So, Flat Earthers.
There's a transit of Mercury today. If you have a telescope and can project an image of the sun on to a screen, you can watch it for yourself.
Its timing and duration has been predicted to great accuracy using standard astronomical models of our heliocentric solar system.
How do you lot explain that, I wonder?
How also do you explain the live satellite streaming of the transit both from Nasa and the European Space Agency.CGI.
Images from which obviously correspond exactly with the images that are available from various places on the ground that have clear sight of the sun today.
It's a bit much to expect that all the terrestrial observers are faking their images and reports, don't you think?
There are no consumer telescopes strong enough to see Mercury. They're tightly regulated by NASA so people can only get them if NASA allows it. I know this because I do not have a telescope.Ha, you totally had me going until this one.
QuoteThere are no consumer telescopes strong enough to see Mercury. They're tightly regulated by NASA so people can only get them if NASA allows it. I know this because I do not have a telescope.Ha, you totally had me going until this one.
Mercury was constructed by NASA to preserve the Conspiracy.
You've heard of Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)?I hadn't heard of it yet, but it certainly makes sense that it's documented by now.
It's virtually impossible to tell the difference between real FE rhetoric and a parody of it.
Joking apart, I photographed the transit of Venus myself a few years ago. Didn't even need a telescope, just a camera on a tripod and a piece of welders glass as a filter. The result wasn't particularly high quality, but the small disc of Venus was clear enough.Neat! More curious to get an answer to
It's cloudy where I am today, otherwise I'd photograph today's transit.
So, Flat Earthers.Predictions: That wasn't actually Venus, you were hallucinating, you're a shill.
...
How do you lot explain that, I wonder?
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day
Quoteor are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.Jroa loves to pretend to not understand things, or maybe really doesn't.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day
Yes, please do! I'd like to see your calculations.QuoteQuoteor are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
I'm sure richaddis would like to see the your details of your math first. I know I would.
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?
I would also like to see the math. Or you can save 50 posts and just say you didn't know the transit was so short time wise.Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
I think Jroa has forgotten about perspective.
He is assuming that the transit is Mercury making half of its orbit around the sun...
Or he is just being his usual trolling self.
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?
I'm very flattered that consider my image NASA quality! Thank you!
It's actually far from NASA quality.
It was taken with a 5" Newtonian reflector/25mm eyepiece/iPhone 5S in an adapter cradle.
You warn me for low content posting and then you post that picture? You are dumb.Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?
I'm very flattered that consider my image NASA quality! Thank you!
It's actually far from NASA quality.
It was taken with a 5" Newtonian reflector/25mm eyepiece/iPhone 5S in an adapter cradle.
Well, it looks much more realistic than this one.
(http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/apollo-11-moon-landing-hoax-revised.png)
<Irrelevant stuff>
Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
You warn me for low content posting and then you post that picture? You are dumb.Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?
I'm very flattered that consider my image NASA quality! Thank you!
It's actually far from NASA quality.
It was taken with a 5" Newtonian reflector/25mm eyepiece/iPhone 5S in an adapter cradle.
Well, it looks much more realistic than this one.
(http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/apollo-11-moon-landing-hoax-revised.png)
I never claimed they were new points. Just points or really a question where the answer is the point but he was too afraid to answer.
What makes you think that your questions seem any less dumb when you post them over and over?
What makes you think that your questions seem any less dumb when you post them over and over?
That's his way of admitting that he was wrong. Deal with it.
Still waiting for the math, jroa.
I suspect it will be a long wait, though. Still think it will take weeks for Mercury to traverse a small fraction of the Sun's apparent diameter, or are you hoping we'll forget you claimed it would?
Still waiting for the math, jroa.
I suspect it will be a long wait, though. Still think it will take weeks for Mercury to traverse a small fraction of the Sun's apparent diameter, or are you hoping we'll forget you claimed it would?
I am sorry. I did not realize that you lost your calculator. Perhaps we could have a fundraiser and we can all pitch in to buy you a new one?
Still waiting for the math, jroa.
I suspect it will be a long wait, though. Still think it will take weeks for Mercury to traverse a small fraction of the Sun's apparent diameter, or are you hoping we'll forget you claimed it would?
I am sorry. I did not realize that you lost your calculator. Perhaps we could have a fundraiser and we can all pitch in to buy you a new one?
It was you who offered to do the math Jroa...are you retracting your offer?
Good ole jroa. Says something stupid and now won't fess up.
First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Good ole jroa. Says something stupid and now won't fess up.
Good ole sokarul. You can always count on him to make low content posts that add nothing to the discussion. When was the last time you were banned for low content posting? I could look it up, if I really cared.
First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
Good ole jroa. Says something stupid and now won't fess up.
Good ole sokarul. You can always count on him to make low content posts that add nothing to the discussion. When was the last time you were banned for low content posting? I could look it up, if I really cared.
Do it.
And if you want examples of low content posts. Look at your own.
Frankly I find it downright insulting that Jroa insults my hard work by dismissing it as fake.
I challenge you Jroa to try Astrophotography. Maybe you'll learn a thing or 2
Frankly I find it downright insulting that Jroa insults my hard work by dismissing it as fake.
I challenge you Jroa to try Astrophotography. Maybe you'll learn a thing or 2
I did not flat out say it was a fake. I said it looked like a stock image; probably one that NASA has in a database that is accessible to all of their shills. Don't be mad just because I don't think you are special or original.
Practice what you preach.Good ole jroa. Says something stupid and now won't fess up.
Good ole sokarul. You can always count on him to make low content posts that add nothing to the discussion. When was the last time you were banned for low content posting? I could look it up, if I really cared.
Do it.
And if you want examples of low content posts. Look at your own.
Don't tempt me. Just stop posting low content posts in the upper fora. You have been here long enough to know it is against the rules and that a warning for doing something means you should probably quit doing the thing that your were warned for.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?YOU said you wanted the math. Stellarium has the math. It demonstrates what we actually see in the sky. Now you don't accept it.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?YOU said you wanted the math. Stellarium has the math. It demonstrates what we actually see in the sky. Now you don't accept it.
YOU said the sky can't demonstrate the shape of the Earth. The alignment of telescopes does EXACTLY that.
In other words, there is no evidence for you. I am done taking you even semi-seriously. Satanists at NASA, really. You are nuts. You are a total waste of time. No one should answer your posts.
Frankly I find it downright insulting that Jroa insults my hard work by dismissing it as fake.Do you ever expect anything different from him?
I challenge you Jroa to try Astrophotography.Ha!
Maybe you'll learn a thing or 2That's even funnier yet.
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
Still waiting for the math, jroa.I am sorry. I did not realize that you lost your calculator. Perhaps we could have a fundraiser and we can all pitch in to buy you a new one?
I suspect it will be a long wait, though. Still think it will take weeks for Mercury to traverse a small fraction of the Sun's apparent diameter, or are you hoping we'll forget you claimed it would?
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...Still waiting for the math, jroa.I am sorry. I did not realize that you lost your calculator. Perhaps we could have a fundraiser and we can all pitch in to buy you a new one?
I suspect it will be a long wait, though. Still think it will take weeks for Mercury to traverse a small fraction of the Sun's apparent diameter, or are you hoping we'll forget you claimed it would?
My calculator says it should take hours, not several weeks, for Mercury to appear to cross the face of the Sun. This agrees with what I saw, so it appears to be right.
This is why you do need to do the math in order to tell us how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day. Several of us are anxiously waiting to see this. Please include the details of your computations so we can analyze why we disagree by orders of magnitude. Thanks!
Ha and ha. Get back to us when you've done the calculations for yourself and are ready to admit you were wrong.The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...Still waiting for the math, jroa.I am sorry. I did not realize that you lost your calculator. Perhaps we could have a fundraiser and we can all pitch in to buy you a new one?
I suspect it will be a long wait, though. Still think it will take weeks for Mercury to traverse a small fraction of the Sun's apparent diameter, or are you hoping we'll forget you claimed it would?
My calculator says it should take hours, not several weeks, for Mercury to appear to cross the face of the Sun. This agrees with what I saw, so it appears to be right.
This is why you do need to do the math in order to tell us how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day. Several of us are anxiously waiting to see this. Please include the details of your computations so we can analyze why we disagree by orders of magnitude. Thanks!
Ah, great. At least one of you can make a calculation. I was beginning to think that all of you roundies either did not own or could not operate a calculator. I am pleased to learn that you people can actually make calculations on your own. I was afraid that I was being nominated to be the official calculator for your peoples. I am very happy to see that my fears were for naught.
Did I hurt your feelings just because I was not impressed with your photo? I did not know your ambition was so fragile. Next time you take a photo, I will be impressed, I promise.
I never claimed they were new points. Just points or really a question where the answer is the point but he was too afraid to answer.
What makes you think that your questions seem any less dumb when you post them over and over? If nobody responds to you, perhaps it is you and not the people you are trying to get answers from who has the problem.
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?
Still waiting for the math, jroa.
I suspect it will be a long wait, though. Still think it will take weeks for Mercury to traverse a small fraction of the Sun's apparent diameter, or are you hoping we'll forget you claimed it would?
I am sorry. I did not realize that you lost your calculator. Perhaps we could have a fundraiser and we can all pitch in to buy you a new one?
First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?
How genuinely fucking stupid are you? Have you ever witnessed a transit yourself? Because I did, I watched the Venus transit, and I am 100% sure that what I was looking through my binoculars was not fucking CGI. Millions of people have witnessed these transits, and you can't really convince them they're looking at CGI either. So, since you're so convinced they're fake, why don't you fucking try to observe one next time? Go to an observatory, or buy yourself a small telescope or binoculars with a solar filter, and observe one! Or show everyone that they're fake, if you're so convinced they are! The next Mercury transit is in 3 years I think, do everyone a favor, observe it yourself and then shut up!
I'm sorry for the rant and the language, but really, willful ignorance just pisses me off!
I'm going to be viewing and photographing Mercury's transit in May. I challenge any FEers to do so also and recognise exactly what you are seeing!
He lies;Frankly I find it downright insulting that Jroa insults my hard work by dismissing it as fake.I did not flat out say it was a fake.
I said it looked like a stock image;again says richaddis didn't do anything to get the image;
probably one that NASA has in a database that is accessible to all of their shills.
Don't be mad just because I don't think you are special or original.says it again. Claimed the picture was fake, claimed he never said that, says it three times in the same post.
The usual content dodging from Jroa.Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. [nb]Accurate, but it has nothing to do with the time elapsed, so still ignorant nonsense. [/nb]Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, [nb]I'm not sure you even could. [/nb]or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time? [nb]Just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears.[/nb]Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? [nb]Just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears.[/nb] Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? [nb]Just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears.[/nb] Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky? [nb]Implying we can't? Just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears.[/nb]
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one). [nb]And let's see what he does about this. . .[/i]
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? [nb]Just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears.[/nb] Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right? [nb]Just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears.[/nb][nb]If Earth is flat, how is Stellarium accurate despite being based on a completely different geometric figure? The programmer doesn't matter if the result is still right. It's not NASA's claims about the shape of the earth that result in inconsistencies with what we actually see, it's the uneducated armchair Internet astronomers pretending to have a clue what they're saying and what it's actually like outside.[/nb]
You also have eyes I assume, and you can [nb]Actually, he can't. He's busy screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding his ears.[/nb] look at the sky, to verify just how accurate Stellarium is. Guess what: you're not going to find a fault.
First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
You also have eyes I assume, and you can look at the sky, to verify just how accurate Stellarium is. Guess what: you're not going to find a fault.
I think the point is Stellarium is programmed by NASA. But in order to make the night sky line up with Stellarium NASA has to control everything in the night sky. Only God and Satan have the power to do that. So I think this is further proof that NASA is run by satanists.Really, can you provide any evidence that Satan and NASA can control the night sky. This should be interesting...
It's 8:56, do you know where your math is?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
I think the point is Stellarium is programmed by NASA. But in order to make the night sky line up with Stellarium NASA has to control everything in the night sky. Only God and Satan have the power to do that. So I think this is further proof that NASA is run by satanists.Really, can you provide any evidence that Satan and NASA can control the night sky. This should be interesting...
Look we might be able to do it for the globe because we know (or can find out) the relevant orbital radii and angular velocities, but for the flat earth the are no details available.Good ole jroa. Says something stupid and now won't fess up.
Good ole sokarul. You can always count on him to make low content posts that add nothing to the discussion. When was the last time you were banned for low content posting? I could look it up, if I really cared.
Do it.
And if you want examples of low content posts. Look at your own.
Don't tempt me. Just stop posting low content posts in the upper fora. You have been here long enough to know it is against the rules and that a warning for doing something means you should probably quit doing the thing that your were warned for.
I think the point is Stellarium is programmed by NASA. But in order to make the night sky line up with Stellarium NASA has to control everything in the night sky. Only God and Satan have the power to do that. So I think this is further proof that NASA is run by satanists.Really, can you provide any evidence that Satan and NASA can control the night sky. This should be interesting...
Well the fact that a program like Stellarium seems to predict the movements of the night sky. How else would you explain it?
If you know the physics and math of something, you can extrapolate what will happen. When you travel by car, train or plane and you know how fast it is going (say 60 mph), how do you know you will reach a place 120 mi away in 2 hrs? How can you plan for it? Truck drivers do it all the time. Pilots/airlines do it all the time. Most people driving to work do it. Does everyone (especially the passengers) control the speed and distance? Does that mean everyone is a satanist working for NASA?Well the fact that a program like Stellarium seems to predict the movements of the night sky. How else would you explain it?I think the point is Stellarium is programmed by NASA. But in order to make the night sky line up with Stellarium NASA has to control everything in the night sky. Only God and Satan have the power to do that. So I think this is further proof that NASA is run by satanists.Really, can you provide any evidence that Satan and NASA can control the night sky. This should be interesting...
You people are a little pathetic.
You people are a little pathetic.
...says the man who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong...
You people are a little pathetic.
...says the man who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong...
Wrong about your shill maneuver not working? I don't think I was wrong about that.
You people are a little pathetic.
...says the man who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong...
Wrong about your shill maneuver not working? I don't think I was wrong about that.
You were, but more pathetic was your failed attempt at using your mathematical *cough* knowledge to try and argue errors in the timings of my images only to be shot down by people who actually understood the basic concept of perspective.
You really got egg on your face this time Jroa.
You people are a little pathetic.
...says the man who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong...
Wrong about your shill maneuver not working? I don't think I was wrong about that.
You were, but more pathetic was your failed attempt at using your mathematical *cough* knowledge to try and argue errors in the timings of my images only to be shot down by people who actually understood the basic concept of perspective.
You really got egg on your face this time Jroa.
Better to have egg on one's face than scabs on one's knees from sucking up to the shill handlers.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
Oh, I am sorry that we overwhelmed you! I'm sorry that we lead you to this great mistake! I'm sure that when you saw the pictures that richaddis provided, you were SO overwhelmed, that you just had to play smart and make an incredibly stupid mistake! Then you were SO overwhelmed, that you had to run around posting sarcastic comments towards those who pointed out your mistake! In fact, you were so overwhelmed, that you couldn't even admit you are wrong!!! Oh poor old sensitive jroa...
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
Oh, I am sorry that we overwhelmed you! I'm sorry that we lead you to this great mistake! I'm sure that when you saw the pictures that richaddis provided, you were SO overwhelmed, that you just had to play smart and make an incredibly stupid mistake! Then you were SO overwhelmed, that you had to run around posting sarcastic comments towards those who pointed out your mistake! In fact, you were so overwhelmed, that you couldn't even admit you are wrong!!! Oh poor old sensitive jroa...
Do I need to count how many posts you people made saying the exact same thing over and over, even after I went to bed and before I logged in again to answer even one of you?
Obvious shills are obvious. Perhaps when you make your next accounts, you will not make your shillness so obvious.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
Oh, I am sorry that we overwhelmed you! I'm sorry that we lead you to this great mistake! I'm sure that when you saw the pictures that richaddis provided, you were SO overwhelmed, that you just had to play smart and make an incredibly stupid mistake! Then you were SO overwhelmed, that you had to run around posting sarcastic comments towards those who pointed out your mistake! In fact, you were so overwhelmed, that you couldn't even admit you are wrong!!! Oh poor old sensitive jroa...
Do I need to count how many posts you people made saying the exact same thing over and over, even after I went to bed and before I logged in again to answer even one of you?
Obvious shills are obvious. Perhaps when you make your next accounts, you will not make your shillness so obvious.
Awww, we're so cruel we can't even let you sleep! Oh, I'm so sorry, you must be so overwhelmed by now that you still haven't admitted your mistake!
By the way, thanks for reminding me that I'm a shill. I almost forgot that I was part of a goddamn hive mind, like another moron on this site thinks.
There are no shills here. Grow up. Nobody except for a few of us who do it mostly for entertainment, but also to expose this silliness gives a shit about FES. I think you don't even believe in it deep inside you, you're just too stubborn to admit it to yourself. Or maybe it's comforting to you to believe that you're not a sheep and know something more.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
No sympathy. When you make a stupid remark and "threaten" to do the math to back it up, expect to be asked to do the math and back it up. Since you were bluffing, it sucks to be you.
If you don't like the response, don't make a stupid statement and claim you can back it up, unless you think you can back it up.
Simple.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
No sympathy. When you make a stupid remark and "threaten" to do the math to back it up, expect to be asked to do the math and back it up. Since you were bluffing, it sucks to be you.
If you don't like the response, don't make a stupid statement and claim you can back it up, unless you think you can back it up.
Simple.
I am sorry that Math is so threatening to you. If I knew that it would shatter your fragile feelings, I would not have even mentioned the M word. Please. forgive my ignorance.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
No sympathy. When you make a stupid remark and "threaten" to do the math to back it up, expect to be asked to do the math and back it up. Since you were bluffing, it sucks to be you.
If you don't like the response, don't make a stupid statement and claim you can back it up, unless you think you can back it up.
Simple.
I am sorry that Math is so threatening to you. If I knew that it would shatter your fragile feelings, I would not have even mentioned the M word. Please. forgive my ignorance.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
No sympathy. When you make a stupid remark and "threaten" to do the math to back it up, expect to be asked to do the math and back it up. Since you were bluffing, it sucks to be you.
If you don't like the response, don't make a stupid statement and claim you can back it up, unless you think you can back it up.
Simple.
I am sorry that Math is so threatening to you. If I knew that it would shatter your fragile feelings, I would not have even mentioned the M word. Please. forgive my ignorance.
Are we going to see your math? I don't know where I stand in this debate, and am generally curious as to what calculations you would bring to the table here.
He clearly can't do the maths he claimed to be able to, anyone can see that now.
Leave the poor lad alone
He clearly can't do the maths he claimed to be able to, anyone can see that now.
Leave the poor lad alone
No shit. I messed up. Are you 12 years old? Can you let go of your mommy's skirt long enough to talk to adults?
He clearly can't do the maths he claimed to be able to, anyone can see that now.
Leave the poor lad alone
No shit. I messed up. Are you 12 years old? Can you let go of your mommy's skirt long enough to talk to adults?
So you admit you lied when you said you can do the math?
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
No sympathy. When you make a stupid remark and "threaten" to do the math to back it up, expect to be asked to do the math and back it up. Since you were bluffing, it sucks to be you.
If you don't like the response, don't make a stupid statement and claim you can back it up, unless you think you can back it up.
Simple.
I am sorry that Math is so threatening to you. If I knew that it would shatter your fragile feelings, I would not have even mentioned the M word. Please. forgive my ignorance.
Are we going to see your math? I don't know where I stand in this debate, and am generally curious as to what calculations you would bring to the table here.
I was wrong, just as 80 sock puppets pointed out. Perhaps you have some salt to pour in my wound? Maybe some lemon juice? You can be a dick, just like the shill meat puppets, if you want to be. But, you cant take me down until the NASA agents get to me.
Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
By the way, it's cute that you think NASA agents are coming for you.
Anyhoo; back to staring at tiny dots in the sky & believing it proves a damn thing about the earth beneath our feet...
This abject nonsense has been brought to you courtesy of the autistic pseudo-science of Astrophysics!
This is true:Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
This is funny:By the way, it's cute that you think NASA agents are coming for you.
You shills REALLY need to watch your vocabulary.
Repeating the same stock phrases from sock-to-sock is the biggest giveaway as to your tactics.
It's cute that you make it so easy for me!
Anyhoo; back to staring at tiny dots in the sky & believing it proves a damn thing about the earth beneath our feet...
This abject nonsense has been brought to you courtesy of the autistic pseudo-science of Astrophysics!
This is true:Well, I see the shill pack is up to their old games: overload a thread with an astroturf maneuver so that a dozen people are all repeating the same thing over and over and the one opponent who is conversing with them is overwhelmed and unable to respond to the individuals. Well, your fake grassroots ploy does not fool anybody. You might want to look a little deeper into your shill book of tricks in order to find something that we have not seen before. You people are a little pathetic.
This is funny:By the way, it's cute that you think NASA agents are coming for you.
You shills REALLY need to watch your vocabulary.
Repeating the same stock phrases from sock-to-sock is the biggest giveaway as to your tactics.
It's cute that you make it so easy for me!
Anyhoo; back to staring at tiny dots in the sky & believing it proves a damn thing about the earth beneath our feet...
This abject nonsense has been brought to you courtesy of the autistic pseudo-science of Astrophysics!
Did I summon you by mentioning your name or something?
Awww, isn't that cute? The malfunctioning anti-IQ bot thinks anything it shits out on this troll forum actually means something in the real world.. LOl
Is the bot self-aware enough to tell its troll creator it's in desperate need of a reset? I'd ask it to request a format but I'm not feeling that lucky at the moment. Oh well, maybe next time.
It is one hundred percent undeniably crazy to believe we are all sock puppets and shills.
Personally i just find it mildly amusing here.
Now; you claim that a tiny dot in the sky proves we live on an enormous spinny globe that is also a tiny dot in the sky, or some such mad shit?
Quote from: Papa LegbaNow; you claim that a tiny dot in the sky proves we live on an enormous spinny globe that is also a tiny dot in the sky, or some such mad shit?
It proves a heliocentric solar system, it's really difficult to deny that we orbit the sun and the force we call gravity is king.
Did I summon you by mentioning your name or something?
You summoned me through making bad choices.Awww, isn't that cute? The malfunctioning anti-IQ bot thinks anything it shits out on this troll forum actually means something in the real world.. LOl
Is the bot self-aware enough to tell its troll creator it's in desperate need of a reset? I'd ask it to request a format but I'm not feeling that lucky at the moment. Oh well, maybe next time.
^Insane & repetitive gaslighting from a deeply psychopathic sock-puppet shill that sounds exactly like every other psychopathic sock-puppet shill here.It is one hundred percent undeniably crazy to believe we are all sock puppets and shills.
Personally i just find it mildly amusing here.
Said every sock-puppet shill, everywhere, ever...
Now; you claim that a tiny dot in the sky proves we live on an enormous spinny globe that is also a tiny dot in the sky, or some such mad shit?
If you have finished your gleeful harping freak-show, please elucidate upon this nonsensical notion...
Quote from: Papa LegbaNow; you claim that a tiny dot in the sky proves we live on an enormous spinny globe that is also a tiny dot in the sky, or some such mad shit?
It proves a heliocentric solar system, it's really difficult to deny that we orbit the sun and the force we call gravity is king.
LOL!!!
Your use of the word 'king' in reference to the male-centred Sun-Worshipping Cult of Heliocentricity is most telling...
Now; please explain how this dot in the sky proves the 'Kingliness' of your Cult?
Without the employment of gaslighting psychopathic sock-puppets to hammer your nonsense home, please; if you are capable of controlling your deep-seated shill-instincts, that is...
Fun to see jroa get destroyed in this thread
Quote from: Papa LegbaNow; you claim that a tiny dot in the sky proves we live on an enormous spinny globe that is also a tiny dot in the sky, or some such mad shit?
It proves a heliocentric solar system, it's really difficult to deny that we orbit the sun and the force we call gravity is king.
LOL!!!
Your use of the word 'king' in reference to the male-centred Sun-Worshipping Cult of Heliocentricity is most telling...
Now; please explain how this dot in the sky proves the 'Kingliness' of your Cult?
Without the employment of gaslighting psychopathic sock-puppets to hammer your nonsense home, please; if you are capable of controlling your deep-seated shill-instincts, that is...
Well, I asked you to do two things...
And you failed at both.Now; please explain how this dot in the sky proves the 'Kingliness' of your Cult?
Without the employment of gaslighting psychopathic sock-puppets to hammer your nonsense home, please; if you are capable of controlling your deep-seated shill-instincts, that is...
But do carry on with your insane ravings in defence of the Heliocentric Cult of Sun-Worship which you deny exists, even though the evidence for it is all around you.
You do realise that, should your lowly shill-slave selves ever be considered worthy of rising in the ranks far enough, your much-anticipated 'Initiation' will be a most horrific experience.
It is, after all, a MALE-centred Cult.
Hmm?
One last laugh at your sick stupidity before we go:Fun to see jroa get destroyed in this thread
Vocabulary, old bean; vocabulary...
Well, I asked you to do two things...
And you failed at both.Now; please explain how this dot in the sky proves the 'Kingliness' of your Cult?But do carry on with your insane ravings in defence of the Heliocentric Cult of Sun-Worship which you deny exists, even though the evidence for it is all around you.
Without the employment of gaslighting psychopathic sock-puppets to hammer your nonsense home, please; if you are capable of controlling your deep-seated shill-instincts, that is...
You do realise that, should your lowly shill-slave selves ever be considered worthy of rising in the ranks far enough, your much-anticipated 'Initiation' will be a most horrific experience.
It is, after all, a MALE-centred Cult.
Hmm?
One last laugh at your sick stupidity before we go:Fun to see jroa get destroyed in this threadVocabulary, old bean; vocabulary...
Well, don't you think it's at least the tiniest bit weird, that no matter if you observed it at dawn, midday, or dusk, the transit was always face-on? Can you please explain to us how observers on different time zones would all see the transit face-on? How does that work please?
You're arrogant if you think you don't have to explain anything. All the "arrogant", "stuck-up", "lying" scientists explain their findings, why shouldn't you? If you're so set in your beliefs, this should be easy. Anyone whose arguments center around shifting the burden of proof instead of providing it is ignorant, stubborn, and a total coward. If you're so set in your beliefs, step up to the plate and defend them.Well, don't you think it's at least the tiniest bit weird, that no matter if you observed it at dawn, midday, or dusk, the transit was always face-on? Can you please explain to us how observers on different time zones would all see the transit face-on? How does that work please?
You are starting from a mass of arrogant assumptions.
First & foremost, that I need to explain anything at all.
Now, you will explain what the tiny dot is & what the yellow light it is 'transiting' is.
Oh, & Geoff - STFU.
Well, don't you think it's at least the tiniest bit weird, that no matter if you observed it at dawn, midday, or dusk, the transit was always face-on? Can you please explain to us how observers on different time zones would all see the transit face-on? How does that work please?
You are starting from a mass of arrogant assumptions.
First & foremost, that I need to explain anything at all.
Now, you will explain what the tiny dot is & what the yellow light it is 'transiting' is.
Oh, & Geoff - STFU.
You never explain anything. Pretty solid evidence that you can't. You shift the burden of proof, even though round earthers can carry it just fine. When a round earther is challenged to defend their concept of the truth, they do it just fine.Well, don't you think it's at least the tiniest bit weird, that no matter if you observed it at dawn, midday, or dusk, the transit was always face-on? Can you please explain to us how observers on different time zones would all see the transit face-on? How does that work please?
You are starting from a mass of arrogant assumptions.
First & foremost, that I need to explain anything at all.
Now, you will explain what the tiny dot is & what the yellow light it is 'transiting' is.
Oh, & Geoff - STFU.
Daren't answer?
Fair enough.
Your cowardice & dishonesty is noted.
Not that it was news to anyone here anyway...
Perhaps you'd now like to go start a thread on S&C begging for me to be banned again, like you did last time I schooled your sorry ass?
Which was yet another example of the cowardice & dishonesty you are renowned for btw.
Toodle-pip, Yellow-Belly!
I was wrong
what the transit of mercury proves is how we can see other planets going around our sun, that we are ALSO orbiting, and that mercury is a sphere, and so is the other planets and therefore since we follow the same universal laws as it does, the planet is a sphere.
Well, it only took a page to send you all into a poo-flinging, Cultist chimp-out meltdown...
Job done.
Enjoy looking at your tiny lights in the sky & believing they tell you anything whatsoever about how the earth beneath your feet behaves...
It is an utterly insane belief, that you are terrified to even attempt to justify from first causes; but as you are members of a crazed Cult of sodomists, that is par for the course.
Toodle-pip, Madmen!
Wow, every sock puppet must post... and then I admitted I made a mistake... and now they are flocking here.
Why not try to find the truth instead of looking for my errors?
I managed to capture a couple [of images of the transit of mercury]...
https://imageshack.com/i/po6bnK0lj (https://imageshack.com/i/po6bnK0lj)
https://imageshack.com/i/pnUiqeSrj (https://imageshack.com/i/pnUiqeSrj)
I promised these in an earlier thread.
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
I was wrong
Thanks for the admission of your error by the way. It was like bleeding a stone but you got there.
Why not try to find the truth instead of looking for my errors?
Wow I haven't encountered this Papa Legba character before, but from an outside perspective he sounds like exactly what he is accusing everyone else of being... A crazy cult member!
I mean, how far detached from reality can one person be before they become a danger and need to be sectioned?...
Wow, every sock puppet must post... and then I admitted I made a mistake... and now they are flocking here.
WE WEREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT YOU ANYMORE UNTIL YOU POSTED THAT!!! Were you so sad that we were not paying attention to you?
WE WEREN'T EVEN TALKING ABOUT YOU ANYMORE UNTIL YOU POSTED THAT!!! Were you so sad that we were not paying attention to you?
You weren't talking about anything at all.
You were refusing to justify your belief that a bunch of tiny dots in the sky you know only as mathematical/geometrical abstractions are somehow relevant to the nature of the earth beneath our feet & I was laughing at you for it.
Then you all went mental as usual & I laughed at you for that too.
Now; perhaps you'd care to answer these questions:
Do you speak Greek?
Do you live in Greece?
the dot is Mercury.
the dot is Mercury.
What is 'Mercury'?
You could have looked it up on your favourite source of factual information!the dot is Mercury.
What is 'Mercury'?
Mercury
Chemical Element
Mercury is a chemical element with symbol Hg and atomic number 80. It is commonly known as quicksilver and was formerly named hydrargyrum.
the dot is Mercury.
What is 'Mercury'?
A planet.
the dot is Mercury.
What is 'Mercury'?
A planet.
A 'planet'.
Called 'Mercury'.
The fact that this 'planet' is named after the deity Mercury/Hermes/Thoth would suggest it is part of some system of religious worship, would it not?
Perhaps one revolving around a Sun God named Ra?
Or is that just a 'coincidence'?
Hmm?
Oh, & STFU Geoff.
By the way, you're jumbling up the ancient mythologies.
By the way, you're jumbling up the ancient mythologies.
LOL!!!
You have no idea what you're blabbing on about do you?
Poor thing.
All you think you know about your dot in the sky is derived from mathematical/geometrical abstraction.
You are simply making up stories about it, which just happen to coincide with ancient sun-worshipping mythologies.
All a big coincidence, eh?
I think you are showing your usual ignorance still!the dot is Mercury.
What is 'Mercury'?
A planet.
A 'planet'.
Called 'Mercury'.
The fact that this 'planet' is named after the deity Mercury/Hermes/Thoth would suggest it is part of some system of religious worship, would it not?
Perhaps one revolving around a Sun God named Ra?
Or is that just a 'coincidence'?
Hmm?
Oh, & STFU Geoff.
But you are jumbling up the mythologies. You are acting as though Thoth, Ra, Mercury etc. are all part of one mythology.
But you are jumbling up the mythologies. You are acting as though Thoth, Ra, Mercury etc. are all part of one mythology.
Again: LOL!!!
You still have no idea what you are talking about.
Here's a quote from William Blake, someone who did know what he was talking about: 'The Gods of Greece & Egypt were Mathematical Diagrams'.
You are too dumb to see that nothing has changed in thousands of years, & you still slavishly prostrate yourself before exactly the same deities your equally dumb & enslaved ancestors had forced upon them.
I would suggest you grow the fuck up, but instead I'd prefer you spend the rest of your life stuck to the eyepiece of your telescope, watching Star Trek, & believing in your mentally-crippling Radiant Sky-Redeemer mythos, as this is clearly what you deserve.
Oh, & STFU, Geoff.
"Here's a quote from William Blake, someone who did know what he was talking about: 'The Gods of Greece & Egypt were Mathematical Diagrams'."
Where's the quote? Lol ;D ;D ;D
The Romans and Greeks viewed Thot, Hermes and Mercury as one and the same entity. So this mixing of mythologies has some tradition behind it.
The Romans and Greeks viewed Thot, Hermes and Mercury as one and the same entity. So this mixing of mythologies has some tradition behind it.
And who do you think Thoth was a rip-off of?
The Romans and Greeks viewed Thot, Hermes and Mercury as one and the same entity. So this mixing of mythologies has some tradition behind it.
The Romans and Greeks viewed Thot, Hermes and Mercury as one and the same entity. So this mixing of mythologies has some tradition behind it.
That's a little bit like saying that god and allah are seen as the same for christianity and islam. Ra has very little to do with Helios, other than the fact they were both gods of the sun.
Ra has very little to do with Helios, other than the fact they were both gods of the sun.
The Romans and Greeks viewed Thot, Hermes and Mercury as one and the same entity. So this mixing of mythologies has some tradition behind it.
That's a little bit like saying that god and allah are seen as the same for christianity and islam. Ra has very little to do with Helios, other than the fact they were both gods of the sun.
I think, most Christians and Muslims would say that both worship the same God. At least here in Malaysia and Indonesia, where both religions live side by side this is taken for granted.
When the Greeks wrote about the Egyptian Thot, they called him Hermes. For Ra it is a little complicated. In the 1st century BC Ra was, by and large, no seperate God anymore, but combined with Amun and worshipped as Amun-Ra. As such he was translated as Zeus, not as Helios. But Ra still had his cult in the city of Iunu, and there his name was indeed translated as Helios. And Iunu was called Heliopolis = City of Ra.
Ra has very little to do with Helios, other than the fact they were both gods of the sun.
::)
Your tedious Dichotomist Reductionist nonsense is noted, anyway...
For the Way of Slavery is to Always Reduce & Never Enlarge.
It should be the 'round earther' slogan, in fact.
Just saying...
Now back to what you were about to say about me being Greek.
The Romans and Greeks viewed Thot, Hermes and Mercury as one and the same entity. So this mixing of mythologies has some tradition behind it.
That's a little bit like saying that god and allah are seen as the same for christianity and islam. Ra has very little to do with Helios, other than the fact they were both gods of the sun.
I think, most Christians and Muslims would say that both worship the same God. At least here in Malaysia and Indonesia, where both religions live side by side this is taken for granted.
When the Greeks wrote about the Egyptian Thot, they called him Hermes. For Ra it is a little complicated. In the 1st century BC Ra was, by and large, no seperate God anymore, but combined with Amun and worshipped as Amun-Ra. As such he was translated as Zeus, not as Helios. But Ra still had his cult in the city of Iunu, and there his name was indeed translated as Helios. And Iunu was called Heliopolis = City of Ra.
Well, maybe that's how it is in Malaysia (and that's a good thing) but in Greece it's a bit different. In fact, I think the situation here definitely reflects the situation back then. They thought they were the same gods, but that the other ones had the wrong idea of them. But yeah, Ra is a bad mess, and that's why I wouldn't say he's the same as Helios, or even Zeus.
Greeks and Egyptians had different concepts, when they spoke of Helios or Ra, but they meant thje same thing.
Now back to what you were about to say about me being Greek.
I wasn't about to say anything.
I just wanted the information.
Now I have it.
Thank you.
I also have the information that you are terrified of attempting to justify your belief that tiny dots in the sky prove a single thing about the nature of the earth beneath our feet.
Thank you for that too.
Why the hell did you want the information??
Also, if by "justifying your belief that dots in the sky blah blah blah" you mean repeating every second post I make the same stuff I already said and you ignored, then no, I'm not terrified to do that, it's just that they were right the first time. Repeating them is a waste of time.
Why the hell did you want the information??
For the lulz.Also, if by "justifying your belief that dots in the sky blah blah blah" you mean repeating every second post I make the same stuff I already said and you ignored, then no, I'm not terrified to do that, it's just that they were right the first time. Repeating them is a waste of time.
So you are also fluent in Gibberish.
Thank you for that information.
He's not going to grow up, why are you still hereWhy the hell did you want the information??
For the lulz.Also, if by "justifying your belief that dots in the sky blah blah blah" you mean repeating every second post I make the same stuff I already said and you ignored, then no, I'm not terrified to do that, it's just that they were right the first time. Repeating them is a waste of time.
So you are also fluent in Gibberish.
Thank you for that information.
Well, maybe you're not fluent in English, because it's not gibberish.
Also, I find it concerning that you think me being Greek is funny. I mean, I know 4 year olds find everything funny, but not to that extent.
He's not going to grow up, why are you still hereWhy the hell did you want the information??
For the lulz.Also, if by "justifying your belief that dots in the sky blah blah blah" you mean repeating every second post I make the same stuff I already said and you ignored, then no, I'm not terrified to do that, it's just that they were right the first time. Repeating them is a waste of time.
So you are also fluent in Gibberish.
Thank you for that information.
Well, maybe you're not fluent in English, because it's not gibberish.
Also, I find it concerning that you think me being Greek is funny. I mean, I know 4 year olds find everything funny, but not to that extent.
it's not gibberish.
Because he amuses me
I should stop paying attention to him.
it's not gibberish.
It is.
In fact it is a Masterpiece of the Gibberish art.Because he amuses me
^A thing that every butthurt & beaten shill & troll here, ever, has said to me repeatedly already.I should stop paying attention to him.
^Another thing that every butthurt & beaten shill & troll here, ever, has vowed to do but failed at due to being shit at their shit trade.
"^Another thing that every butthurt & beaten shill & troll here, ever, has vowed to do but failed at due to being shit at their shit trade."
No, we failed because we are amused by you.
Hi guys I'm new to your fourm but a true believer in the flat earth and the lies that our government is trying to cover up!!! I have been researching religions,history the real history not the one the government made for us and also I'm tracking the history of the phonecians and cults like the Freemason's that pollute the truth and history thank you for any usefull knowledge that you can share and I hope for helpful conversion in the future!!!
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa?
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa?
He changed his mind, became a mod, then got the shit stalked outa him by sperg-lords like you for it would seem to be a logical answer?
But I'll let him fill in the details...
Which you will then probably harass & stalk him for providing, as your autism knows no bounds.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You seem a very confused & angry person.
Because the idea that someone can change their opinion does not seem at all unusual to normal, mentally-healthy people.
Autistic people, however, are notorious for their inability to cope with change...
Perhaps this forum is not for you?
the idea that someone can change their opinion does not seem at all unusual to normal, mentally-healthy people.
You two come as a little sperg-lord tag-team do you?
A Dark, Satanic sperg-lord tag-team even?
Meh.
I didn't read your autistic drivel, so I hope you had fun writing it, whatever the fuck it was...
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
Oh, that would not be needed. Seeing as thousands of amateur astronomers and stargazers use it all the time, and none of them has reported something wrong with it, I would guess it's rather accurate. If you can show anyone an inconsistency of Stellarium with your observations, do it.
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa? Look at your posts a few years ago, AND LOOK AT YOUR SIGNATURE NOW!
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You seem a very confused & angry person.
Because the idea that someone can change their opinion does not seem at all unusual to normal, mentally-healthy people.
Autistic people, however, are notorious for their inability to cope with change...
Perhaps this forum is not for you?
It's one thing to change your opinion, and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING to undergo a complete 180 reversal of your beliefs about so many fundamental things within less than 5 years while being an adult who I think has claimed he has already had children. It's crazy, and does not sound healthy at all.
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
Oh, that would not be needed. Seeing as thousands of amateur astronomers and stargazers use it all the time, and none of them has reported something wrong with it, I would guess it's rather accurate. If you can show anyone an inconsistency of Stellarium with your observations, do it.
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa? Look at your posts a few years ago, AND LOOK AT YOUR SIGNATURE NOW!
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum. Also, argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps you could, eventually, make an argument that is not a logical fallacy? That would be great. Please work on it.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You seem a very confused & angry person.
Because the idea that someone can change their opinion does not seem at all unusual to normal, mentally-healthy people.
Autistic people, however, are notorious for their inability to cope with change...
Perhaps this forum is not for you?
It's one thing to change your opinion, and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING to undergo a complete 180 reversal of your beliefs about so many fundamental things within less than 5 years while being an adult who I think has claimed he has already had children. It's crazy, and does not sound healthy at all.
Tell that to your local politicians. Oh, you probably think they never completely change their stance on a subject as well, right? ::)
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
Oh, that would not be needed. Seeing as thousands of amateur astronomers and stargazers use it all the time, and none of them has reported something wrong with it, I would guess it's rather accurate. If you can show anyone an inconsistency of Stellarium with your observations, do it.
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa? Look at your posts a few years ago, AND LOOK AT YOUR SIGNATURE NOW!
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum. Also, argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps you could, eventually, make an argument that is not a logical fallacy? That would be great. Please work on it.
Do you feel smarter that you threw around a bunch of terms in Latin? Yeah, it must feel great to Google "list of fallacies". Would it feel as great if I did the same thing for your posts? Trust me, you wouldn't like it.
I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers who somehow have never reported such a major error (and no, that's not argumentum ad populum, if at least you understood what you read you would know what this fallacy meant and when you can apply it, also that it's the same thing as argumentum ad numerum), and you make the claim that there is something wrong with it, you haven't provided any evidence.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You seem a very confused & angry person.
Because the idea that someone can change their opinion does not seem at all unusual to normal, mentally-healthy people.
Autistic people, however, are notorious for their inability to cope with change...
Perhaps this forum is not for you?
It's one thing to change your opinion, and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING to undergo a complete 180 reversal of your beliefs about so many fundamental things within less than 5 years while being an adult who I think has claimed he has already had children. It's crazy, and does not sound healthy at all.
Tell that to your local politicians. Oh, you probably think they never completely change their stance on a subject as well, right? ::)
I never said those fuckers were healthy.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You seem a very confused & angry person.
Because the idea that someone can change their opinion does not seem at all unusual to normal, mentally-healthy people.
Autistic people, however, are notorious for their inability to cope with change...
Perhaps this forum is not for you?
It's one thing to change your opinion, and a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING to undergo a complete 180 reversal of your beliefs about so many fundamental things within less than 5 years while being an adult who I think has claimed he has already had children. It's crazy, and does not sound healthy at all.
Tell that to your local politicians. Oh, you probably think they never completely change their stance on a subject as well, right? ::)
I never said those fuckers were healthy.
My girl friend seems to change here mind dozens of times per day. You are harping on me because I changed my mind once after years of research. Is this the last ditch tactic that your shill team has chosen? Seems like a Kamikaze attack to me.
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
Oh, that would not be needed. Seeing as thousands of amateur astronomers and stargazers use it all the time, and none of them has reported something wrong with it, I would guess it's rather accurate. If you can show anyone an inconsistency of Stellarium with your observations, do it.
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa? Look at your posts a few years ago, AND LOOK AT YOUR SIGNATURE NOW!
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum. Also, argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps you could, eventually, make an argument that is not a logical fallacy? That would be great. Please work on it.
Do you feel smarter that you threw around a bunch of terms in Latin? Yeah, it must feel great to Google "list of fallacies". Would it feel as great if I did the same thing for your posts? Trust me, you wouldn't like it.
I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers who somehow have never reported such a major error (and no, that's not argumentum ad populum, if at least you understood what you read you would know what this fallacy meant and when you can apply it, also that it's the same thing as argumentum ad numerum), and you make the claim that there is something wrong with it, you haven't provided any evidence.
I suppose I meant argumentum ad verecundiam. I am sorry that all of your fallacies blend together to me. Also, no, argumentum ad populum is not the exact same thing as argumentum ad numberum, even though they are related.
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
Oh, that would not be needed. Seeing as thousands of amateur astronomers and stargazers use it all the time, and none of them has reported something wrong with it, I would guess it's rather accurate. If you can show anyone an inconsistency of Stellarium with your observations, do it.
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa? Look at your posts a few years ago, AND LOOK AT YOUR SIGNATURE NOW!
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum. Also, argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps you could, eventually, make an argument that is not a logical fallacy? That would be great. Please work on it.
Do you feel smarter that you threw around a bunch of terms in Latin? Yeah, it must feel great to Google "list of fallacies". Would it feel as great if I did the same thing for your posts? Trust me, you wouldn't like it.
I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers who somehow have never reported such a major error (and no, that's not argumentum ad populum, if at least you understood what you read you would know what this fallacy meant and when you can apply it, also that it's the same thing as argumentum ad numerum), and you make the claim that there is something wrong with it, you haven't provided any evidence.
I suppose I meant argumentum ad verecundiam. I am sorry that all of your fallacies blend together to me. Also, no, argumentum ad populum is not the exact same thing as argumentum ad numberum, even though they are related.
Still wrong, I never made an appeal to an authority. Here's what I said:
1) If there's a major flaw, it's highly possible that someone would have reported it.
2) Nobody has reported anything.
3) Therefore, it's highly possible that there isn't a major flaw.
Since ad numerum and ad populum is different, what's the difference?
His argument is not about what the population believes, it's about what the population observes.Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
Oh, that would not be needed. Seeing as thousands of amateur astronomers and stargazers use it all the time, and none of them has reported something wrong with it, I would guess it's rather accurate. If you can show anyone an inconsistency of Stellarium with your observations, do it.
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa? Look at your posts a few years ago, AND LOOK AT YOUR SIGNATURE NOW!
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum. Also, argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps you could, eventually, make an argument that is not a logical fallacy? That would be great. Please work on it.
Do you feel smarter that you threw around a bunch of terms in Latin? Yeah, it must feel great to Google "list of fallacies". Would it feel as great if I did the same thing for your posts? Trust me, you wouldn't like it.
I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers who somehow have never reported such a major error (and no, that's not argumentum ad populum, if at least you understood what you read you would know what this fallacy meant and when you can apply it, also that it's the same thing as argumentum ad numerum), and you make the claim that there is something wrong with it, you haven't provided any evidence.
I suppose I meant argumentum ad verecundiam. I am sorry that all of your fallacies blend together to me. Also, no, argumentum ad populum is not the exact same thing as argumentum ad numberum, even though they are related.
Still wrong, I never made an appeal to an authority. Here's what I said:
1) If there's a major flaw, it's highly possible that someone would have reported it.
2) Nobody has reported anything.
3) Therefore, it's highly possible that there isn't a major flaw.
Since ad numerum and ad populum is different, what's the difference?
So, are you denying that you said, "I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers," in an attempt to make what you said sound credible through the use of an authority?
Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular, which you presented in an attempt to make yourself sound credible. Populum means the population, loosely translated, and means that you are arguing about what the population thinks. I already told you I meant verecundiam instead of populum, which means that you are arguing that authorities say it is so, so it must be so. Have you never taken a speech or debate class in your life?
His argument is not about what the population believes, it's about what the population observes.
There have been repeated observations of the system working, and to my knowledge there has been no observations against it, if you have a repeatable observation that shows the program to be wrong please share it.
The only problem I can see in the reasoning is the problem of induction, but you can't do any science without induction.
Would it feel as great if I did the same thing for your posts?
Honestly, can we get back on topic?
Honestly, can we get back on topic?
It appears the picture I posted is the best I got from both cameras, so I have no more pictures worth showing. Since it is obvious everyone was able to see the same thing, it does bring up the question of how the same view (Mercury and a very distinct sunspot placement) is visible from multiple directions if the sun is only 3,000 miles above a flat surface.
It appears the picture I posted is the best I got from both cameras, so I have no more pictures worth showing. Since it is obvious everyone was able to see the same thing, it does bring up the question of how the same view (Mercury and a very distinct sunspot placement) is visible from multiple directions if the sun is only 3,000 miles above a flat surface.
I think that you mean that you picked the best stock picks that your shill data had, but got creamed anyway. Then, you say that something is obvious to everyone and everyone saw the same thing, yet you and one other shill is attempting to have claimed to have seen it. You have got to be the lowest paid shill here.
My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
No.
Just no.
It appears the picture I posted is the best I got from both cameras, so I have no more pictures worth showing. Since it is obvious everyone was able to see the same thing, it does bring up the question of how the same view (Mercury and a very distinct sunspot placement) is visible from multiple directions if the sun is only 3,000 miles above a flat surface.
I think that you mean that you picked the best stock picks that your shill data had, but got creamed anyway. Then, you say that something is obvious to everyone and everyone saw the same thing, yet you and one other shill is attempting to have claimed to have seen it. You have got to be the lowest paid shill here.
Jroa, are you just having fun or are you genuinely denying that this event took place?
Whether you believe it is a planet or not, are you emphatically refusing to believe that a circular object passed over the disc of the sun at a predetermined time?
I know you love joking about "shills" and all that nonsense but let's be realistic now, you know that none of us are genuinely paid by anyone to be here. I reckon they'd pick better people and do a better job than we do.
I moved my shift later to observe as much as I could of the transit. My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
Exactly on cue, I saw the tiny black circle appear at the edge of the disc. I have a cradle which holds my phone over my eyepiece and I took pictures on my phone with a black cloth draped over to stop exterior light from glaring out my images. It's all pretty low-tech but lucky it doesn't need to cost a lot to do this kind of thing! I took hundreds of images but deleted loads that weren't as clear. I watched about half the transit before I had to go to work.
You'll no doubt ridicule this/ tell me I'm lying/ tell me how you don't need my life story, but I just wanted to explain how normal and unshill-like my life is to put to rest this nonsense of us being paid to lie!
It really happened, yes, not everybody saw it but a great many people did. You could have if you could have been bothered.
My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
No.
Just no.
Do you have a problem with this?
My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
No.
Just no.
Do you have a problem with this?
Just stop.
My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
No.
Just no.
Do you have a problem with this?
Just stop.
Not unless you give me some reason that I should. Did I offend you in some way by the fact that I have a daughter?...
My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
No.
Just no.
Do you have a problem with this?
Just stop.
Not unless you give me some reason that I should. Did I offend you in some way by the fact that I have a daughter?...
You offended me by being a mental-case talking mental-speak & making my flesh crawl in so doing.
Is that a good enough reason?
Just stop.
My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
No-one normal writes shit like this:My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
That's the kind of shit that abnormal people write when they're trying to sound like normal people.
Which is why you make my flesh crawl.
You all do.
Because you're all abnormal people trying to sound like normal people.
And I wish you'd just stop.
Just.
Stop.
Cos you're fooling no-one.
You're seriously full of shit.
Stop posting your CP here.
No-one normal writes shit like this:My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
That's the kind of shit that abnormal people write when they're trying to sound like normal people.
Which is why you make my flesh crawl.
You all do.
Because you're all abnormal people trying to sound like normal people.
And I wish you'd just stop.
Just.
Stop.
Cos you're fooling no-one.
Ok you weird paranoid schizophrenic lunatic. Here is a picture from that very day.
(https://imageshack.com/i/plU0KwgDj)
Let me guess this is a "stock" or "fake" image?
You're seriously insane
No-one normal writes shit like this:My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
That's the kind of shit that abnormal people write when they're trying to sound like normal people.
Which is why you make my flesh crawl.
You all do.
Because you're all abnormal people trying to sound like normal people.
And I wish you'd just stop.
Just.
Stop.
Cos you're fooling no-one.
Ok you weird paranoid schizophrenic lunatic. Here is a picture from that very day.
(https://imageshack.com/i/plU0KwgDj)
Let me guess this is a "stock" or "fake" image?
You're seriously insane
Booom! I was kinda waiting for that. led him right up the garden path. well done!
Nice telescope.
Wtf is CP?
Booom!
Nice telescope.
No-one normal writes shit like this:My 4 year old daughter jumped on her trampoline while I used my home-made solar filter and my 5" reflector telescope and waited for the transit to start.
That's the kind of shit that abnormal people write when they're trying to sound like normal people.
Which is why you make my flesh crawl.
You all do.
Because you're all abnormal people trying to sound like normal people.
And I wish you'd just stop.
Just.
Stop.
Cos you're fooling no-one.
Ok you weird paranoid schizophrenic lunatic. Here is a picture from that very day.
(https://imageshack.com/i/plU0KwgDj)
Let me guess this is a "stock" or "fake" image?
You're seriously insane
Booom! I was kinda waiting for that. led him right up the garden path. well done!
Nice telescope.
Man the Internet is full of proper bat shit crazy people. Never ceases to amaze me.
Wtf is CP?
Wtf is that shit you posted?
The picture is off the memory card of my camera. If you feel you can find the exact same picture on a 'database' somewhere where I may have borrowed it from, good luck.It appears the picture I posted is the best I got from both cameras, so I have no more pictures worth showing. Since it is obvious everyone was able to see the same thing, it does bring up the question of how the same view (Mercury and a very distinct sunspot placement) is visible from multiple directions if the sun is only 3,000 miles above a flat surface.
I think that you mean that you picked the best stock picks that your shill data had,
but got creamed anyway.How so, and does it even hold a candle to your merry mess-up and ensuing profanity laced tirade earlier in this thread?
Then, you say that something is obvious to everyone and everyone saw the same thing, yet you and one other shill is attempting to have claimed to have seen it.Anyone with some very basic equipment was free to observe it (weather, schedule, and time of day permitting). Did you go back and actually double check how many in this thread claimed to have seen it?
You have got to be the lowest paid shill here.I wish.
Give up! Most FEers still think Mercury is that silver liquid that used to be used in thermometers.The picture is off the memory card of my camera. If you feel you can find the exact same picture on a 'database' somewhere where I may have borrowed it from, good luck.It appears the picture I posted is the best I got from both cameras, so I have no more pictures worth showing. Since it is obvious everyone was able to see the same thing, it does bring up the question of how the same view (Mercury and a very distinct sunspot placement) is visible from multiple directions if the sun is only 3,000 miles above a flat surface.
I think that you mean that you picked the best stock picks that your shill data had,Quotebut got creamed anyway.How so, and does it even hold a candle to your merry mess-up and ensuing profanity laced tirade earlier in this thread?QuoteThen, you say that something is obvious to everyone and everyone saw the same thing, yet you and one other shill is attempting to have claimed to have seen it.Anyone with some very basic equipment was free to observe it (weather, schedule, and time of day permitting). Did you go back and actually double check how many in this thread claimed to have seen it?QuoteYou have got to be the lowest paid shill here.I wish.
Shame no one can check the source code to see if it uses the FEM or GEM in the calculations.First off, if you load Stellarium (actually do something), you can see how the Mercury transit would have happened if you looked today (actually did something). Of course, no FEer is going to do this as it might burst their bubble. From my location in Denver, CO, the transit started around 06:55 (sunrise) and ended at 12:40 (approx 6 hrs later, so no, the pictures did not have to happen a week apart or some other dribble). BTW, Stellarium is doing the math from whatever location you put into it so we don't have to redo it. Why should anyone waste their time on your disbelief. Why don't you do the math and prove them wrong since you dispute the images and transit.Is that another stock image that you are trying to present as an actual experiment? Will NASA ever run out of computer generated images for you people to use in order to try to prove the shape of the Earth? Will you people ever stop saying that you can determine the shape of the Earth by looking at the sky?Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)
Well yes actually along with about 20 others. Would you like all 20 of them? What makes you think that weeks have passed between images?...
The little dot is very close to the edge of the sun in one photo and very far from the edge in the other. Do I need to do the math in order to tell you how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day, or are you going to just admit that you did not take both pictures at the same time?
What are you talking about?! Mercury transits the sun in about 5hours.
I watched most of it. Here is an image from about an hour later...
(https://imageshack.com/i/pmVRZx9sp)
Notice how the same sunspot is present...which wouldn't be if these were taken on different days. Check the exif data if you don't believe me...
Second, as you and other FEers don't do astronomy or really know Astronomy 101, I expect nothing of importance from what you have to say about anything concerning astronomy - images, photographs, whatever - just screaming "fake" and "lalala" holding your ears. I know reality really sucks for FEers and their fantasies.
Third, for anyone who actually uses a telescope, your statements are quite ignorant. Aligning telescopes to track the sky, that has been done for decades, definitely determines the shape of the Earth. The mounts being aligned - corresponding the latitude of the observer AND pointing at the N/S Celestial Poles AND parallel to the Earth/Sky rotation - definitely and definitively demonstrate the Earth is spherical and definitely and definitively not FLAT. There is only one shape that I know of that has these properties simultaneously - a sphere. If you are too ignorant for that, oh well. Keep saying YOU can't determine the shape of the Earth from the sky (of course YOU can't because you won't even try. If you say it a couple thousand times it will be just as wrong as the first time you said it).
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0749/4383/files/image021_large.gif?2408553068942962954)
It would be of interest, if any FEer can actually explain how an equatorially mounted telescope even works on a FE (they work in reality - the real world - as evidenced by observatories and people who actually own one).
So jroa, go on with your FE fantasy that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality - our world. Enlighten us.
I have Stellarium. Did it ever occur to you that the software was programmed by a group or entity that could code it anyway that they want to? Did it occur to you that NASA has programmers employed by them? I suppose that anything that Stellarium says must be the absolute truth, just like what ever the satanists at NASA say, right?
http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code (http://www.stellarium.org/wiki/index.php/How_to_get_Stellarium's_source_code)
Oh, great! So you are going to check the source code and then compare it to every celestial observation that was ever made across the whole Earth! Thank you and see you in 500 years, dummy. ::)
Oh, that would not be needed. Seeing as thousands of amateur astronomers and stargazers use it all the time, and none of them has reported something wrong with it, I would guess it's rather accurate. If you can show anyone an inconsistency of Stellarium with your observations, do it.
By the way, what happened to the other you, 5 years ago?
"I am an atheist and believe in a round Earth. If other atheists or non-atheists believe that the Earth is flat, I would like to hear their views. Most of the members for this forum are trolls, in my opinion, and are not debating for their religious beliefs."
What happened jroa? Look at your posts a few years ago, AND LOOK AT YOUR SIGNATURE NOW!
Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad numerum. Also, argumentum ad hominem. Perhaps you could, eventually, make an argument that is not a logical fallacy? That would be great. Please work on it.
Do you feel smarter that you threw around a bunch of terms in Latin? Yeah, it must feel great to Google "list of fallacies". Would it feel as great if I did the same thing for your posts? Trust me, you wouldn't like it.
I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers who somehow have never reported such a major error (and no, that's not argumentum ad populum, if at least you understood what you read you would know what this fallacy meant and when you can apply it, also that it's the same thing as argumentum ad numerum), and you make the claim that there is something wrong with it, you haven't provided any evidence.
I suppose I meant argumentum ad verecundiam. I am sorry that all of your fallacies blend together to me. Also, no, argumentum ad populum is not the exact same thing as argumentum ad numberum, even though they are related.
Still wrong, I never made an appeal to an authority. Here's what I said:
1) If there's a major flaw, it's highly possible that someone would have reported it.
2) Nobody has reported anything.
3) Therefore, it's highly possible that there isn't a major flaw.
Since ad numerum and ad populum is different, what's the difference?
So, are you denying that you said, "I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers," in an attempt to make what you said sound credible through the use of an authority?
Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular, which you presented in an attempt to make yourself sound credible. Populum means the population, loosely translated, and means that you are arguing about what the population thinks. I already told you I meant verecundiam instead of populum, which means that you are arguing that authorities say it is so, so it must be so. Have you never taken a speech or debate class in your life?
So, are you denying that you said, "I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers," in an attempt to make what you said sound credible through the use of an authority?
Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular, which you presented in an attempt to make yourself sound credible. Populum means the population, loosely translated, and means that you are arguing about what the population thinks. I already told you I meant verecundiam instead of populum, which means that you are arguing that authorities say it is so, so it must be so. Have you never taken a speech or debate class in your life?
No, the thousands of amateur astronomers are not an authority, read my comment again. I explained it all, but you ignored it.
"Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular,"
Oh yeah? Where did you find that definition? ;D ;D ;D
Dude, are you seriously pulling the fallacy card on me? You yourself are one massive fallacy, and you're actually pretending that you've been in proper debates!
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. ...ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.
So, are you denying that you said, "I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers," in an attempt to make what you said sound credible through the use of an authority?
Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular, which you presented in an attempt to make yourself sound credible. Populum means the population, loosely translated, and means that you are arguing about what the population thinks. I already told you I meant verecundiam instead of populum, which means that you are arguing that authorities say it is so, so it must be so. Have you never taken a speech or debate class in your life?
No, the thousands of amateur astronomers are not an authority, read my comment again. I explained it all, but you ignored it.
"Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular,"
Oh yeah? Where did you find that definition? ;D ;D ;D
Dude, are you seriously pulling the fallacy card on me? You yourself are one massive fallacy, and you're actually pretending that you've been in proper debates!
California State University Northridge seems to disagree with you. Perhaps you are simply smarter than all of those professors?Quote from: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20numerumArgumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. ...ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.
Perhaps you should do a little research in the future before making yourself seem ignorant?
the planets and the stars, just like NASA, are diverting you from the focus of the question: the earth and its mysteries, the flat moon, the sun!
let's not give a fuck of the planets and the stars for now, they're out of reach, they have their own orbits, there's no life on them, literally, that's why these satanic false scientists placed the earth between a bunch of dead planets!
we're the center of the universe, POLAR STAR IS THE CENTER, we use it when we lose direction, literally.
anyway...
1)this is NOT a planet, it's a PLANE.
2)this flat earth is about life, not about death. planets have no live on them, so they can go round and round and who gives a fuck. they're out of reach forever, we can only suppose how they are, and observe 'em from here. that's it. that's the reason why mars images and the like are fake. they can't send anything there. out of reach.
3)stars are energy entities in the space. that's it. they're arranged as constellations, and you see constellations ciclically. they literally float above our heads, they're all at the same distance I suppose. the difference is in their composition, so they're more or less bright, and more or less pulsating.
Psalm 19:19
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Quote Isaiah 46:9 | Quote Isaiah 46:9 |
That is appeal to authority, your saying it's true just because some university says it is.So, are you denying that you said, "I also think you forgot that even though we have all those thousands of astronomers," in an attempt to make what you said sound credible through the use of an authority?
Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular, which you presented in an attempt to make yourself sound credible. Populum means the population, loosely translated, and means that you are arguing about what the population thinks. I already told you I meant verecundiam instead of populum, which means that you are arguing that authorities say it is so, so it must be so. Have you never taken a speech or debate class in your life?
No, the thousands of amateur astronomers are not an authority, read my comment again. I explained it all, but you ignored it.
"Also, numerum means numbers, or slinging numbers around in order to make your point sound more popular,"
Oh yeah? Where did you find that definition? ;D ;D ;D
Dude, are you seriously pulling the fallacy card on me? You yourself are one massive fallacy, and you're actually pretending that you've been in proper debates!
California State University Northridge seems to disagree with you. Perhaps you are simply smarter than all of those professors?Quote from: http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20numerumArgumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right. ...ad numerum is used to designate appeals based purely on the number of people who hold a particular belief.
Perhaps you should do a little research in the future before making yourself seem ignorant?
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/d4Zuka/mars300516_05.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d4Zuka)
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/d4Zuka/mars300516_05.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d4Zuka)
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/d4Zuka/mars300516_05.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d4Zuka)
WTF what's the aperture of your telescope?????
Its not my own scope, but it was my camera upon my friends very impressive home built 355mm Dobsonian Reflector. Its very big! almost 1.5m long
QuoteIts not my own scope, but it was my camera upon my friends very impressive home built 355mm Dobsonian Reflector. Its very big! almost 1.5m long
WOW, I'm super impressed that a home build could do that! One day when I have my other 1000 projects complete I might tackle a build like that.
I WILL POST PHOTOS OF CANCER IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!
Go back to bed.I WILL POST PHOTOS OF CANCER IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!
Hi Geoff!
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.
(https://thumb.ibb.co/d4Zuka/mars300516_05.jpg) (https://ibb.co/d4Zuka)
Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images. I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning? ::)When anyone with the slightest knowledge would know that the transit of Mercury takes a few hours.
I was wrong, just as 80 sock puppets pointed out. Perhaps you have some salt to pour in my wound? Maybe some lemon juice? You can be a dick, just like the shill meat puppets, if you want to be. But, you cant take me down until the NASA agents get to me.And so graciously too!
Now; you claim that a tiny dot in the sky proves we live on an enormous spinny globe?When I don't believe that anyone, except jroa claimed that!