They've lied to the world about the stars

Quote from: sceptimatic on June 01, 2023, 03:19:40 AM

Your telescope magnifies the light and objects in the distance as is, it does not see farther than that distance.

It collects more light, making fainter objects easier to see.
So if an object in the night sky was too faint to see with the naked eye, a telescope can allow it to be seen.

It also magnifies the object so it has a larger angular size, so it is easier to resolve it, so you can resolve features you wouldn't be able to with your naked eye.

There is no magical distance limit to your eyes.

Stars are just the same as any other object with light, seen in the distance, surrounded by the black of night, and what would you see, by using the same 'method'? A blob of light, and nothing else! So then, I suppose you'd 'focus' on THAT blob of light, and sharpen it's edges, right?

No, of course not. It only works with stars, being a trillion miles away from us, yes?

The distance away from objects, doesn't change anything on how to magnify them, with our instruments.

Any object that is only seen as a point of light, when far from it, from high above it, or on the surface, at a distance, when it is surrounded by blackness, is why you claim all light is let into the lens, for seeing the stars correctly? Get serious!

Whenever any of those 'astronomers' have claimed to see something that nobody has ever seen, with any of our instruments, because only THEY have claimed to see these things, through only THEIR instruments, and nobody else HAS those same instruments as they have, of course, it must be CONFIRMED by others, seeing through THEIR instruments, or it is complete BS, and is NOT 'science', at all.

If anyone else made all sorts of claims, about seeing something in 'space', or on a mountain top, or on the ocean, or the ocean floors, or wherever, through some sort of instrument, which he claimed to have invented, so it was the only one that existed, using very rare, unique elements, and couldn't be replicated to build another one, or some sort of BS story, would you believe it is true, or not? 

You wouldn't believe it is true, or know it is not true, because there's no way to confirm it, either way.

'Astronomy' is ENTIRELY about making claims, of having SEEN something, through some sort of instrument(s), that nobody else has, or ever WILL have.

That's fine, if they allowed OTHERS, the public, by charging a fee, to cover expenses, and make a pile of money, from it!  Unless they're just a bunch of BS artists, as they'd never allow anyone  else to see anything at all!

They've lied about Saturn, for sure. It's all been lies, in fact.

Atmospheric effects cause blurs, of the entire area, of air AND objects within the area.

Look at your heat haze, it causes the whole area to be blurry, not just the truck, the whole area is blurry, right?

This isn't what we see with stars, which show sharpness, and details, and depth, and colors, which change position consistently with the movements. It is a blur on the outer edges of it, from it's high speed of rotation making it blur on the outer edges of it.

If this was due to atmospheric effects, the whole star would be blurry, not just the outer edge, and sharp everywhere else, as we clearly can see details of it, which change position while it is rotating around at high speed. Effects happen for awhile, and vanish away or die out later on. Not an eternally acting effect of some sort, that's fairy tale stuff. A magical, made up fantasy-land effect, indeed.

Whenever any of those 'astronomers' have claimed to see something that nobody has ever seen, with any of our instruments, because only THEY have claimed to see these things, through only THEIR instruments, and nobody else HAS those same instruments as they have, of course, it must be CONFIRMED by others, seeing through THEIR instruments, or it is complete BS, and is NOT 'science', at all.

Yep. That's how science works. We've been going through a whole thing recently where labs are unable to replicate famous experiments. In the field of astronomy, you have Vulcan. One guy saw it with his instruments, but then no one else could see it with theirs, so it was declared false. People don't doubt the stars because they can see them with their own telescopes.

I haven't taken their pills, swallowed their bs

No, you just reject reality as BS, even though you cannot defend such dismissal of reality at all.

When you tell me this is all about 'SCIENCE', it SHOULD BE about science

So why do you keep making it about paranoid BS instead of science?

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

They have honestly made observations about the sky.
Observations which you don't like, so you reject and claim as lies, even though you have nothing to support it being a lie.
You further try to support this fantasy of yours with more lies.

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

We understand your irrational hatred doesn't work.
You have it all refuted, only for you to ignore that refutation and repeat the same refuted BS again and again.

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?

No. The question is what purpose do they serve? Why would people want them?

Anyone who wanted one could build one themselves (or with the help of some people who can make glass lenses).
Nothing was being hidden.

See the distinction here?

Yes, you are spouting loads and loads of lies, lies you have absolutely no evidence or rational argument to support; while entirely ignoring the refutation of those lies.

Conversely, real science doesn't need those lies. Astronomy doesn't need those lies. This is because plenty of people can use telescopes. And there are also plenty of much larger more expensive telescopes. They aren't all controlled by a single person.

Stars are just the same as any other object with light, seen in the distance, surrounded by the black of night, and what would you see, by using the same 'method'? A blob of light, and nothing else! So then, I suppose you'd 'focus' on THAT blob of light, and sharpen it's edges, right?

It isn't about "sharpening edges".
It is quite well known that an out of focus object will appear larger than an in focus object, at the same magnification.
So it is about making it appear as small as possible at that magnification level.

That is what you would do for any object viewed from a great distance.

The only time you try to sharpen edges specifically, is when you have a large object which you can't entirely fit, at which point you use the same principle on some edge.

Stars are not treated any different.

Yet what is done with the garbage from FEers? They intentionally take it out of focus, making it larger, to pretend crap is there that is not.

Whenever any of those 'astronomers' have claimed to see something that nobody has ever seen, with any of our instruments, because only THEY have claimed to see these things, through only THEIR instruments, and nobody else HAS those same instruments as they have, of course, it must be CONFIRMED by others, seeing through THEIR instruments, or it is complete BS, and is NOT 'science', at all.

And other astronomers have.
The one lying here is you.

Atmospheric effects cause blurs, of the entire area, of air AND objects within the area.

Yes, just like the star.

But note in both cases, it isn't just all a blur. There can still be sharp edges in the blur.

The only difference is that when viewing stars, against a featureless "black" background, you can't tell if it is blurry.

So we see the same with your crappy star videos as a heat haze.

If this was due to atmospheric effects, the whole star would be blurry, not just the outer edge, and sharp everywhere else, as we clearly can see details of it, which change position while it is rotating around at high speed.

Again, the same is seen in a heat haze.
Take a look at the video of the plane. The plane as a whole looks blurry, but you can focus in on part of it, and see what appears to see a sharp clear detail, moving around rapidly.

Like I said, if you want to claim it isn't the atmosphere, then either take footage of the star from multiple locations at the same time to observe the same images, or take a view of a comparable of atmosphere to an object with the same angular size to show it is even possible to have such a view not affected by the atmosphere.

You don't want to do either, as if you know that you are lying to us and that it is the atmosphere.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 02, 2023, 09:40:47 PM

Whenever any of those 'astronomers' have claimed to see something that nobody has ever seen, with any of our instruments, because only THEY have claimed to see these things, through only THEIR instruments, and nobody else HAS those same instruments as they have, of course, it must be CONFIRMED by others, seeing through THEIR instruments, or it is complete BS, and is NOT 'science', at all.

Yep. That's how science works. We've been going through a whole thing recently where labs are unable to replicate famous experiments. In the field of astronomy, you have Vulcan. One guy saw it with his instruments, but then no one else could see it with theirs, so it was declared false. People don't doubt the stars because they can see them with their own telescopes.

It's true. The astronomer has no first hand knowledge of his subject of study as much so as a forensic pathologist that has never seen a corpse.

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 02, 2023, 09:40:47 PM

Whenever any of those 'astronomers' have claimed to see something that nobody has ever seen, with any of our instruments, because only THEY have claimed to see these things, through only THEIR instruments, and nobody else HAS those same instruments as they have, of course, it must be CONFIRMED by others, seeing through THEIR instruments, or it is complete BS, and is NOT 'science', at all.

Yep. That's how science works. We've been going through a whole thing recently where labs are unable to replicate famous experiments. In the field of astronomy, you have Vulcan. One guy saw it with his instruments, but then no one else could see it with theirs, so it was declared false. People don't doubt the stars because they can see them with their own telescopes.

Nobody doubts every star above Earth exists, we have seen them by eye and/or OUR OWN instruments, which is easily validated by anyone who DID doubt some star exists, by seeing it themselves, by eye or by instruments.

The whole problem your side doesn't understand, or makes up excuses for, or hides from addressing, among other tactics....

When these liars, which you inexplicably believe are all honorable 'scientists', who NEVER lie, or hide the truth...make all sorts of claims, about seeing something in 'deepest space', through instruments that NOBODY ELSE HAS, or ever COULD PURCHASE - NOT because some of us could not AFFORD them, or have the same companies who built THEIR instruments, have the same instruments and OWN and USE them, in the same way....

No, that's not why nobody else has the same instruments, or have massive areas of land to put them on, or have a hill to prop them atop, or have millions to pay for one....

Even if we COULD buy the same instruments those liars have, I'm sure they'd say it requires technical knowledge, years of training, blah blah blah, before someone can operate and use these very complicated instruments 'properly', and must also have extensive knowledge of the atmosphere, and the stars, and how they interact with each other, and that's just off the top of my head.

Even having the very SAME instruments, and ideal areas to put them, wouldn't be enough for your side, it's about your denial of truth, and proof, it always HAS been, for your side.

And THAT is why, their entire 'careers' are simply to make claims, without any proof, any independent confirmation of those claims, in any way, since this so-called 'field of science' was spewed forth into existence, which has NEVER been a true, valid science, and in fact, is the very OPPOSITE of a valid, actual science.

Just because it exists, fools the masses as being a science, or trained monkeys teach it in schools, that does NOT, in any way, mean it IS an actual, valid science.

I would gladly debate that it is not a valid science, as long as it's an honest, open debate. Without any BS tactics, excuses, etc.

All of those here, who believe that astronomy is a valid science, are either misguided, convinced by the very few parts that ARE true, because they aren't relevant to their fairy tale story, at least, when they MADE those claims, like when they spewed on about how Saturn had first appeared to be virtually motionless, and could see NO MOVEMENT AT ALL, of Saturn....

Until they noticed, by taking multiple images of Saturn, over a span of time, over hours, after they claimed to see some 'features' of Saturn, after they'd already claimed to see an 'atmosphere' existing on Saturn, without any proof, before that.

There's so many BS claims made, just for this, to put it all in exact timeline is probably impossible, anyway.

So a claim made about seeing Saturn as MOTIONLESS, by claiming they LATER noticed, with their IMAGES, over the hours, showed some sort of 'features' of Saturn, or Saturn's 'atmosphere', HAD MOVED TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF SATURN! 

And they also claimed to see these 'features' steadily, constantly move, to the right, go out of sight on the other side, appear once again on the left side, and finally, return to it's original position.

They kept making more and more claims, of Saturn as a SLOWLY rotating 'planet', because if they claimed Saturn always looked motionless, when it was seen, but found out, over a span of time, in their IMAGES, it actually DID move, and claimed to have TIMED one complete ROTATION of Saturn, which took 9.6 hours or so, and this claim has RECENTLY been said, by more liars, at NASA, to be a VERY CLOSE ESTIMATE of Saturn's 'actual rotation time'! 

However, NASA said they found that out, with their 'space probes', NOT using any sort of telescopes on Earth! So they made up new BS, which nobody could ever confirm AT ALL, but it doesn't matter, since it's based on the previous BS claims, made centuries ago.

Anyone here who has seen videos of Saturn, close up, have seen Saturn is ALWAYS in motion, or, if you prefer, it 'appears' to be in constant motion, which means the SAME THING IS SEEN - that Saturn is, or appears to be, in constant, endless motion, and it has ALWAYS been seen that way, and is seen in every video of Saturn, close up.

So their claims about seeing Saturn as motionless, until they saw it over hours, and saw 'features' of it's 'atmosphere', had moved over to the right side, and claimed to know it rotated once every 9.6 hours......a claim that NASA said was 'very close to it's actual rotation time'...

Are clearly, obviously, proven to be a pack of lies, and you know it, whether you can ever admit it or not, you still know these are lies, or cannot accept it, or live in denial of reality.

Why can't you find videos showing what THEY claimed to see of Saturn?

They didn't see Saturn once, or 20 times, or one night, or 20 nights, or for a minute, or for 20 minutes, and then make all of these claims, you must realize at least THAT much, don't you?

Of course not. They would have to observe Saturn for YEARS, night after night, and take images over hours, again and again and again, to 'know' it's speed of rotation, to the very SECOND!

You're last, most ridiculous answer to this indisputible proof that they are all LIARS, is to say that they used 'different telescopes' than we have today, and therefore, I must prove that they did NOT see what they've claimed to see, of viewing Saturn as if it were MOTIONLESS, and that one claim, ALONE, is absolutely proven, without any doubt, as a LIE.....

I have proven it is a lie, with all the videos showing it in constant, endless motion, whether in real motion, or apparent motion, we see it in motion, and ALWAYS see it in motion, it always APPEARS to be in motion, and you have no excuse for your bunch of liars, we both know that.

So of course, you make a ridiculous, nonsensical argument about having different telescopes than we have today, which do not exist, or are used, today.

No, I already HAVE proven my claim is true, proven that they were, and still are, a pack of liars.  There are THOUSANDS of different instruments we have today, which, if we used them all to see Saturn up close, would ALL see Saturn, in constant, endless motion, same as all the rest have shown.

THAT is the ONLY proof that exists, and it is consistent, and conclusive proof, that Saturn is in constant, endless motion, or appears to be in constant, endless motion, if you prefer.

Yet here you go, making up some BS argument that is so ridiculous, so brutally absurd, which only shows that you are nothing but a puppet, a defender, of those liars, for whatever reason, or reasons, I don't know, or care to know.

YOU have to show proof, that supports your liars, not me, who HAS all the proof, showing they were, and are, liars. about Saturn. 




 

They have honestly made observations about the sky.
Observations which you don't like, so you reject and claim as lies, even though you have nothing to support it being a lie.

It isn't about "sharpening edges".
It is quite well known that an out of focus object will appear larger than an in focus object, at the same magnification.
So it is about making it appear as small as possible at that magnification level.

That is what you would do for any object viewed from a great distance.

The only time you try to sharpen edges specifically, is when you have a large object which you can't entirely fit, at which point you use the same principle on some edge.

Stars are not treated any different.

Wrong, they have made up a completely useless, idiotic 'method' to 'see stars though magnification', that says we must let in all of the EXTERNAL light, which is NOT from the stars, and slow down the shutter speed, or aperture, to a crawl, which allows all the external light to keep coming into the lens, while you magnify the instrument on a star. Of course, they also say we must use MANUAL focus, not automatic focus, which means, you decide if something is in focus or not, which means, if you don't KNOW the object you're trying to get in focus, which you cannot know, as it is not on Earth, to see the actual object, so you cannot say that you 'know' if it IS in focus, or not, as a tiny, roundish point of light!

Show me any object, lit up brightly, in the far distance, which appears from there, as a point of light, among other points of light, apart from one another as stars appear to be from our position on Earth.   

You'd say that the stars are very, very far from one another, and those lights we're testing on Earth, are much closer to one another, so it doesn't work the same way?

No, you simply ASSUME stars are all far away from one another, you don't have a shred of proof for it, same as I do not have proof they are close to one another, so I don't automatically assume they are, before my argument even BEGINS....

It's up to you, to show that your 'unique method', will work as you claim it does, and show the object as it actually looks from far away, with any object with light, accurately, as you claim it does with stars.

They never claimed this 'method' must be used, to see a distant lighthouse, at night, or anything else that has light, and if we DID use your 'method' at all on Earth, they wouldn't have to make it up and tell us it must be used to see stars through magnification, it'd already be used here on Earth.

How could anyone believe that this 'method' to see stars, with magnification, makes any sense at all? It's ridiculous, and it can EASILY be proven as ridiculous, but that's what YOU must show is done on Earth, and that it works, as you claim.

Show me any object, lit up brightly, in the far distance, which appears from there, as a point of light, among other points of light, apart from one another as stars appear to be from our position on Earth.   

I have no idea what you’re babbling about.

Saturn has moons not visible to the human eye.

When you try to properly photograph Saturn, Jupiter, and the moon with a telescope and correct exposure, the moons of Saturn and Jupiter with the distance background stars behind them are under exposured.  They are not visible in correctly exposed photos.









Now.  Saturn over exposed, one of its moons become visible in the clip.



Also.  The moons of Saturn don’t jump around and spin.  And they appear as stars with my eight inch telescope.  But notice how Saturn and and its moon in the clip jump around and twinkle in lockstep.  It’s from both being effected by the same atmospheric conditions and telescope (camera) shake.  My  telescope is nice, but they mounting system isn’t very stable.

So, telescopes do gather more light to make stars to faint for the human eye to detect visible.  Or the moons of Saturn. 

Quote from: turbonium2 on June 04, 2023, 02:48:20 AM

Show me any object, lit up brightly, in the far distance, which appears from there, as a point of light, among other points of light, apart from one another as stars appear to be from our position on Earth.   

I have no idea what you’re babbling about.

Saturn has moons not visible to the human eye.

When you try to properly photograph Saturn, Jupiter, and the moon with a telescope and correct exposure, the moons of Saturn and Jupiter with the distance background stars behind them are under exposured.  They are not visible in correctly exposed photos.









Now.  Saturn over exposed, one of its moons become visible in the clip.



Also.  The moons of Saturn don’t jump around and spin.  And they appear as stars with my eight inch telescope.  But notice how Saturn and and its moon in the clip jump around and twinkle in lockstep.  It’s from both being effected by the same atmospheric conditions and telescope (camera) shake.  My  telescope is nice, but they mounting system isn’t very stable.

So, telescopes do gather more light to make stars to faint for the human eye to detect visible.  Or the moons of Saturn.

You missed my whole point. Saturn is ALWAYS seen in motion, constant, endless motion. It doesn't matter WHY we see Saturn in constant, endless motion, the point is that they claimed it looked MOTIONLESS, and NEVER said they saw it in motion, or appear to be in motion, which could ever be SEEN as motion, because they said they saw features of its atmosphere, over hours, which show up in their images. They never said it's very, very slow movement could be seen, it was found in their images, as a time lapse shows movement of stars, which we don't see by eye, or instrument, because it occurs very slowly, over time. It's not apparent to our eyes or telescopes we see through, at the moment.

Saturn is clearly in, or appears to be in, constant, endless motion. There is no getting around that fact, it is beyond any debate.

Unless you believe that Saturn was motionless during the 16th to 19th centuries, and then went into constant, endless motion, as we see it today, there is only one explanation for this, and it is that they were liars, and that is EXACTLY what they were, and still are, today.

Telescopes were built for the ruling elite, who controlled all of them, and never let anyone else use them, in any way. This paved the way for a 'science' they created, called 'astronomy', which had all of the telescopes, which allowed them to create this whole fairy tale story, which began with a ball Earth, speeding through an endless 'universe'..

They said there are 'planets', like the ball Earth, but have no life on them. And one of their 'planets', was going to be Saturn, which would rotate slowly, like the ball Earth, but slight faster than Earth ball rotates around in 'space'.

When they saw that Saturn constantly, endlessly was in motion, back then, they couldn't tell us that, because it didn't fit their fairy tale story of endless space, and having OTHER planets besides the Earth, everywhere in space. That's why they lied about Saturn to the world, and still do, even after we've seen that their claim is BS. Just say it is a slowly rotating planet, people will buy it, even if they know it's all BS, it doesn't matter to the mindless herds

You missed my whole point. L

No.  Saturn in my video clip isn’t “spinning and wobbling rapidly”.

It’s just effected by heat haze and telescope shake that is seen at the same instance effecting in this case the one visible moon made possibly by the telescope capturing more light than what is possible with the naked eye.


Shame you to have to literally lie about actual posted video.



The video clip shows by the way Saturn and its moon are being effected in the same way at the same instances your claims are nothing more than from the atmosphere and shake.


Sorry. 

Telescopes were built for the ruling elite, who controlled all of them, and never let anyone else use them, in any way.

What? That’s not been the case for the last 75 years.  And you can go to open nights at large telescope installations.

Don’t get pissy because you’re too cheap and / or lazy to use a telescope of your own. 

Nobody doubts every star above Earth exists, we have seen them by eye and/or OUR OWN instruments

Actually some people do.
Some claim they aren't actually stars, and instead are just holes in a magic dome, where the light comes through. Others claim they are just projections from some magic central arc reactor.

The whole problem your side doesn't understand, or makes up excuses for, or hides from addressing, among other tactics....

No, that would be you. Were you appeal to out of focus videos shot through a turbulent atmosphere to claim pure BS about stars.
You refuse to provide video of multiple such angles of a single star at once (as the random turbulent atmosphere would result in different views destroying your claim) nor provide footage of a similar angular size object viewed through a comparable amount of atmosphere to demonstrate it is even possible to have such a view not distorted by the atmosphere.

You need to resort to blatantly lying about what is seen both in your star videos and in the view of an object through a heat haze; and so many other things.

All because you are here to reject reality, and the nonsense you are providing in place of it simply doesn't work.

NOBODY ELSE HAS, or ever COULD PURCHASE - NOT because some of us could not AFFORD them

If you can afford it, and have the space to put it, you can get one yourself. No one is stopping you. Stop pretending they are.

it's about your denial of truth, and proof, it always HAS been, for your side.

There you go projecting again.

I would gladly debate that it is not a valid science, as long as it's an honest, open debate. Without any BS tactics, excuses, etc.

So far every "debate" you have been in you have used BS tactics. So I find that highly unlikely.
This entirely BS about the stars is just a long pathetic BS tactic.

Anyone here who has seen videos of Saturn, close up

Would be viewing footage from NASA or the like which you dismiss as fake.

What you are appealing to is poor footage of Saturn from very far away, through a turbulent atmosphere.
This is often taken in the city, with lots of sources of heat creating turbulence.
And often through a much smaller telescope (or just a shitty camera) than what was used by the astronomers you dismiss as liars.

Are clearly, obviously, proven to be a pack of lies, and you know it

What is repeatedly proven to be a pack of lies are your pathetic claims.
Claims you resort to just repeating without any serious attempt to justify them.

to 'know' it's speed of rotation, to the very SECOND!

The astronomers of the past didn't know the speed of rotation to the very second. So that is another lie from you.

I have proven it is a lie

No, you haven't. Especially as I'm pretty sure that it wasn't even you providing that footage, and it was still done with different telescopes with some inferior specifications, shot in a city.

No, I already HAVE proven my claim is true

No, you haven't.

You have repeatedly asserted garbage, and refused to honestly deal with the refutations of that garbage.

Yet here you go, making up some BS argument that is so ridiculous, so brutally absurd, which only shows that you are nothing but a puppet, a defender, of those liars, for whatever reason, or reasons, I don't know, or care to know.

And more pathetic projection.

YOU have to show proof

That isn't how the burden of proof works.
You made the claim, so the burden is on you to prove it.
I have provided footage of a heat haze, producing comparable effects.
You have absolutely no basis to claim it is not the atmosphere.

Wrong, they have made up a completely useless, idiotic 'method' to 'see stars though magnification'

You love to just keep repeating this same BS.
How about you provide a link to this alleged idiotic method?

Because so far it sounds like make sure you have the exposure set to the faint object can be seen (note, that is a key part, that the star is faint, not like a bright flashlight shining in your face, which makes it quite incomparable to a light house), and focus on it, where the autofocus on a camera may not be able to focus correctly.

so you cannot say that you 'know' if it IS in focus, or not, as a tiny, roundish point of light!

You can easily know if it is as focused as possible.
As already explained, if an object is out of focus, it blurs in a way that makes it appear larger.
So to get it into focus, you make it appear as small as possible (at that magnification).

No, you simply ASSUME stars are all far away from one another, you don't have a shred of proof for it

We have plenty of proof the stars are incredibly far away.
And unlike you, I'm not paranoid and willing to just reject all the evidence from astronomers.

What you are saying is that you don't like that idea, so you reject it all, dismissing them as liars.

I do not have proof they are close to one another, so I don't automatically assume they are, before my argument even BEGINS

You do, repeatedly.

You missed my whole point. Saturn is ALWAYS seen in motion, constant, endless motion. It doesn't matter WHY we see Saturn in constant, endless motion

Your whole point is a lie.
There is no reason to think it isn't the atmosphere, which will have affects much worse today in cities than it did in the past removed from cities.

NEVER said they saw it in motion, or appear to be in motion, which could ever be SEEN as motion, because they said they saw features of its atmosphere, over hours, which show up in their images.

Wrong again. They did describe the seeing conditions, which refer to the atmospheric turbulence.

Saturn is clearly in, or appears to be in, constant, endless motion. There is no getting around that fact, it is beyond any debate.

That is not a fact.
The fact is that the view of Saturn through a turbulent atmosphere appears distorted.
That is NOT seeing Saturn in constant endless motion.

Stuff about Saturn.

You have too many commas. And some of these words are parenthetical or separate sentences. And some are a result of that stupid rule about adding commas to compound adjectives, even though you can see the end result. Hold on...

I would also like to extend this argument to Earth. Somehow people (claim to) know exactly how fast Earth turns while being inside of it. Bullshit. You would need a satellite that resists orbit to hold Earth steady while it rotates. As long as a satellite is in orbit, we don't have a accurate picture of rotation, as the satellite would be in constant motion and see New York as though it is still. But if the satellite were outside orbit, within a single day it would be 60k miles out of range, and thus impossible to salvage. A spaceship can reportedly only go a fraction of that, meaning they would have to wait a year to collect the results while this satellite is taking pictures of nothing.
No, I don't believe anything NASA says about Earth's orbit and rotation. We can't even prove satellites exist.

I would also like to extend this argument to Earth. Somehow people (claim to) know exactly how fast Earth turns while being inside of it. Bullshit.

Great job contradicting yourself yet again.
You claim people should easily be able to feel the spin, but now claim that people can't know how fast Earth is spinning. (And those who report it honestly will never claim to know anything exactly, as that is impossible. There is always uncertainty).

Laser ring gyroscopes accurately measure rotation, without needing to be outside the system.

There are also other methods, like observing the stars, but that just gives you relative motion.
There are also less direct methods, like the Eotvos effect, where you measure how travelling east or west affects the apparent downwards force due to gravity as you follow the curve of Earth.

So yes, you can be on Earth and measure how fast it is rotating.

No, I don't believe anything NASA says about Earth's orbit and rotation. We can't even prove satellites exist.

Of course you don't, as that would require admitting your delusional BS is true.
As for satellites, you mean you wilfully reject the mountains of evidence showing satellites exist.

Oh no, flat earthers get betrayed again by their favorite high zoom camera!

Oh no, flat earthers get betrayed again by their favorite high zoom camera!

It shows that Jupiter constantly spins at high speed, just like Saturn and it's ring does, while your liars said they appear completely MOTIONLESS, and had to shoot time lapse images of them to see that they 'slowly rotated', once every 10 to 10.5 hours!!

They're nothing but liars, proven by all the videos of Saturn and Jupiter, and the others, too.

Defenders of these liars cannot find any videos of Saturn or Jupiter being motionless, and if there WERE such videos, they'd have shown them already, and screamed 'here is my proof they are motionless, or appear motionless'.

When they SEE them in constant, endless motion, they spew about it being 'from atmospheric effects, and/or out of focus cameras', which is complete BS.

But even if those ridiculous excuses WERE true, they would still LOOK like they're in constant motion, but your liars claimed to SEE them as motionless, and STILL claim it. 

They have no proof, no video evidence, to support those claims, and never WILL have any proof or video evidence of it. 

It is IMPOSSIBLE to see them motionless, because they are constantly, endlessly IN motion, at high speeds. EVERY video proves they're in constant, endless motion, it is beyond any doubt at all, and you know it.  Why would your 'magical atmospheric effects', even if they DID exist, make any difference? These liars would see them APPEAR to be in constant, endless motion, same way, right?  Whether they ARE in motion, or simply APPEAR to be in motion, due to some magical 'effect' of atmosphere, they'd never see them motionless, as they've claimed to see them, and that makes them LIARS.

Over 300 years ago, liars claimed to see Saturn as motionless, and claimed to see 'features of it's atmosphere', and claimed to see these 'features' slowly 'rotate', within images taken over hours, and held up 'calculations of the rotation speed of Saturn', and said it rotated ONCE, every 10.6 hours, which NASA now claims was 'a very close estimate of it's 'REAL' rotation speed'!

That's over 300 years of BS, right there!!

Again, if anyone here thinks it is NOT complete BS, all you have to do, is SHOW videos of Saturn, like THEY claim to have seen it, for over 300 years now - as a MOTIONLESS object!!

Using telescopes on Earth, same as they used, but far, far superior to what they had 300 years ago, obviously.

We all know, whether you admit it or not, Saturn always appears to be in motion, anyone can see that, even a child could see that, and you certainly have, each and every time, too!

So you can claim it is an effect, or out of focus cameras, or both excuses, in combination, which  causes Saturn to appear in constant, endless motion, every time we see it, but so would THEY see it, and could NEVER have seen 'features slowly rotate once every 10.6 hours', same as WE do not, and CANNOT, being it is in, or appears to be, in constant, endless motion.

Of course, having no proof to support these liars, means you claim we've seen it as motionless, with 'space probes', which fly into 'space', beyond our atmosphere, and THEY take images of a motionless Saturn, without looking at it through our atmosphere, and they have 'proof' it is motionless, or slowly rotating once every 10.6 hours, so appears as if motionless, for us, to look upon, or film it, over a few minutes, too! 

These liars claimed to see Saturn, as if it were motionless, and said they later found, by a time-lapse of images, over hours, that it SLOWLY, SLOWLY rotated, once every 10.6 hours. 

It's obviously BS, but we never KNEW it was complete BS, until now, the last few years, after the technologies advanced to the point, the public had such instruments, to see Saturn close up, and film it's constant, eternal motion, which proves them as a pack of liars, and still are today!

That's why any of your excuses cannot hold up, or defend those liars. Since WE never see Saturn as motionless, today, it means THEY would never see Saturn as motionless, either!

Using the most ridiculous, hopeless excuse ever spewed forth, that they used 'different instruments', than we have, or ever had, in the past 300 years since then?

The 'unique, extinct instruments' excuse - it's a new low, even for the ball Earth bunch.

Of course, it still is garbage, unique, ancient instruments, at the time, are crap, compared to instruments we have today, in all facets, all forms, it's not even CLOSE to what we had 300 years ago, and you know it. So stop the BS, it's not going to save your fairy tale story. It's toast.

When you first saw Saturn up close, through a new, more powerful telescope, and saw Saturn much closer up, than ever before, and saw it in motion, every time you saw it, or anyone else saw it, nobody - afaik - ever spoke about Saturn looking like it was always IN motion!

Those who NOW claim to have seen Saturn look to be in motion, every time they SAW it, only NOW are saying it, after it's been shown on all these videos of it, within the last few years.

Their excuse might be even worse, than the 'ancient, extinct instruments' excuse....

To see Saturn appear in constant, endless motion, every time they saw Saturn through their telescopes, wasn't worth mentioning, or pointing out, or anything, because they 'already knew that it WAS motionless', and they'd SEEN it motionless, back then, and still DO see it as motionless, today, with 'space probes', etc. 

There's no proof that will ever convince you it's all been lies, when you have SEEN it is, with your own eyes, over and over again, but you refuse to believe it. Without any excuse for it, you still refuse to accept they're liars, and still are lying about it today.

Some of you have another agenda, to sell their lies, and proof would always be denied, like in this case. It's not relevant, anyway. Proof is all that matters here, and shows they're a bunch of liars, who've been CAUGHT in their lies, beyond any doubt, and will forever be known as liars.

It shows that Jupiter constantly spins at high speed, just like Saturn and it's ring does

There you go lying again.

It shows Jupiter through a turbulent atmosphere. There is NOTHING to indicate Jupiter is constantly spinning at high speed.

They're nothing but liars, proven

The only one proven to be a liar here is YOU!
Proven by you continually repeating the same pathetic lies; while refusing to do anything to even attempt to justify your claims.
Instead, you just repeat the same pathetic lies.

Using telescopes on Earth, same as they used, but far, far superior to what they had 300 years ago, obviously.

No, not obviously.
You are using cheap crap, most of the time just appealing to a camera with vastly inferior optics.
And taking them from a city, with much greater turbulence than their time.

We all know, whether you admit it or not, Saturn always appears to be in motion

No, that is the BS you want to pedal.
To any sane person, it looks like you are viewing Saturn through a turbulent atmosphere.

Now again, care to provide anything to back up your delusional BS?
Such as views of Saturn from multiple positions at the same time showing the same features?
Or do you know they would refute your delusional BS?

When you first saw Saturn up close

You mean through the space probes, that don't show any of the crap you are talking about?

Again, stop lying by claiming that seeing something magnified is seeing it up close.

You are repeating this lie to try to ignore all the atmosphere you are viewing it through.

To see Saturn appear in constant, endless motion, every time they saw Saturn through their telescopes, wasn't worth mentioning, or pointing out, or anything

Seeing Saturn through a turbulent atmosphere was already well known, and they also typically recorded the seeing conditions, which you ignore because it isn't worded the way you want.

There's no proof that will ever convince you it's all been lies

Like I said, get video of Saturn from multiple locations across Earth, all looking at it at the same time, showing the same features for an extended period of time.
You refuse to do this because you know it will demonstrate you are wrong.

Some of you have another agenda, to sell their lies

The one with the agenda here is you.

You continually lie to everyone and ignore your BS getting refuted.

Seeing Saturn through a turbulent atmosphere was already well known, and they also typically recorded the seeing conditions, which you ignore because it isn't worded the way you want.

Their words and claims have been proven as lies, or mostly so.

It doesn't matter WHAT you believe about our atmosphere, that you believe it creates millions of different magical effects, for each star, to make each one look and move differently, have different colors that other stars, some with only one color, others with many colors....that you say Saturn isn't really in motion at all, even though it has always 'appeared' to be in constant, endless motion, except for all of these 'astronomers', who first said, over 300 years ago, Saturn was MOTIONLESS, over their observations, but of course, they claimed to see 'dark spots' on it, which they also claimed to be 'dark spots' on Saturn's ATMOSPHERE, even though they didn't explain how THAT was also known to exist at all, they simply told us that there WAS an 'atmosphere', and saw 'dark spots' on Saturn's 'atmosphere', and that they discovered, after observing these 'dark spots' over intervals of several hours, they saw these 'dark spots' MOVED over to the right side of Saturn, more and more, and out of all view, for awhile, and then, appeared once again, on the LEFT side, until they were back at the original position they'd seen them at.

In fact, they even claimed that they were able to TIME this very, very slow movement of these 'features' of Saturn's 'atmosphere', so precisely, to the very SECOND, which would certainly have required hundreds, or thousands of hours, OBSERVING Saturn, without any doubt! 

I'm sure you'd agree that they must have observed Saturn over countless hours, night after night, for months, or even years, before they could calculate it's speed of rotation down to seconds, right?

Sometimes, they couldn't see Saturn at all, or not clearly, and they called this 'bad seeing', or 'good seeing', or 'ideal seeing', or so forth. They were simply describing the conditions when they viewed Saturn, over the whole period, in general. But they never attributed any of those conditions, such as 'bad seeing', to a specific observation of Saturn, they DID mention how those conditions made it difficult to OBSERVE Saturn, clearly, at those times.

I shouldn't need to explain what 'bad seeing' means, even for those who twist simple, direct terms like 'bad seeing', into seeing stars appear to constantly, endlessly move, or seeing Saturn appear to constantly be in motion, just so it can fit into your argument. 

What you cannot ever admit is the truth, is that they were, and still are, a stinking heap of liars, who continue to support their ORGINAL liars, and their many, many lies, back then, and I've certainly shown you, step by step, that they DID lie about Saturn to the world, repeatedly, in fact.

As we ALL agree would be the case, it is that they must have observed Saturn for countless hours, over months, and years, based on their claims, and reports, and to time it's rotation speed, to the seconds. 

So how could THEY have observed actual FEATURES of Saturn, or whether or not Saturn had any sort of 'atmosphere', which they claimed had 'dark spots', which didn't even MOVE at all, if they DID exist, and were seen by those liars, who used these 'spots' to calculate Saturn's rotation down to the second, which means, the spots didn't move, which they ALSO could not possibly know, until many rotations were timed exactly the same, to the second.

We all know, for sure, that our atmosphere is constantly changing, it is NEVER the same, moment to moment, or hour to hour, day to day.   

They claimed to see 'dark spots' of Saturn's atmosphere, and amazingly, never at all moved, because they used the spots to time Saturn's speed of rotation.


So now, all of our videos show Saturn is in, or appears to be in, CONSTANT, ENDLESS MOTION, it doesn't matter why, or how come, it is always seen in motion, that it ALWAYS APPEARS TO BE IN MOTION, which those liars did NOT mention to us, at all, ever, to this very day.

We all know there's not one single video of Saturn, which is unedited, that shows Saturn as MOTIONLESS, or appearing to be motionless.

So when we have all seen many videos of Saturn, seen Saturn through instruments, we see it in motion, or see it APPEAR to be in motion, each and every time we've seen Saturn.

That is clear, conclusive evidence of Saturn always appearing to be in motion, without a shred of doubt.

They couldn't possibly have seen Saturn as motionless, or seen features of Saturn's supposed 'atmosphere', or have timed it's speed of rotation as one rotation, each and every 10.6 hours.

It's complete BS, because we know Saturn ALWAYS APPEARS TO BE IN MOTION, and we've never seen such features on it, or it's so-called 'atmosphere'.

That proves they're liars, or BS artists making up lies.

Why are you so afraid to admit they're liars? Get over it already.

Their words and claims have been proven as lies, or mostly so.

No, that would be you words that have been proven as lies.

You even had an example provided where they directly described the seeing conditions.
Which you choose to ignore because it doesn't match your fantasy.

Like I said, if you want to claim it is actually the star or Saturn or Jupiter that is moving like that, then provide footage from multiple locations at the same time showing the same motion.

Otherwise, all the evidence points to the atmosphere.
You not liking that because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy doesn't magically make reality match your delusional fantasy.

Quote from: Username on June 02, 2023, 02:55:51 PM

What "non-science thing" am I supposedly using, aside from the very tradition of knowledge that is made to deal with the subject at hand. The only one going on about such things are you with astrology, for reasons yet to be explained. Its a matter of fact and history that round earth science is coherent only due to ad hoc hypothesis after ad hoc hypothesis. Dark matter and dark energy are some of the most obvious, as you need to invent 99% of the mass of the universe simply to make the math of round earth astronomy feasible - and even then it still fails to work.

So, I was digging through the FE Wiki, and noticed this:

Quote

Rotoundity

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet.

Alright, so the Earth is unique then? Doesn't that make FE an ad hoc hypothesis?

Earth is unique though. Its the only known body that harbors life. It's flat. And so on.

In fact, the flat earth hypothesis is in response to acknowledging falsification not running from it and creating an ad hoc hypothesis; this is why the title of Rowbotham's book was Earth: Not a Globe and not Earth: Flat.

everything is turning into crabs.

things are typically the same path given circumstances.

why's this one turning into poison bread?

Earth is unique though. Its the only known body that harbors life. It's flat. And so on.

In fact, the flat earth hypothesis is in response to acknowledging falsification not running from it and creating an ad hoc hypothesis; this is why the title of Rowbotham's book was Earth: Not a Globe and not Earth: Flat.

You could say everything is unique.

Yes, Earth is the only body that we know of that harbours life, because we haven't analysed the other planets in depth.
But it certainly isn't flat.
Rowbotham's book is more about wilful rejection of reality and circular reasoning.
e.g. This theodolite clearly shows the horizon is below eye level, so I'll just reject it and claim it is at eye level.
e.g. Earth is flat, so distant objects disappearing from the bottom up, which is observed in reality, must be caused by a flat Earth, so that happening doesn't disprove a FE.

Quote from: Username on June 13, 2023, 09:33:13 AM

Earth is unique though. Its the only known body that harbors life. It's flat. And so on.

In fact, the flat earth hypothesis is in response to acknowledging falsification not running from it and creating an ad hoc hypothesis; this is why the title of Rowbotham's book was Earth: Not a Globe and not Earth: Flat.

You could say everything is unique.

Yes, Earth is the only body that we know of that harbours life, because we haven't analysed the other planets in depth.

You must be quite the soothsayer to know what findings there would be from analysis that hasn't taken place. Why, we should just fire everyone that does said analysis and just hire you and your crystal ball.

But it certainly isn't flat.
Rowbotham's book is more about wilful rejection of reality and circular reasoning.
e.g. This theodolite clearly shows the horizon is below eye level, so I'll just reject it and claim it is at eye level.
e.g. Earth is flat, so distant objects disappearing from the bottom up, which is observed in reality, must be caused by a flat Earth, so that happening doesn't disprove a FE.

Literally none of those arguments are present in Earth: Not A Globe. If its such a shoddy attempt, then why must you resort to misrepresenting its arguments to make any argumentative headway against it?

You must be quite the soothsayer to know what findings there would be from analysis that hasn't taken place.

Not in the slightest.
The point is you cannot claim Earth is unique based upon a property that you do not know if other objects have.

It would be like me holding up a ball and saying because it is red it is unique, because I have never seen another red ball.

Literally none of those arguments are present in Earth: Not A Globe. If its such a shoddy attempt, then why must you resort to misrepresenting its arguments to make any argumentative headway against it?

They aren't presented like that, but that is a good summary.
For example, from page 25 (from https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Earth%20Not%20a%20Globe%20(Samuel%20Rowbothan).pdf ), it asserts that Earth has been demonstrated to be flat, and then tries discussing perspective.
They then appeal to an observation, of a few miles of what they claim are straight and level railways, with the assumption that this is flat, based upon the prior assumption that Earth is flat (while if Earth was round, the level railway would curve to follow that curve), and appealing the to bottom disappearing first.
It then appeals to a low row of lamps, where the bottom disappears first over a level surface, and so on.

So it is quite clearly circular reasoning where it asserts Earth is flat, to then take an observation which demonstrates Earth is not flat, to claim such an observation should occur on a flat Earth, to claim that this is not a disprove of flat Earth.
i.e. Earth is flat, because Earth is flat.

An honest analysis would note that the smaller an object is, the sooner it will be too small to resolve. And this applies equally to the hull of a boat, to the flag at the top.
And so when you can easily resolve a section smaller than is hidden, it clearly isn't perspective doing hiding the bottom.

Other nonsense, which is refuted by simple observations also abound, such as starting on page 65, where they claim throwing something upwards at an angle (which would include throwing it upwards in your frame of reference while you are moving) will cause it to move in a straight line diagonally upwards, until it reaches its peak; after it will fall straight down. This is refuted by so many observations it isn't funny. The simplest being throwing a ball upwards in a moving train or plane, or on a ship like they suggest.
It can also be done better if you have a setup where you can film the entire thing from an allegedly stationary (according to the high prophet row boat) and observe it follows a parabolic trajectory, not a straight line up to the apex to then fall straight down.

For the first point, it seems that book is different to an online version, but the issue is here:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za45.htm

The problem a theodolite that is levelled will record the horizon to be below eye level, with this distance increasing as height increases.

They reject this idea and instead wants to use a theodolite without a lens to make the difference too small to see. And then falsely claims this difference is caused by the lens just magically making it appear lower.

Quote from: AnonConda on June 06, 2023, 07:47:08 PM

Oh no, flat earthers get betrayed again by their favorite high zoom camera!

It shows that Jupiter constantly spins at high speed, just like Saturn and it's ring does, while your liars said they appear completely MOTIONLESS, and had to shoot time lapse images of them to see that they 'slowly rotated', once every 10 to 10.5 hours!!

They're nothing but liars, proven by all the videos of Saturn and Jupiter, and the others, too.

First of all, I'm not sure why it matters whether Saturn and Jupiter are motionless or not.

Second, there's a reason why courts have now disallowed photos and even videos as evidence. It is possible to hoax entire videos.
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165146797/it-takes-a-few-dollars-and-8-minutes-to-create-a-deepfake-and-thats-only-the-sta

8 minutes and a few dollars. That's all it takes to make entire videos  where something didn't happen happens. So if Hollywood can make entire movies where ppl head to space when in fact they are in a green screen, why is it so hard for you to admit that those making these videos have plenty of means (billions of means, in fact), motive, and opportunities. A person finding time to make a shot of Saturn or Jupiter really only has that time, then they go back to their day job. Unlike the people who apparently can set aside time to make a (real or fake) time lapse where these move, they aren't paid based on convincing others of something. Con artists are devoted to the con. Truthers usually have multiple priorities.

You call others liars, but they don't have to keep national secrets like NASA and their cronies do. Who has a better reason to lie?

Is there any tin foil left?  Or is it all in your hat now?

when did digital deepfakes come about compared to the last 400yrs of telescopes and photographs?