They've lied to the world about the stars

Within the last 5-6 years, more or less, our ever more advancing technologies, combined with the plethora of companies who compete against others in the same industries for our dollars, changed the entire world, and WILL continue to change the world, even though few people know it today, it will be known by the world, one day, as I see it as being inevitable.

There are many, many different videos, taken by different people, and different points on Earth, over the last few years.

Using a new instrument, which came out in 2015, the Nikon Coolpix P900, a highly advanced camera, that took images, AND videos, much like other cameras did, of course, but they couldn't magnify up close enough on stars, being small, and distant, until today.

We COULD see them up close, and have seen them up close, perhaps for 10-15 years or so, maybe longer than that, it doesn't matter, anyway. It's considered to be caused by improper technique or procedures for HOW TO MAGNIFY ON STARS WITH TELESCOPES, or ANY INSTRUMENT WHICH CAN MAGNIFY THE STARS, even those that have yet to be invented in future, because they didn't make up that 'unique procedure', to magnify the stars, because it makes any sense at all, when anyone should realize it is completely stupid, which will only result in garbage images and videos, of any object in the distance, based on our previous knowledge and experience of using such processes before.

That, and similar techniques, are very rarely used at all, because they are used for SPECIAL EFFECTS, or part of some effect, etc.

They have actually told the entire world, have taught in our schools, that all the stars above us, each and every night, are so very, very far away from us, they are all TRILLIONS of miles from the Earth, and that's why they appear to look like tiny points of light, from the Earth, and everyone said, 'ok, I believe you on all that', which means nobody can prove you wrong, OR prove you right, or doesn't care about it, and goes with whatever is said to be true.

Of course, when we're TOLD that we MUST use this procedure, which we have NEVER used to film any objects, either near to us, or at a distance away from us, and never would, because it doesn't work at all, unless for an effect of some type, mainly. 

That absurd claim, that we must always use this procedure to 'properly, accurately, realistically', see stars through magnification, no matter how much it is magnified, or what the instrument is,  that is the ONLY method used to see stars up close, as they 'really look like' from the Earth, through magnification.

If you really don't know it's complete BS, nobody lets in all external light, and slows down shutter speed to a crawl, you'll never see the object properly, as it actually looks like, in a close up view of it. Especially when the object has light, as do all the stars, have light, which is why they used it for this 'method', of how to 'correctly' view stars, through magnification!

That's obviously why stars always look like tiny points of light, and so would ANY OTHER object that appears as a point of light at a distance, when seen at night, with blackness around it.

I've already told you this before, many times, it's just a trick, they made up, and fooled us, at first, anyway.

I'm never going to convince you that stars are NOT trillions of miles away, which makes you ALSO believe what they claim about a special, unique method, that must be used, to properly, accurately view the stars, through magnification.

When I tell you that this 'method' is crap, any other light would look like a point of light, using that same method, and prove it is absolute BS, too.....you ignore it, and keep saying it is an effect of atmosphere, same as always.
 
There is simply NO reason we would ever use such a blatantly STUPID procedure, and we DON'T use it, ever, because it IS stupid to ever use.

If you don't understand WHAT HAPPENS when using this procedure, why we never use this procedure anywhere else at all, BUT for stars, then so be it.

All I can do is keep showing you close up videos of stars, that show details on them, and that these details change position, as the star moves around.

There ARE no such effects that exist, which could ever cause all this, or we'd have known and seen it countless times already, but not one, ever, proves your claim is all nonsense.

Such fine details, and depth of the star, and a vivid blue color, which is only on one part of the star, and when we see all of the details, the area of depth, and the specific area that is blue in color, all change their positions, while the star rotates, endlessly, constantly, at high speed, so we must look at each frame of the video, to see all of this.

Stars all look and move differently, some less distinct from other stars, some that look COMPLETELY different from other stars, which also proves it IS the star itself, which looks like that, and moves like that.

Why does this bother you so much, or why WOULD it bother you so much, to accept it IS the stars themselves, which move around, have details, and depth, and have a vivid color, on a specific part of the star, all which change position, matching up to the star's movements?

It's nothing to fear, it is absolutely remarkable, and stunning to see.

There are many, many different videos, taken by different people, and different points on Earth, over the last few years.

Good gosh..

How many times are you going to beat this dead horse?

It’s either condensation on the lens, the items are out of focus, the video recorder shaking, or atmospheric disturbance from looking at the object through 60 miles of atmosphere/dust/ice crystals.  Or any combination of the above.

What do you think happens when you enlarge an image by 200 to 500 times?  You magnify instability.

The effects are different and to varying degrees from video to video.

Anyway.

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 05, 2022, 03:30:30 AM

 and they also support my argument.

How?

Again..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 29, 2022, 03:58:02 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 29, 2022, 12:06:34 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 22, 2022, 02:34:10 PM

So the independent movements from the various parts of the plane show that it is the plane itself moving, not a heat haze?

The plane itself IS moving, but you claim Saturn itself is NOT moving at all, so you're comparison is wrong, right there, Also wrong, is that heat haze is a momentary effect, not an eternal one, and it effects ANY objects, and the whole scene as well,

Like how atmospheric turbulence effects the moon, Jupiter, and Saturn in these video clips?  Noticeably effected by “heat waves”.

Quote

not the object alone, so that's another contradiction.

The field of view is so narrow, and to properly expose Saturn, what other objects should be in the shot?

However, I have this overexposed video of Saturn. It’s looks like it’s moon is being effected in lockstep with its planet Saturn.



I hope they play as little video clips as intended.  I’ve reach my daily limit of YouTube video uploads.

You claim it’s not the atmosphere.  I posted a video of Saturn and it’s moon being effected in the same manner lockstep by the atmosphere. 



It destroyed your argument.

Look at the moon of Saturn on the bottom imagine.  It’s doing exactly what you claim the stars are doing.  It’s from focusing on Saturn.  From shake in the telescope at extreme magnification, and from the atmosphere moving loaded with dust and ice crystals.

There are many, many different videos, taken by different people, and different points on Earth, over the last few years.

Showing out of focus stars, through a turbulent atmosphere.

If you wish to claim otherwise, then you will need more than just a crappy video.

I have already provided an example of how you can corroborate your claim.
Have footage from 2 locations, filmed simultaneously, showing the same motion for the object.

I even gave you an even simpler option, film an object of comparable angular size through a comparable amount of atmosphere.

Until you provide such a footage, we have no more reason to believe your claim, than believe an object filmed through a heat haze is magically changing shape and moving around all over the place.

We COULD see them up close, and have seen them up close

When you insist on repeating this same dishonest BS again and again, why would anyone believe that it isn't YOU who is lying about the stars.

You have not seen them up close. You have seen them magnified.
There is a very big difference between these.

Do you want to falsely claim you have seen them up close to pretend the atmosphere couldn't be the reason?

caused by improper technique or procedures for HOW TO MAGNIFY ON STARS WITH TELESCOPES, or ANY INSTRUMENT WHICH CAN MAGNIFY THE STARS

It isn't just the stars.
You have been provided examples of how this improper technique produces crap from other observations.

Of course, when we're TOLD that we MUST use this procedure, which we have NEVER used to film any objects, either near to us, or at a distance away from us

So you never bother to focus on objects you are filming?
Instead you just film out of focus garbage?

You never use long exposures with steady mounts to film in dark conditions?
Instead you just have far too dark images?

I've already told you this before, many times, it's just a trick, they made up, and fooled us, at first, anyway.

The FEers made up the trick, and you fell for it.

There ARE no such effects that exist, which could ever cause all this, or we'd have known and seen it countless times already

Like we do with heat hazes? Which have been seen countless times already?

Stars all look and move differently, some less distinct from other stars, some that look COMPLETELY different from other stars, which also proves it IS the star itself, which looks like that, and moves like that.

Notice a key thing you are lacking there? Any consistency in the star.
If it was a random effect of the atmosphere, you would expect a wide variety of effects to occur.

Why does this bother you so much, or why WOULD it bother you so much, to accept it IS the stars themselves, which move around, have details, and depth, and have a vivid color, on a specific part of the star, all which change position, matching up to the star's movements?

Because it is garbage which defies reason, without sufficient evidence to support it.

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 28, 2023, 02:09:19 AM

There are many, many different videos, taken by different people, and different points on Earth, over the last few years.

Good gosh..

How many times are you going to beat this dead horse?

It’s either condensation on the lens, the items are out of focus, the video recorder shaking, or atmospheric disturbance from looking at the object through 60 miles of atmosphere/dust/ice crystals.  Or any combination of the above.

What do you think happens when you enlarge an image by 200 to 500 times?  You magnify instability.

The effects are different and to varying degrees from video to video.

Anyway.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 05, 2022, 05:23:44 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on November 05, 2022, 03:30:30 AM

 and they also support my argument.

How?

Again..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 29, 2022, 03:58:02 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 29, 2022, 12:06:34 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 22, 2022, 02:34:10 PM

So the independent movements from the various parts of the plane show that it is the plane itself moving, not a heat haze?

The plane itself IS moving, but you claim Saturn itself is NOT moving at all, so you're comparison is wrong, right there, Also wrong, is that heat haze is a momentary effect, not an eternal one, and it effects ANY objects, and the whole scene as well,

Like how atmospheric turbulence effects the moon, Jupiter, and Saturn in these video clips?  Noticeably effected by “heat waves”.

Quote

not the object alone, so that's another contradiction.

The field of view is so narrow, and to properly expose Saturn, what other objects should be in the shot?

However, I have this overexposed video of Saturn. It’s looks like it’s moon is being effected in lockstep with its planet Saturn.



I hope they play as little video clips as intended.  I’ve reach my daily limit of YouTube video uploads.

You claim it’s not the atmosphere.  I posted a video of Saturn and it’s moon being effected in the same manner lockstep by the atmosphere. 



It destroyed your argument.

Look at the moon of Saturn on the bottom imagine.  It’s doing exactly what you claim the stars are doing.  It’s from focusing on Saturn.  From shake in the telescope at extreme magnification, and from the atmosphere moving loaded with dust and ice crystals.

They are always in motion, right? Why wouldn't any of them have OTHER movements, at certain times, which are rarely seen, then? It's certainly possible. What proves they don't move at all, when they appear to be moving?

Once again, you would claim this is all caused by our atmosphere, because you assume none of them are moving at all, even though they always ARE moving, so you exclude SOME movements that ARE seen, to be movements of the moon, and others, to be an effect of atmosphere, because you used this excuse for stars, and was proven as nonsense already.

The fact is, EVERY star is in constant, endless movement, it is NOT a random event, it is NOT some of the stars which will 'appear' to be moving,, while others do NOT move, or 'appear' to move, and it is not about stars moving for a period of time, and not moving before or after that period of time.

Every single star is in constant, endless movement, and all move different from other stars, and look different from other stars, and some have colors, some have one color, at one area, or numerous points, and they all show different details that are unique to each star.....

What magical, super-powerful effect of our atmosphere is capable of such spectacular, eternal effects on all the stars, each one, every one, with different features from the other stars, which are also unique from the others?


 

There are certain features of all our ACTUAL effects of atmosphere, which we DO know are true, for sure.

They arise from a point in time, and vanish away at another point in time. They don't always exist, as a constant, eternal effect, on objects, or within an area.

They mostly occur NEAR the Earth's surface, not higher altitudes.

They all OBSCURE our view of objects, not make them more defined and more visible.

That would all describe your 'heat haze', for example, of course.

But NONE of it describes the stars at all. They are the very OPPOSITE of what actual effects of atmosphere do, in fact.

They are always in motion, right?

No.

You can get clear imagines of Saturn’s moons without them spinning and wobbling.


The the atmosphere, and the dust with ice crystals are in constant motion.  With how stable the video is, especially if a tripod is not being used.  Vs hand held device.


With you showing no consistency between different videos of your claims. Which further shows randomness of the atmosphere and how the video or camera is being held.

There are certain features of all our ACTUAL effects of atmosphere, which we DO know are true, for sure.

They arise from a point in time, and vanish away at another point in time. They don't always exist, as a constant, eternal effect, on objects, or within an area.

They mostly occur NEAR the Earth's surface, not higher altitudes.

They all OBSCURE our view of objects, not make them more defined and more visible.

That would all describe your 'heat haze', for example, of course.

But NONE of it describes the stars at all. They are the very OPPOSITE of what actual effects of atmosphere do, in fact.

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?

They are always in motion, right? Why wouldn't any of them have OTHER movements

The atmosphere always has some level of turbulence, so the image taken on the ground will always be distorted to some extent, it is just a question of how much.
And it wont always be the same.

What proves they don't move at all, when they appear to be moving?

Again, this is shifting the burden of proof.
The turbulent atmosphere is a well known phenomenon.
The burden is on you to demonstrate the atmosphere is not causing this.

But remember, there is plenty you dismiss as fake because it comes from NASA and co; taken from outside the atmosphere.

The real question is what proof do you have that this is the star itself moving rather than the atmosphere? And the answer is none at all.

There are certain features of all our ACTUAL effects of atmosphere, which we DO know are true, for sure.

Yes, like what is seen in the garbage you present.

They arise from a point in time, and vanish away at another point in time.

Wrong again.
They vary in magnitude with various conditions.
Sometimes the turbulence will be quite minor and require objects with a small angular size viewed through a lot of atmosphere to notice; other times it is quite significant and can easily affect a quite large object fairly close.

Again, why don't you provide any evidence that the atmosphere can magically be perfectly still?

They mostly occur NEAR the Earth's surface, not higher altitudes.

Tell that to gliders that use thermals to climb.

They all OBSCURE our view of objects, not make them more defined and more visible.

No, they don't obscure, they distort.
But notice how you are now using a circular argument?
You claim the stars are more defined and visible to claim it isn't turbulence in the atmosphere causing it.
But if we instead accept that it is a turbulent atmosphere we get a distorted view of the star and not what you are claiming the star is.

But NONE of it describes the stars at all.

It describes your view of the stars viewed through the turbulent atmosphere.

So you're saying that the stars aren't the great kings from the past?

Quote from: turbonium2 on May 28, 2023, 02:09:19 AM

There are many, many different videos, taken by different people, and different points on Earth, over the last few years.

Good gosh..

How many times are you going to beat this dead horse?

It’s either condensation on the lens, the items are out of focus, the video recorder shaking, or atmospheric disturbance from looking at the object through 60 miles of atmosphere/dust/ice crystals.  Or any combination of the above.

What do you think happens when you enlarge an image by 200 to 500 times?  You magnify instability.

The effects are different and to varying degrees from video to video.

Anyway.

Anyway, you shouldn't be enlarging images. You should be zooming in and sharpening images.

Example, I take a photo of a crime happening from 100 yards away. Contrary to crime dramas, there actually is no "enhance" feature. The enhanced shot was the original, and they blurred it out.





Enlarged picture. No clearer.

Telescopes do not zoom images, nor sharpen them. They enlarge them. Hence, it mentions magnification, not zoom. So all you get is a blurry grainy blob that fraudsters use a computer or a canvas & paint (depending on the era) and pretend to be the actual picture.

In actual fact, we shouldn't even be able to see light at the distance they swear it is.

Enlarged picture. No clearer.

Telescopes do not zoom images, nor sharpen them. They enlarge them. Hence, it mentions magnification, not zoom. So all you get is a blurry grainy blob that fraudsters use a computer or a canvas & paint (depending on the era) and pretend to be the actual picture.

In actual fact, we shouldn't even be able to see light at the distance they swear it is.

The picture can't get clearer because no more data can be magically added to a jpeg. The camera saved a grid of values, and that's what we have access to. No more, and often less. With a telescope, it concentrates the light from a smaller area of the sky onto the same grid of values, as if the camera had taken four zoomed in shots and placed them to look the original, only now with higher resolution.

I'm confused by the note about not being able to see light from far away. Light has nothing to bounce off in space* so why couldn't it travel that far?

*If it bounces off planets, we can see the shadow, and it could absolutely bounce off a stray comet or asteroid or little chunk of something hurtling through space. But these masses are so incredibly rare in the scheme of space (as RE claims it to be) that stars are rarely blocked by them. It can and does happen, but it's like scattering a little sand on a piece of graph paper and seeing if it landed in the top right corner. Possible yes, likely no.

Anyway, you shouldn't be enlarging images. You should be zooming in and sharpening images.
...
Telescopes do not zoom images, nor sharpen them. They enlarge them.

Only if you are using a telescope to look at an existing image.

There are many factors which affect resolution, and a fundamental limit is the size of the aperture.
A larger aperture is able to resolve finer details.
The other issue is the sensor, and how many individual sensor elements there are.

In actual fact, we shouldn't even be able to see light at the distance they swear it is.

Why?
Because it doesn't fit your fantasy?
Your fantasy is not a fact.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 29, 2023, 09:44:55 PM

Enlarged picture. No clearer.

Telescopes do not zoom images, nor sharpen them. They enlarge them. Hence, it mentions magnification, not zoom. So all you get is a blurry grainy blob that fraudsters use a computer or a canvas & paint (depending on the era) and pretend to be the actual picture.

In actual fact, we shouldn't even be able to see light at the distance they swear it is.

The picture can't get clearer because no more data can be magically added to a jpeg. The camera saved a grid of values, and that's what we have access to. No more, and often less. With a telescope, it concentrates the light from a smaller area of the sky onto the same grid of values, as if the camera had taken four zoomed in shots and placed them to look the original, only now with higher resolution.

I'm confused by the note about not being able to see light from far away. Light has nothing to bounce off in space* so why couldn't it travel that far?

*If it bounces off planets, we can see the shadow, and it could absolutely bounce off a stray comet or asteroid or little chunk of something hurtling through space. But these masses are so incredibly rare in the scheme of space (as RE claims it to be) that stars are rarely blocked by them. It can and does happen, but it's like scattering a little sand on a piece of graph paper and seeing if it landed in the top right corner. Possible yes, likely no.

To be fair, space is not empty and there's a fair amount of dust, debris, quantum foam, etc. Even in round earth science they have tried to use this to patch together their fantasy of a world view with theories such as Dispersive Extinction. The truth of the matter is that round earth science cares not for falsifiability if it contradicts their world view. They will just make up ad hoc explanation after ad hoc explanation until they have a patchwork of nonsense.

To be fair, space is not empty and there's a fair amount of dust, debris, quantum foam, etc. Even in round earth science they have tried to use this to patch together their fantasy of a world view with theories such as Dispersive Extinction. The truth of the matter is that round earth science cares not for falsifiability if it contradicts their world view. They will just make up ad hoc explanation after ad hoc explanation until they have a patchwork of nonsense.

Not necessarily. Ever heard of Vulcan? RE scientists have lapsed on their world view before. I'd comment on Dispersive Extinction, but I don't understand it, even after digging through its source paper. I'm not going to argue on a subject I don't understand for the hell of it.

Just understand that a telescope is nothing more than an enlarged microscope.
They do not see into the distance, they magnify what is in the distance and the distances they magnify are not too far.
In a lab, they will put a speck of something onto a glass plate and use the microscope to magnify the image from a short distance.

So all this seeing a star as it was millions of years ago is so ridiculous but we as human beings swallow it from an early age and can't seem to get rid of that brainwashing because it's a saturation of nonsense.

Let's be realistic and logical.
If the sun was 93 million miles away and lit up half of the Earth as we're told and we're told it's because it can throw its light as a wash over and past Earth then the stars we are told as being bigger suns should also wash out Earth with light as there's apparently nothing to stop it in space.

It's just utter nonsense.

Stars are not what we're told and the distances of all of them are idiotic but this is the nonsense we are massively indoctrinated into and by mass policing ourselves we ensure this idiocy continues ahead of the logical mind we have.
Imagine having your logic wiped out in favour of fantasy stories that we just know are ridiculous but are fearful to say so because the book-reading studying crew of certificate hoarders ensure their perceived higher stance in the line of education takes precedence over the cap doffers who feel intimidated enough to be scolded into rolling that cap between their fingers with head bowed and to recite the words, " I will never question authority again, sir/madam."


Mass indoctrination becomes mass bullying of all minority opposition, enough to force many of the minority to shackle up and take the easy route among the many because it requires less thought as the thinking is already done and it offers a higher pedestal to those who stand in that shackled line looking down their nose at the unshackled, only.

Comfort in numbers and without the ability to be pressured to think, only to recite/regurgitate.

Just understand that a telescope is nothing more than an enlarged microscope.

How is the eight inch lens of my telescope not collecting more light than the human eye or a microscope.  Why a telescope can make what can’t be seen in space with the naked eye possible. 

Let's be realistic and logical.
If the sun was 93 million miles away and lit up half of the Earth as we're told and we're told it's because it can throw its light as a wash over and past Earth then the stars we are told as being bigger suns should also wash out Earth with light as there's apparently nothing to stop it in space.

It's just utter nonsense.

You mean the RE model explains the magnitude of chargers particles created to illuminate the earths magnetic belts from a spinning iron core, why the sun stays the same size in the sky throughout the day, explains sunsets / sunrises, and the curvature explains why the sun becomes physically blocked from view, and the sun as a radiation source cannot be pinpointed at night.

And RE explains how the sun can be relatively below the clouds at sunrise to cast shadows up into the sky.

Just understand that a telescope is nothing more than an enlarged microscope.

Telescopes and microscopes are fundamentally different.

Microscopes need to see quite small objects, so a wide aperture is useless.
Instead, they bring a lens quite close to the object to enlarge it while its angular size is still large enough.

Conversely, telescopes are about letting in a large amount of light, and having a large aperture to try to get a better resolution.

So all this seeing a star as it was millions of years ago is so ridiculous

Why? Because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy?

Let's be realistic and logical.
If the sun was 93 million miles away and lit up half of the Earth as we're told and we're told it's because it can throw its light as a wash over and past Earth then the stars we are told as being bigger suns should also wash out Earth with light as there's apparently nothing to stop it in space.

It's just utter nonsense.

If you want to be realistic and logical, try to provide something other than utter nonsense.

Ever heard of the inverse square law?

The closest star other than the sun is Proxima Centuri at roughly 4.2 light years away (or roughly 4e13 km away).
That is roughly 265000 times the distance to the sun.
That means to get the same kind of light from it, it would need to be roughly 70 000 000 000 times as bright as the sun.
And that is just for the closest star.

So no, stars being bigger than the sun should not make them wash out Earth. Such an idea is utter nonsense.
A realistic and logical approach would consider distance as well as size.
But we both know that isn't what you are after.

Imagine having your logic wiped out in favour of fantasy stories that we just know are ridiculous

As you have done with you embracing your own ridiculous fantasy devoid of logic?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 31, 2023, 12:32:42 AM

Just understand that a telescope is nothing more than an enlarged microscope.

How is the eight inch lens of my telescope not collecting more light than the human eye or a microscope.  Why a telescope can make what can’t be seen in space with the naked eye possible.

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

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.

Quote from: Username on May 30, 2023, 12:17:10 PM

To be fair, space is not empty and there's a fair amount of dust, debris, quantum foam, etc. Even in round earth science they have tried to use this to patch together their fantasy of a world view with theories such as Dispersive Extinction. The truth of the matter is that round earth science cares not for falsifiability if it contradicts their world view. They will just make up ad hoc explanation after ad hoc explanation until they have a patchwork of nonsense.

Not necessarily. Ever heard of Vulcan? RE scientists have lapsed on their world view before. I'd comment on Dispersive Extinction, but I don't understand it, even after digging through its source paper. I'm not going to argue on a subject I don't understand for the hell of it.

The fact Vulcan was believed to exist in the first place is due to ad hoc hypotheses, and the fact it is no longer is due to it being replaced by another.

The fact Vulcan was believed to exist in the first place is due to ad hoc hypotheses, and the fact it is no longer is due to it being replaced by another.

Ad hoc means "for this," not "bullshit.

Quote from: Username on June 01, 2023, 01:06:09 PM

The fact Vulcan was believed to exist in the first place is due to ad hoc hypotheses, and the fact it is no longer is due to it being replaced by another.

Ad hoc means "for this," not "bullshit.

Tell that to the round earthers. This very phenomenae was noted by Thomas Kuhn as well as Paul Feyerabend - both round earthers and experts in the philosophy of science.

"philosphy of science"



astrology vs astronomy

"philosphy of science"



astrology vs astronomy

The field that studies science surely has nothing to say on science. 

The very fact you can say "astrology vs astronomy", pointing out one is not a science, is due to the philosophy of science; you have unwittingly used the results of the subject of your mocking as the basis for your argument against it.

Typical round earth mental gymnastics. It's rather hilarious to watch.

no more like you're using a nonscience thing and trying to gymnastic your way to science by including some science.

the position of the heavnly bodies is the seen position.
the application that their position has any bearing on your lucky lotto numbers or love life is the eye roll similar to the many ad hocs i see being used to make FE "work".

no more like you're using a nonscience thing and trying to gymnastic your way to science by including some science.

the position of the heavnly bodies is the seen position.
the application that their position has any bearing on your lucky lotto numbers or love life is the eye roll similar to the many ad hocs i see being used to make FE "work".

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.

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?

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:

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?

Poisoned bread!



Also
Tombishop
King of the ad hoc.



But is argue darkmatter as a place holder, not ad hoc.
Kind of like integration where theres a C to always add in.
If we knew better, wed have a value for it.


Theres alao a difference between cosmosis place holders or quatum quasits
vs earth = ball.