HIDING things from us, preventing others from CONFIRMING the CLAIMS of scientists, with a pack of BS excuses for hiding things from us!

THAT is the pill YOU'VE been taking all this time, sadly. 

Science IS, in it's true form, it's proper form, about the truth, seeking the truth, finding the truth, whenever possible, and - MOST IMPORTANT - it is about being OPEN, HONEST, and TRANSPARENT in all things, all claims made, all actions, findings, and conclusions...

Do you even REALIZE what those bunch of liars, known as 'astronomers', have always DONE, since day one? 

They've always made claims, about seeing things, in 'outer space', to the whole world, and have NEVER, EVER, let others, let us, the public, SEE what THEY have claimed to see, through their telescopes, and never WILL let anyone else see through them, at any object, or 'distant, unknown galaxies', etc. which we have NEVER seen, nor CAN see, because those BS artists don't ever LET anyone else see through them, using BS excuses, which are NEVER, EVER allowed, with any ACTUAL sciences, which, as I've just said, are open, honest, and fully transparent, in all actions, all claims, all findings, results, tests, and conclusions.

When a so-called 'science', is about observations of something nobody can even SEE by eye, or by our OWN instruments, our OWN telescopes, or after we DO have such instruments, have made up a story about how stars cannot be seen properly using the same methods used for ALL things we see, through the same instruments! 

After they made up a BS story, that claims only ONE object, must use this, um...unique method, which is absurd, and NEVER used, because it makes objects with light, in the distance, look like BLOBS of light, if it WAS done, by letting in all EXTERNAL light, from elsewhere, which does NOT come from the object itself!

How can anyone not UNDERSTAND that it does NOT work, in any way? 

You can keep on arguing that it DOES work, and I'll keep on explaining to you why it can NEVER work, and say using that 'method' for objects with light, in the distance, ON EARTH, which ALSO appear to us as 'tiny points of light' in the distance, they ALSO would look like blobs of light, and then sharpen them, into a SHARP blob of light!

Even if stars WERE 'trillions of miles away from Earth', and even if there WERE an 'endless space or universe, and somehow, it is PITCH BLACK everywhere else, but stars, even though they've also told us there's COUNTLESS stars out there, in 'endless space', which would BLANKET our skies at night, with those countless stars out in 'space', but whatever, it's all TRUE, because they've TOLD US it is all true!  And they've SEEN it! And TOLD us what they have seen, through their powerful telescopes, nobody else is allowed to see through!

That's NOT a science, it may be CALLED a 'science', and believed by the masses as a 'science', because all of us were TOLD, and TAUGHT, it was a 'science', so I ONCE DID believe it was a 'science', without any clue about it as the very OPPOSITE of a science, which I later found out.

So over 10000 years, or so, until the telescope was invented, we used many, many different instruments, for magnification of objects in the distance, land in the distance, while at sea, and it became standard to use these instruments on ships, and in surveying land, and so forth.

Those instruments were very, very important, and they made ever more advanced instruments, that saw things ever further out in the distance, saw things closer up, etc.

We had small scopes, and binoculars, among many others, as rival companies worked on developing ever better, more powerful instruments, and did so, and sold many, many of these instruments, around the world.

Everyone here has binoculars, or most of us do, for example. A lot of us have telescopes, or had one, or can get one, but never, ever, can get one as good as 'astronomers' have!

If we had all those instruments, before the telescope came along, it would make sense to build them, sell them, around the world, in the same way, right?

But what was done, with the telescope, was to PREVENT them from us, to build them for a great, newly created field of 'science', that will use those powerful instruments, which will make stars, and planets, seen very, very close up, as never before could be! 

Because up to that point, we were told, and taught, over and over again, for absolutely NO reason, nor useful or worthwhile to know, no matter if it IS true, or is NOT true, because it's entirely irrelevant, and useless to bleat about to children, of any age, let alone a 7 year old, or 12 year old, clueless about basic geography, at that point!  What a joke!

If you cannot understand, it is simply a ruse, a con, a trick to fool people about how to 'see stars', up close....you choose not to see it as a ruse, a trick.

Isn't it odd, that if all we could ever hope to see of all the stars, with any instrument, right now, or ever made in the future, will always show stars as nothing more than tiny points of light, from using them on Earth, anyway!

While they also claim to see unknown, much more distant stars, and galaxies, nobody else has ever seen, or allowed to see!   This is a complete perversion of any sort of actual science.

This is how any science can be used two ways, one is for reality, and truth, and transparent, the other way is in hiding all of the truth, making up lies about truths, and so on.

See the distinction here?

It’s ironic reading all the nonsense you come out with.

You open by saying everything that is taught about the earth, space and many aspects of daily life is all based on lies!

You and your flat earth kind then call yourself free thinkers while in reality you are all no-thinkers as anyone with a gram of sense would quickly work out that all what you claim about everything being ‘lies’ is no more than crazy talk.

You then proceed to construct an elaborate fiction to support all what you believe despite all the clear evidence to the contrary. In fact even a cursory glance at your claims makes one wonder how anyone could be so stupid to believe them.

When I talk of evidence it’s not evidence gained by any experiment it’s the evidence of everyday life that you are incapable of seeing such is your overwhelming delusion that prevents you from actuality thinking about the situation and seeing the truth.

Step outside and see and feel the light and heat from the sun. A sun you claim is 32 miles in diameter!
Any thinking individual would see straight away that is an impossibility.

How could such a small body generate all that energy?
What is the process?
How could such a small body have generated all that energy for almost 5bn years?
What you believe doesn’t stand the slightest scrutiny.

You and all your other flat earth non thinkers must be incredibly stupid not to question that core flat earth belief. Rather than imagining everything you have been told is a lie, how about you spend a bit of time thinking about the implications of what you believe, starting at your notion that the sun is 32 miles in diameter.

A non-existent telescope they trashed as junk over 200 years ago, are you serious?

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

When our telescopes today, even the cheapest ones have greater magnification than they had back then, better and more accurate lenses than they had, etc.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones? 

The size of instruments, from telescopes to computers to televisions, is ever smaller and better than before, less bulky and primitive, and size is only one factor in it, like we have tv screens that are much larger than before. Same with larger computers with more memory and speed, etc are larger at times, or so forth.

You can’t see their multiple distinct belts with any telescope we have today, saying there are imaginary telescopes that would show their multiple distinct belts, to prove their scrapped junk saw them too, wow!!

How many other claims have been made, without any proof at all, with all the proof showing their claims are false, while they are still believed to be true, despite all the proof it is false?

When any of those claims can be proven true or false, like their claims are, where else has it been believed with no proof, when all the proof shows it’s false instead?

It’s denial of reality to believe their claims are true, when it’s obviously nonsense.

 

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

No, that is your BS strawman.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones?

You can't.
Physics gets in the way.
Magnification is useless without resolution.
We have already been over this.
Why go down this path of pure BS when you have already been refuted on it?

The best telescopes today are much larger than theirs.
Smaller is not better.
Newer is not necessarily better.

How many other claims have been made, without any proof at all, with all the proof showing their claims are false

Try saying it honestly.
Their claims have mountains of evidence supporting it which you simply dismiss as fake or lies.
Meanwhile, you are yet to present any evidence at all to show their claims are false.

And why does that happen? Because it doesn't match your fantasy, so you reject it at all costs.

It’s denial of reality to believe their claims are true, when it’s obviously nonsense.

If their claims were obviously nonsense, you would be able to show that, rather than repeating the same pathetic lies and the same BS arguments which have been refuted countless times.

Likewise, you wouldn't be dismissing so much evidence as lies or fake.
That is denial of reality.

A non-existent telescope they trashed as junk over 200 years ago, are you serious?

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

When our telescopes today, even the cheapest ones have greater magnification than they had back then, better and more accurate lenses than they had, etc.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones? 

The size of instruments, from telescopes to computers to televisions, is ever smaller and better than before, less bulky and primitive, and size is only one factor in it, like we have tv screens that are much larger than before. Same with larger computers with more memory and speed, etc are larger at times, or so forth.

You can’t see their multiple distinct belts with any telescope we have today, saying there are imaginary telescopes that would show their multiple distinct belts, to prove their scrapped junk saw them too, wow!!

FYI

Size matters for telescopes. The aperture determines that amount of light that can be gathered and the the maximum possible resolution.  Good quality optics are obviously much better than crap optics, but there are hard limits to what lenses and mirrors can achieve that are determined by their size.

It’s the opposite to computers, which get faster the more tightly components are packed together.

Magnification is only part of it.  You can make a cheap telescope with both small and shitty optics with a high magnification, but that doesn’t mean seeing anything clearly through it.  Generally,  higher the magnification, the worse the image quality.  It’s a trade off between the two.

Usually it’s the manufacturers of budget telescopes that try to make a big deal out of their supposedly awesome magnification.  This is mainly marketing bullshit, because capitalism.  Higher end manufacturers know they can’t get away with that nonsense because they are generally selling to people who know a bit about it.

A non-existent telescope they trashed as junk over 200 years ago, are you serious?

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

When our telescopes today, even the cheapest ones have greater magnification than they had back then, better and more accurate lenses than they had, etc.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones? 

The size of instruments, from telescopes to computers to televisions, is ever smaller and better than before, less bulky and primitive, and size is only one factor in it, like we have tv screens that are much larger than before. Same with larger computers with more memory and speed, etc are larger at times, or so forth.

You can’t see their multiple distinct belts with any telescope we have today, saying there are imaginary telescopes that would show their multiple distinct belts, to prove their scrapped junk saw them too, wow!!

Your rant about telescopes only demonstrates your total ignorance about how telescopes work.

When it comes to telescopes generally bigger is better. Why?


A function of a telescope is to gather light, the bigger the telescope the more light it can gather.

The problem you have is any decent telescope will disprove all you believe. All you really have left is denial of the truth.

As I’ve said many times flat earth believers who promote themselves as free thinkers are in reality no thinkers.

One would imagine if you wished to know about telescopes and their resolving power one would consult a source where that information was readily available, such as the excellent Astronomy magazines that are available who do all sorts of reviews of telescopes. They even publish images generated from those very devices. It does not take much in the way of thinking to quickly see all what you have said is clearly false as all the evidence contradicts what you believe.

All you really have left are; denial, delusion and non- thinking, which when lumped together put you in a world of perpetual ignorance where you can hold on to your false beliefs.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 18, 2024, 03:11:30 AM

A non-existent telescope they trashed as junk over 200 years ago, are you serious?

If that’s your idea of an argument, it’s pure nonsense.

When our telescopes today, even the cheapest ones have greater magnification than they had back then, better and more accurate lenses than they had, etc.

How could we make smaller telescopes that are better than those before, which were much larger, yet inferior to smaller ones? 

The size of instruments, from telescopes to computers to televisions, is ever smaller and better than before, less bulky and primitive, and size is only one factor in it, like we have tv screens that are much larger than before. Same with larger computers with more memory and speed, etc are larger at times, or so forth.

You can’t see their multiple distinct belts with any telescope we have today, saying there are imaginary telescopes that would show their multiple distinct belts, to prove their scrapped junk saw them too, wow!!

FYI

Size matters for telescopes. The aperture determines that amount of light that can be gathered and the the maximum possible resolution.  Good quality optics are obviously much better than crap optics, but there are hard limits to what lenses and mirrors can achieve that are determined by their size.

It’s the opposite to computers, which get faster the more tightly components are packed together.

Magnification is only part of it.  You can make a cheap telescope with both small and shitty optics with a high magnification, but that doesn’t mean seeing anything clearly through it.  Generally,  higher the magnification, the worse the image quality.  It’s a trade off between the two.

Usually it’s the manufacturers of budget telescopes that try to make a big deal out of their supposedly awesome magnification.  This is mainly marketing bullshit, because capitalism.  Higher end manufacturers know they can’t get away with that nonsense because they are generally selling to people who know a bit about it.

Telescopes we had 40 or 50 years ago, among the very first ones they so graciously let us have, only some 400 years later on, for no possible reason at all, of course, so when they finally let us have one, it seemed to be very impressive, at least would be capable of seeing things much closer than by eye or other instruments we always had, throughout the time.

Anyway, some of those early telescopes we had, became bigger than the earlier ones, and we saw things better and closer as well.

And we thought bigger means better, of course. It is better, if two telescopes are equal in all other features, other than one is bigger, and bigger aperture than the other one, equal to it otherwise, obviously would be better in allowing more light in and larger field of view.

But if we compare those back then, to some of those today, which are smaller than they are, and smaller aperture, those of today are far superior to those back then, even though they are bigger and have larger aperture.

So yes, size does matter, but it doesn’t matter if things like  optics are crappy in comparison to those of today, among other features now better than back then.

I’m sure you know that our best small telescopes of half their size or less, are far superior to those ones, right?

Sure, that’s why you mentioned that a larger aperture would only be better than a smaller aperture with other factors in play, which means, as I said, having a larger aperture than a smaller aperture is a worthless argument, not a valid comparison of two telescopes based on that alone.

Again, what you fail to understand here, is that your  argument is worthless. Aperture is not relevant without knowing everything else it had, and nobody knows that, and never will, unless they found it all buried in the ground and pieced it together again perfectly. 

What we all do know, is that we have far better telescopes today, but not only our best ones, or close to the best, or the best that we have today, but if you would disagree on that, then we can only compare a better telescope back then which still exists, within a museum, and look through it once again.

We also know it’s components, of course.

Do you really believe those later and better telescopes which replaced them, and would eventually be replaced afterwards, and so forth, which would render theirs as junk, and were scrapped….would really be better than ours 400 years later?

Your ridiculous claim of needing their actual telescope to prove which is better than the other(s) which DO exist, doesn’t matter at all.

Anyone can say this or that WAS better or worse than another one, or every single one, it’s useless to argue about it either way.

So stop arguing about it being bigger and having a larger aperture, like that’s all that matters to being better!!

We do have better instruments that replaced theirs, or replaced those ones, or so on…

They are also bigger and have larger aperture than our best small ones, today.

We only need to see Saturn through that one telescope that you know is better than theirs, and we’ll know for sure, forever afterwards, if we will actually see those multiple distinct rings they claimed to see all the time, by their claims and reports and a feature seen at one position on Saturn, and at other positions after some period of time…

It’s not relevant to argue if they saw it motionless, as I told you they’d have to see it motionless if they saw a feature at a fixed position on Saturn and never could’ve seen any movement nor did they ever claim to see any movement. Why would they have to calculate it IS in motion if they ever SAW any motion?

Why would you believe they didn’t specifically say they saw it motionless, when they claimed to see a feature on Saturn at a fixed position on Saturn, and found out later it had moved to other positions on Saturn, relative to their viewpoint of course.

Any idiot would understand they would have to see it motionless by a motionless feature seen on it.  Right?

It’s no wonder why you try arguing over something like this, that it must specifically be said they saw Saturn motionless, when anyone older than 10 would understand they had to see it motionless, or they are lying about seeing a feature on Saturn as motionless, even though both of those claims would be lies, anyway.

I’m truly amazed that we have this old but far better telescope than they had, and could all go there and see Saturn through it, and some already HAVE seen it!

To this point, it seems that only one or two people took videos of Saturn through it, or at least posted them online.

Videos taken with their iPhones, so not bad videos considering that.

We know that posting videos or audio files or images online, in formatting them for online postings, will offer some level of degradation, and so will our monitors or phones degrade them further.

But if there really ARE multiple distinct belts on Saturn, let alone a feature at a fixed position on it, then any level of degradation shown in videos, like these videos, would certainly have any sort of indication that there are multiple distinct belts on Saturn.

What we have seen on the videos is about the very same thing we’ve seen in many other videos of it, and that is, one blotchy edged area in the middle of the orb, and it is in constant motion, or if you prefer, it always ‘appears’ to be in constant motion that isn’t actual motion at all, we can’t have that be real motion in your story!

What is already very obvious for anyone seeing these videos of Saturn, along with how they match up with many other videos of Saturn, to various levels of quality, of course…..

They all show Saturn in constant motion, or ‘appearing to be’ in constant motion, at various degrees in these clips, of course.

It doesn’t matter if you claim this motion is not identical in every clip, and you conclude it cannot be in actual motion if it’s not identical in all the videos. Something which is in such a rapid and constant motion and would look identical in all the videos of it, when the instruments and settings and time taken and every point on Earth taken are already different, it would take a miracle of all miracles if they were all identical!

Not that it matters anyway.

All that matters is that we do not ever see anything like they claimed to see all the time, claimed to see a motionless feature, which means it must be seen on a motionless Saturn, as you must now realize if seeing a motionless feature, they don’t need to tell us that, assuming the readers have a functioning brain to figure that out without needing to spell it out for us!






https://orionbearastronomy.com/

Telescopes we had 40 or 50 years ago, among the very first ones they so graciously let us have

Stop repeating this same pathetic lie.
NO ONE WAS STOPPING YOU!
Herschel even sold copies of his telescope.

some 400 years later on

You really need to get your story straight.
What person are you talking about?
Stop jumping around by hundreds of years.

But if we compare those back then, to some of those today, which are smaller than they are, and smaller aperture, those of today are far superior to those back then, even though they are bigger and have larger aperture.

Prove it!
Stop just asserting BS and try to actually prove they are better.

Again, what you fail to understand here, is that your  argument is worthless.

Quite the opposite, your argument is entirely worthless and self contradictory.
You claim no ones know what these telescopes were capable of, yet still boldly claim that modern cheap crap is better.

Do you really believe those later and better telescopes which replaced them, and would eventually be replaced afterwards, and so forth, which would render theirs as junk, and were scrapped….would really be better than ours 400 years later?

Again, the state of the art back then was almost certainly better than cheap crap available today.
The cheap crap available today is not made so people can learn about the stars or anything like that, it is made to get money from people, to probably be used once or twice before it is just thrown in a cupboard somewhere.

But the state of the art today is much better.

So stop arguing about it being bigger and having a larger aperture, like that’s all that matters to being better!!

Then stop trying to claim the cheap crap you are appealing to is better.

We only need to see Saturn through that one telescope that you know is better than theirs, and we’ll know for sure, forever afterwards, if we will actually see those multiple distinct rings they claimed to see all the time, by their claims and reports and a feature seen at one position on Saturn, and at other positions after some period of time…

Including making sure you are viewing it through good seeing conditions, and from the relative position so the rings don't block the view.

It’s not relevant to argue if they saw it motionless

Then why did continue down this BS path of lies, repeatedly claiming that they claimed to have seen it motionless so you could pretend they were lying?
And why are you yet again bringing up this same dishonest BS?
The BS which is trivially refuted by simple questions you fled from like the pathetic lying coward you are?

Stop circling back to the same refuted lies.
If you want to come back to them, go and answer the questions you were asked about it.
Either way YOU ARE WRONG AND ARE LYING TO EVERYONE!

Again, if you want to be such a lying POS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS:

You are at an airport, looking out to a plane on the other side, which you see through a heat haze.
But this plane is staying in the same spot on the apron.

Does this plane appear motionless?
i.e. does the heat haze have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?
i.e. does atmospheric turbulence distorting the view have no effect on the claim that you are seeing it motionless?

You are at some place, who really cares where, and you are looking off in the distance towards what appears to be a large round object.
You are also seeing this object through a heat haze, so there is the typical distortion associated with the heat haze.
But even through that, you see large patches on the object, which while distorted, appear to be in specific locations on it.
You come back every hour or so, and make another note of your observations.
While doing this, you notice that the patches appear to move to the right between observations. Eventually they disappear off the right hand side, and new ones appear on the left.
You keep doing this for a month, and every time you look, it is effected by the heat haze.
But you make enough observations to determine it is roughly a ball which is rotating roughly once every 10 hours.

Did it appear motionless?
If you claimed it appeared motionless would you be lying because of the heat haze that affected the view?

The fact you flee from this destruction of your dishonest BS, only to bring it up again, just shows everyone that you are lying scum.

Videos taken with their iPhones, so not bad videos considering that.

Yes bad videos.
A video taken by a crappy camera in a phone, which someone was holding over an eye piece and moving around all over the place.
That is NOT an appropriate way to take a video through a telescope.

But if there really ARE multiple distinct belts on Saturn, let alone a feature at a fixed position on it, then any level of degradation shown in videos, like these videos, would certainly have any sort of indication that there are multiple distinct belts on Saturn.

Pure BS, that even a child would understand.
Degradation means loss of information.
In the extreme case, you lose all of it.
So if you really think that any level of degradation will still show it, that means you are claiming a single pixel video would show it, and that is quite clearly BS.

What is already very obvious for anyone seeing these videos of Saturn, along with how they match up with many other videos of Saturn, to various levels of quality, of course…..

You mean how they show different levels of distortion from various sources, clearly indicating that what you falsely claimed was motion of Saturn, is just distortion. Proving yet again that you have been lying to everyone?

All that matters is that we do not ever see anything like they claimed to see all the time

i.e. you are wilfully ignorant.
You have not made an honest attempt to see what they claimed.

Try saying it honestly.
Their claims have mountains of evidence supporting it which you simply dismiss as fake or lies.
Meanwhile, you are yet to present any evidence at all to show their claims are false.

And why does that happen? Because it doesn't match your fantasy, so you reject it at all costs.

If their claims were obviously nonsense, you would be able to show that, rather than repeating the same pathetic lies and the same BS arguments which have been refuted countless times.

Likewise, you wouldn't be dismissing so much evidence as lies or fake.
That is denial of reality.

Piling up fake images from fake space and fake soace probes is not evidence, no matter how much is piled up.

Again you excuse the real evidence we have proving them liars.

You’ve seen Saturn through a far better telescope, and once again you see the same constant motion it is in, and the same one blotchy area in its middle, with its edges constantly changing from its constant rotation.

That is what we know is valid evidence. It confirms the other videos by matching up to them.

The last of your excuses is that the video is poor quality, after the excuse about lousy telescopes was toasted.

So you’re trying to find anything else to excuse it, holding up fake nasa images as being ‘evidence’, after it’s from the same group of liars, even if it wasn’t so, would clearly NOT be considered as valid evidence, nothing can confirm it at all.

When you have valid, confirmable, matching evidence, you refuse to accept it as evidence, and say the crap from NASA is evidence.

Nobody can argue for things never seen or confirmed by others.  That is what we DO have with these videos, it is seen and confirmed true by matching up to all the other videos showing the same features.

You’ll never accept this is exactly what we see, and proves them liars who made it all up and sold it as the truth.

Since you’ve never seen that ‘truth’ at all, you’re simply in denial of the truth. Not my concern or problem, it’s yours to deal with as you go along with it.

And eventually, you’ll finally see that it is the truth.

But you’ll stay in comfort when NASA spews forth more simulations of their motionless Saturn, because you believe they’re not lying either!

Everyone who shows a video of Saturn showing it in constant motion, without any multiple distinct belts on it, which is totally independent sources of evidence, all of which shows the same thing, is the only possible evidence that IS valid and can be confirmed by you and all others on Earth using a telescope.

You’re past the point of thinking for yourself, reasoning and logical thought, and denying your own eyes and all senses you were born with to use and understand the world we live on. A trained chimp you’ve become, sorry to be blunt.