The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Flyer on May 09, 2016, 06:50:37 AM

Title: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Flyer on May 09, 2016, 06:50:37 AM
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.  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?

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: NewtSmooth on May 09, 2016, 07:18:15 AM
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.

No there isn't. Mercury was constructed by NASA to preserve the Conspiracy.

Quote
Its timing and duration has been predicted to great accuracy using standard astronomical models of our heliocentric solar system.

But it's wrong.

Quote
How do you lot explain that, I wonder?

The burden of proof lies with you to prove Mercury is real.

Quote
How also do you explain the live satellite streaming of the transit both from Nasa and the European Space Agency.
CGI.

Quote
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.

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.

Quote
It's a bit much to expect that all the terrestrial observers are faking their images and reports, don't you think?

No real observers. All shills.

Edit: Also, thread number has 666 in it, you can't be trusted.


Alright, now let's see how many of my objection predictions pan out.

First one and the edit were jokes, I'm pretty sure somebody will use the second through fourth and the sixth, and I've actually seen a form of number five here. They said there just weren't any telescopes with a required zoom level though, not that NASA handed them out to their shills.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Flyer on May 09, 2016, 07:24:16 AM
Quote
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.

You've heard of Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)?

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.

It's cloudy where I am today, otherwise I'd photograph today's transit.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: NewtSmooth on May 09, 2016, 07:41:04 AM
Quote
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.

Not here? :P
Quote
Mercury was constructed by NASA to preserve the Conspiracy.

Quote
You've heard of Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law)?

It's virtually impossible to tell the difference between real FE rhetoric and a parody of it.
I hadn't heard of it yet, but it certainly makes sense that it's documented by now.

Quote
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.

It's cloudy where I am today, otherwise I'd photograph today's transit.
Neat! More curious to get an answer to
So, Flat Earthers.
...
How do you lot explain that, I wonder?
Predictions: That wasn't actually Venus, you were hallucinating, you're a shill.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: 29silhouette on May 09, 2016, 09:15:41 AM
Was just out looking at it with my small telescope.  I don't have a filter for my bigger scope or spotting scope.  Got a few pictures, but have to go through them to see what really turned out.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 01:26:12 PM
I managed to capture a couple...

(https://imageshack.com/i/po6bnK0lj)

(https://imageshack.com/i/pnUiqeSrj)

I promised these in an earlier thread.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 01:32:52 PM
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?  ::)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 01:43:14 PM
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?...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 01:46:34 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 01:55:43 PM
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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2016, 02:08:10 PM
It was cloudy for part of the time for me, but here are two images an hour and 35 minutes apart.

1704 UTC:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/1704_20cCrop_zpsexfeiugd.jpg)

1839 UTC, approximately third contact:
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/1839_20cCrop_zpseptz2keg.jpg)

North is up in both images.

[Edit] insert omitted word.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2016, 02:15:03 PM
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.

Quote
Quote
or 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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: 29silhouette on May 09, 2016, 02:27:50 PM
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...
Jroa loves to pretend to not understand things, or maybe really doesn't. 

Anyway, I'll post my shot later this evening.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 02:29:12 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 02:30:25 PM
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.

Quote
Quote
or 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.

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 02:33:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2016, 02:33:56 PM
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 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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2016, 02:40:19 PM
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.

jroa is talking through his hat again. I'd like to see his calculation, but I doubt he can do it; it looks like he's trying to deflect attention from his boast now that he's been taken up on it.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 02:41:35 PM
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)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2016, 02:43:37 PM
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)
You warn me for low content posting and then you post that picture? You are dumb.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2016, 02:51:15 PM
<Irrelevant stuff>

Have you done the math yet?

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 don't think an admission of that sort is forthcoming because it's not warranted.

You do need to do the math so you can tell us how many tenths of a degree Mercury moves in relation to the sun per day.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:03:31 PM
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)
You warn me for low content posting and then you post that picture? You are dumb.

At least I do not quote myself and try to pass it off as a new point.  ::)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2016, 03:22:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:25:49 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FalseProphet on May 09, 2016, 03:30:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:45:16 PM
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.

That made me laugh.  Sometimes, you actually have a sense of humor.  ;D
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2016, 03:49:45 PM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 03:53:06 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 03:59:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 04:11:40 PM
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?

I will help you with your math homework, but you will never learn to do any calculations unless you do them yourself.  That is what I used to tell my kids when they were living at home, and I suppose the same thing applies to you.  You will never learn to do math by demanding that other people crunch the numbers for you.  If the problem is too hard for you, I will help you break it down and I will even help you figure out which formulas to use.  And, always remember that Google is your friend. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2016, 04:19:39 PM
Good ole jroa. Says something stupid and now won't fess up.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 04:22:47 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Jadyyn on May 09, 2016, 04:23:49 PM
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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2016, 04:25:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 04:31:14 PM
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?
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.

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? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 04:33:01 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 04:33:18 PM
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
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 04:40:47 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 09, 2016, 04:46:26 PM
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.

I don't claim to be special or original but I did spend time taking these images and have been looking forward to this event. Just because you have no ambition Jroa doesn't give you a license to discredit the ambition of others.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 04:56:53 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: sokarul on May 09, 2016, 05:35:42 PM
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.
Practice what you preach.

Lead by example.

 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Jadyyn on May 09, 2016, 06:54:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 07:04:36 PM
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.

I said the picture looked like a stock image from a shill database.  How does Stellarium prove or disprove that?  Are you drunk? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: 29silhouette on May 09, 2016, 07:15:32 PM
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? 
Quote
I challenge you Jroa to try Astrophotography.
Ha!
Quote
Maybe you'll learn a thing or 2
That's even funnier yet.


Ok, enough of that.  Time for more transit pictures. 

This was through a small, old, cheap telescope that's been collecting dust for awhile, hence the dust spots.  It needs a complete tear-down and cleaning.  My larger telescope doesn't have a filter, so this one had to do.  Yes this filter is green tinted, as I'm sure some doubter will be quick to point out.  Picture was with a point and shoot held up to the eyepiece.  No touch-up was done.  I'll look through the others again later and see if one might better for some fixing up.
(http://s19.postimg.org/qc5lcbkzn/DSC04635.jpg)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 09, 2016, 07:30:16 PM
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?

You do dare ask: "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, definitely! I believe the usual saying is "Put up or shut up!"

You will of course include the component of the earth orbital movement around the sun.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 09, 2016, 07:54:29 PM
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?

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?

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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 09, 2016, 08:17:08 PM
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?

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?

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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Blue_Moon on May 09, 2016, 09:48:30 PM
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?

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?

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.
Ha and ha.  Get back to us when you've done the calculations for yourself and are ready to admit you were wrong. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2016, 10:44:38 PM
You know i really missed you guys, especially you Jroa, was hoping to see something about mercury here. Not disappointed.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: yobbo on May 09, 2016, 11:46:44 PM
I like how Jroa is the only FE to respond to the OP, and all he is doing is trolling.

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 10, 2016, 02:28:44 AM
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.

No, you didn't hurt my feelings. At most I am mildly p****d off.

It's just ridiculous the way you disbelieve something, someone provides direct irrefutable evidence, you make a moronic, incoherent mistake and then spend the rest of the thread trolling and ignoring your mistake. You are a ridiculous person.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 05:35:13 AM
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.

Where are the calculations we were promised!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 06:11:18 AM
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?

Well done jroa. You've made a fool of yourself yet again. Great. It takes approximately 7 hours for the transit to end. He probably took the first picture at about 16:30 UTC and the second on 17:30 UTC, but I'm just speculating here.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 06:16:54 AM
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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 06:22:35 AM
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?

Ooooh, but we want to see YOUR math that determined something so downright stupid! It must be some different kind of maths!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 06:27:26 AM
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?
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.

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 06:31:30 AM
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.


Ok then. Now I want to see you say: "I am jroa, and I admit I made a stupid mistake while trying to play smart.". At least then we will know you are able to admit a mistake. It will be quite the surprise, I don't think you've ever admitted anything ever, even when I'm sure you knew yourself how wrong you were.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 10, 2016, 06:57:16 AM
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 set this challenge back in February in my post where I asked how the transits of Mercury and Venus are explained in FET. Seems nobody took me up on it...or they did, realised how incredibly idiotic they were being and crawled back under their rocks...

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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Jadyyn on May 10, 2016, 09:15:47 AM
Well jroa, I will make a note of this thread.

As you asked for math, Stellarium was presented and you dissed it. You of course, do not present your math, just insult people as usual.

People actually went out and photographed the Mercury transit while you did nothing but diss their efforts.

Don't ask for anymore proof from anyone. When you do, I will link this thread so everyone can see how you are just a troll and will diss anything presented. People should not waste their time on you.

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: NewtSmooth on May 10, 2016, 11:18:41 AM
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.
He lies;
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.

makes a baseless claim to do it again;
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.


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. [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]
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]
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). [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.
The usual content dodging from Jroa.

Jroa claims Stellarium is all wrong despite it accurately predicting the timing of the transit, and every other transit, without proving that or replacing it with a more accurate explanation.

Jroa simply ignores the fact that people in the Northern/Southern Hemispheres can't see all the stars normally visible in the Southern/Northern Hemispheres while people on the equator can see both, and that the stars rotate opposite directions in their respective hemispheres while clearly rotating the same direction at the equator.

Only sensible explanation is a round earth and that's why it's been accepted for so long. If you have any better suggestion, pretending not to see this and continuing on with your baseless slander isn't going to prove it any sooner. This is why nobody takes Flat Earth Theory seriously; if it were actually scientifically proven, FET would be considered a fact of nature instead--but it literally never has been.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: yobbo on May 10, 2016, 12:58:20 PM
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?
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.

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 programed 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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Jadyyn on May 10, 2016, 04:03:27 PM
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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: getrealzommb on May 10, 2016, 07:51:38 PM
Nice pics all who posted em!  Unfortunately thick cloud cover killed it for me this time.   :(

Jroa, thanks for the entertainment.

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: sokarul on May 10, 2016, 07:56:36 PM
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?
It's 8:56, do you know where your math is?

In actual post. Mercury sure is small in the pictures. Compared to when Venus made a transit of the Sun, Mercury is smallllll.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: yobbo on May 10, 2016, 08:06:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 10, 2016, 09:36:26 PM
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.
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.

So please come up these calculations based on flat earth data as you kindly offered.

Pretty please!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2016, 11:53:04 PM
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 I see you running towards a wall and knowing that you're never going to stop, how did I predict that you're going to slam onto it?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Jadyyn on May 11, 2016, 04:36:54 AM
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?

Simply put, if you can calculate something that is done periodically (like sunrise/sunset or the orbits of Mercury, Venus and other planets), you can predict it. On a computer, you can model it. It doesn't mean you control it. You don't need to be Satan or a satanist to say that tomorrow at 5:49 AM the Sun will come up. Making emotional claims (Satan/satanists) becomes silly.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 11, 2016, 05:02:03 AM
Oh, what a shock. Jroa seems to have disappeared. Well, that's not the first time that happens anyway.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 09:00:15 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 11, 2016, 10:28:28 AM
You people are a little pathetic.

...says the man who doesn't have the guts to admit that he was wrong...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 10:31:02 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 11, 2016, 10:33:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 10:39:49 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 11, 2016, 10:42:51 AM
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.

Hahaha! Man I wish I got paid for wasting my time here! Instead i battle away just like a teacher of an unruly class to try and educate the simpletons here present.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 11, 2016, 11:17:03 AM
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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 11:20:08 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 11, 2016, 02:08:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 04:09:18 PM
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.

Just because you people tell each other what to think, that does not mean you can dictate my thoughts. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 11, 2016, 08:24:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 08:32:59 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Hmmmmmm on May 11, 2016, 08:40:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2016, 08:41:30 PM
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.

Shameless thread derailment.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 08:49:44 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2016, 09:03:40 PM
He clearly can't do the maths he claimed to be able to, anyone can see that now.

Leave the poor lad alone
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 09:06:00 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2016, 09:07:23 PM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 11, 2016, 09:10:26 PM
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?

No, idiot.  I was mistaken, for once in a long while.  Are you Jesus?  Do you walk on water?  Maybe you are the Virgin Marry?  You can't take it when someone admits they where wrong for once, so you have to drag it on and on. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 12:07:40 AM
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.

Oh look! That's a first! He admitted it! Well, if I was Papa Legba, I wouldn't have let it go like that, but I'll just let it go.

By the way, it's cute that you think NASA agents are coming for you.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 02:43:44 AM
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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FETlolcakes on May 12, 2016, 03:11:04 AM

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!

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2016, 03:26:30 AM
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!

It is one hundred percent undeniably crazy to believe we are all sock puppets and shills.

Personally i just find it mildly amusing here.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 03:52:03 AM
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? Go back to your cave you clown...

"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.
"

Because I said "it's cute"? Cute is such a common word! Who else has said "it's cute" here? What are you even talking about? Oh, you know what? You used the word "really". "Really" was probably used occasionally by... I don't know... Anton LaVey or something... So you're a satanist, and you're part of LaVey's hive mind. See how dumb that is?

"Anyhoo; back to staring at tiny dots in the sky & believing it proves a damn thing about the earth beneath our feet...
"

Yet for some reason flat earthers seem to find it very difficult to reply, and instead call the pictures fake.

"This abject nonsense has been brought to you courtesy of the autistic pseudo-science of Astrophysics!
"

I don't know exactly how astrophysics is (or can be) autistic, but... if you say so...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 04:04:20 AM
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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2016, 04:30:37 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba
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?

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 04:48:26 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba
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?

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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 04:58:45 AM
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...

Oh please continue. You are very amusing.

"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?"


Please look up the fallacy of 'Argument from incredulity". I think you're gonna like it very much!

"...gleeful harping freak-show, please elucidate upon this nonsensical notion"

What a tool...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 05:01:09 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba
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?

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...


Oh yeah, THAT old story! Yeah, everyone knows "the male-centred Sun-Worshipping Cult of Heliocentricity"! Is it controlled by inbred, tree-dwelling hybrids of DiCaprio and frogs?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FETlolcakes on May 12, 2016, 05:04:55 AM
Jesus, I know this is a troll forum and all that, but surely there should be a rule against idiotic bots posting, shouldn't there? Yawn.

Anyway, here's (http://) a stunning video of Mercury's transit. Just something to add to the body of evidence of the Heliocentric model by professionals and amateurs alike.

Fun to see jroa get destroyed in this thread with none of the other FE'ers/trolls around to offer further derailment distractions, which usually means jroa gets away with his idiotic ramblings/errors.

Fun times.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 05:33:54 AM
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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FETlolcakes on May 12, 2016, 05:46:48 AM
Don't worry folks, lodging a report fault for the malfunctioning bot as I post this. I'll put in a request for its programmer to load the definition of irony, too. It won't understand why, but that's of no consequence.

Fun times.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2016, 05:50:34 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba
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?

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...

The dot is a planet called Mercury passing our Sun, I think you're a bit late.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 05:59:23 AM
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...

I'm gonna ignore all the hilarious fantasies in this post, and just respond to this point:

"Now; please explain how this dot in the sky proves the 'Kingliness' of your Cult?"

It doesn't, because there is no cult. But perhaps you wanted to say:

"Now; please explain how this dot in the sky shows evidence against the flat earth model?"

Yeah, that's definitely better. 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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 12, 2016, 06:04:12 AM
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...

I do believe Papa has excelled himself in attempt to make the most idiotic post possible. Keep it up, you keep excelling yourself evry day!

Now, it would be a bit hard for anyone no matter how many sock-puppets he had to prove "Now; please explain how this dot in the sky proves the 'Kingliness' of your Cult?" - since it's one of your crazy inventions anyway!

What on the big round earth is "Heliocentric Cult of Sun-Worship"? If you don't accept a heliocentric globe, what do you believe? - yes, I know - NOTHING!

Just what sort world of do YOU think we live on, and what does the sun do?

Maybe the earth and sun a like space and atoms - you don't believe in them either!

I just had a thought: are you in a competition with jroa to see who can de-rail the most otherwise sensible threads?

I am afraid jroa does it much more efficiently! he gets a much higher (posts derailed)/(words expended) quotient than you!

Still since you do not even exist (you're entirely made of atoms, and atoms don't exist! QED), you aren't doing badly!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 06:24:58 AM
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.

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: NewtSmooth on May 12, 2016, 07:30:51 AM
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'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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 07:34:36 AM
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.

Wait. 1) YOU were the one who asked what those photos and the transit of Mercury in general prove, and 2) are you so retarded that you do not know what the "tiny dot" and the "yellow light" is? You're probably going to give me some bullshit about them not being what I think they are, but if that is what you want to do, why did you even ask me to tell you what they were in the first place?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 08:00:56 AM
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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: NewtSmooth on May 12, 2016, 08:42:00 AM
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.

If somebody else proves something contrary to what you believe, you call them the coward or liar, without describing any basis. But then you're challenged to defend your beliefs, and you shrink back from the opportunity to prove what's right. You resort to hypocritical slander instead to divert attention from your lack of any insight. You raise a facade of enlightenment and pretend that anything that pops into your "superior" mind is of any value. Bing bang boom you're an ignorant, arrogant, stubborn, lying, uneducated, cowardly, good-for-nothing waste of everyone's time and attention.

Everybody has the burden of proof, and you're not above that. But so far all you've proved is that claim right there--that you don't belong in any civil discussion--you have provided all the proof for my statement there. There's exactly one way you can definitely and definitively prove you're not a total waste of screen space and Flat Earth Society forum server data, and it's pretty easy. Literally all you have to do is discuss the universe around us.

And if you refuse to do that, you don't belong in a debate forum. No two ways about it.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 09:07:21 AM
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!

So you keep pretending that you don't know what my answer would be. I know you're stupid, but stop pretending that you're even stupider than you actually are.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 10:25:27 AM
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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 12, 2016, 10:49:01 AM
I was wrong

That's all that was needed.

Thank you!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: firechicken23 on May 12, 2016, 10:58:59 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 11:21:05 AM
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.

LOL!!!

Bend over & spread em, boy; your Initiation can't be far off!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 12, 2016, 01:10:49 PM
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!

No, please stay, I think you are hilarious! Please, keep going!

"Toodle-pip, Madmen!"

Is this the punchline?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 12, 2016, 02:43:46 PM
Wow, every sock puppet must post... and then I admitted I made a mistake...  and now they are flocking here. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 12, 2016, 04:14:43 PM
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?...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 12, 2016, 04:21:08 PM
Wow, every sock puppet must post... and then I admitted I made a mistake...  and now they are flocking here.

Thanks for the admission of your error by the way. It was like bleeding a stone but you got there.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 12, 2016, 04:23:22 PM
Why not try to find the truth instead of looking for my errors? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 12, 2016, 05:16:07 PM
Why not try to find the truth instead of looking for my errors?

That's what I do by spending hours gazing through my eyepieces at the stars and planets.

So far everything fits perfectly into heliocentric solar system and earth so I would have absolutely no reason to doubt it.

Even if I had never had mainstream education, never had contact with the outside world and taught myself every little thing I knew, I'm certain I would still have the same opinions because from my observations, things are the way we are taught them to be! To question that is a fun game, to play devil's advocate, but in my mind could never hold any serious ground.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 12, 2016, 05:17:36 PM
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?

<a whole bunch of posts requesting (respectfully initially; testier as evasions and snarky responses to the requests piled up) to see this math>

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?

Some people finding and reading this thread might believe you. For them, your errors stand in the way of finding the truth, so they need to be disposed of. We're there; it took effort, but it's good.

[Edit] grammar.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 12, 2016, 10:08:08 PM
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?...

 ::)

Is that the latest tune from the sock-shill boy-band?

Gonna enter it in Eurovision & give us a laugh when you come last?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 12:09:15 AM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 12:28:20 AM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 01:02:47 AM
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?

Ναι, ζω στην Ελλάδα και μιλάω ελληνικά, μπαφιαρη παλιομαλάκα.

I'm not sure if Google translate will help you with the last 2 words, and that's probably good, because I would be flirting with a ban.

I already explained why the "tiny dots in the sky" pose a problem to the traditional FE model, and you should know that the light is the sun and the dot is Mercury, but you ignored all that.

Anyway, let's go back to the Greece debate, because I find that more amusing than the "tiny dots" one.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 01:06:43 AM
the dot is Mercury.

What is 'Mercury'?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 01:30:05 AM
the dot is Mercury.

What is 'Mercury'?

A planet.

Fuck this, let's go back to the Greece debate, this debate is boring.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2016, 01:49:45 AM
the dot is Mercury.

What is 'Mercury'?
You could have looked it up on your favourite source of factual information!
Quote from: Wikipedia
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.

There, now you know!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 01:52:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 01:59:01 AM
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.

No, you bloody dimwit! Well, actually, yes, if you lived 2500 YEARS AGO! The reason Mercury is called Mercury is because ancient Greeks (as well as other ancient civilizations) believed that the planets were gods, or at least they were linked to gods. They named Mercury is simply the latin version of Hermes (Ερμής), the greek messenger god, who was supposedly very quick. The Greeks named it Hermes, because of how "fast" it appeared to be compared to the other planets. Yes, they did think sun was a god as well (Helios), but they did NOT think that sun was the king of gods (that was pretty much Jupiter's (or Dias/Zeus as they called him) job), and they also did not think that the planets revolved around the sun. The names just stuck around.

Wow, all that sounds SOOO unlikely, right? Yeah, there must be a religious sun-god-loving cult...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 02:01:11 AM
By the way, you're jumbling up the ancient mythologies, Thoth and Ra are Egyptian.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 02:26:54 AM
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?

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 02:34:25 AM
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?

But you are jumbling up the mythologies. You are acting as though Thoth, Ra, Mercury etc. are all part of one mythology.

"You are simply making up stories about it, which just happen to coincide with ancient sun-worshipping mythologies."


You're quite the idiot, aren't ya? They don't even coincide with ancient mythologies. If anything, it's FET that coincides with them more. You've just jumbled up everything in your mind and pretend that it makes sense.

Now back to the Greece debate. That was fun, I really want to see what you will come up with about it.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 13, 2016, 03:33:52 AM
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.
I think you are showing your usual ignorance still!

All of the planets of the Solar System (with the exception of Earth - Terra) are given names from Greek or Roman mythology.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 07:55:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 08:07:11 AM
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.

"Again: LOL!!!

You still have no idea what you are talking about."


And you still haven't explained WHY. Oh yeah, because you said so. Ok.

"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

"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."


Ah ok. Nothing has changed. We've got people here furiously arguing with me against the heliocentric system, which was NOT the system that most ancient Greeks, Egyptians and Romans agreed with, and not the one their mythology agreed with, but ok, I guess the geocentric and the heliocentric systems are one and the same, as long as the earth is flat.

By the way, ancient Egyptians thought the Earth is flat, so I could argue just as easily that nothing has changed for you either.

"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."


I see you are trying really hard to piss me off, but it's not working, because I don't value your opinion in the slightest. Seriously, stop wasting your time and energy on this. I'm beginning to worry about you.  ::)

By the way, I don't even like Star Trek.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FalseProphet on May 13, 2016, 08:30:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 08:39:33 AM
"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.

And who do you think Thoth was a rip-off of?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FalseProphet on May 13, 2016, 08:58:42 AM


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?

Kalfu?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 10:40:28 AM
But if Thoth was Kalfu, what was Eshu?

Can you see what they did there?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FalseProphet on May 13, 2016, 10:54:56 AM
Writing books for sock-puppeteers?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 11:10:31 AM
Nah; writing your enslaved future.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 01:08:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 01:09:58 PM
Still, where's the quote?


Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FalseProphet on May 13, 2016, 01:25:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 13, 2016, 01:44:39 PM
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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 02:15:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 13, 2016, 02:17:23 PM
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...

Are you finished? OK, flush the toilet now.

Now back to what you were about to say about me being Greek.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 14, 2016, 02:16:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: FalseProphet on May 14, 2016, 02:29:04 AM
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. At least they saw it like that. With Muslims and Christians it is the same. I think every Arab calls God Allah, even if he is a Christian. But their concept of God is very different. God having a son is for a Muslim nothing but idololatry.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 14, 2016, 03:52:10 AM
Greeks and Egyptians had different concepts, when they spoke of Helios or Ra, but they meant thje same thing.

Oxymoron much?

*Yawn!*

Is this the kinda crap you were talking about when you said you 'could teach me'?

If so I am unimpressed.

You cannot even 'teach me' how to spell the word 'the'...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 14, 2016, 04:54:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 14, 2016, 05:54:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 14, 2016, 06:47:50 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: NewtSmooth on May 14, 2016, 08:41:04 AM
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.

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 here
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 14, 2016, 08:43:06 AM
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.

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 here

Because he amuses me, but because we've veered off too far, perhaps you are right. I should stop paying attention to him.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 14, 2016, 09:21:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 14, 2016, 10:16:48 AM
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.

"^A thing that every butthurt & beaten shill & troll here, ever, has said to me repeatedly already."

What can we say, you are amusing.

"^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.

Maybe the amusement has gone too far this time, bye.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 14, 2016, 11:09:14 AM
"^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.

^Admits he is a shill & a troll whilst failing to conceal immense butthurt at being played like a set of bongos.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Oger45 on May 14, 2016, 11:26:48 AM
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!!!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 14, 2016, 11:55:20 AM
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!!!

I'm a bit confused by your post, it's a bit off topic... Anyway, welcome to this weird, weird forum.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 14, 2016, 12:58:32 PM
Is there no end to you bloody madmen?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Empirical on May 14, 2016, 05:07:52 PM
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?
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.

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.

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)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 14, 2016, 05:10:11 PM
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?
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.

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.

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.  ::)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Empirical on May 15, 2016, 02:12:44 AM
If I was going to check the source code I would see if it worked by putting the stars in a rotating sphere around the earth (which is how it would work if it used the round earth model in calculations), or if it secretly puts the stars on a rotating disk to calculate where they will be in the future (which it would have to do to get correct results if the flat earth model was correct).
But there is no point in me checking, you would just say I'm lying if I told you I checked it.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 01:12:15 AM
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?
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.

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.

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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 01:23:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 04:12:12 AM
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.

Or maybe he is just trolling. You have to do something more than a complete reversal of your opinion to go from this to his current signature. Only a nut would do such a thing. Have you thought that maybe he had some sort of a traumatic experience or his paranoia was triggered somehow? You see, it's very common for people to randomly start thinking that everybody is watching them or some shit like that.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 04:40:18 AM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 05:28:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2016, 05:32:07 AM
the idea that someone can change their opinion does not seem at all unusual to normal, mentally-healthy people.

You are unqualified to make this statement.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 06:04:23 AM
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...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 07:55:14 AM
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...

What the fuck does sperglord even mean? Is it something along the lines of shill/satanist/disinfo troll or is it some idiotic offensive/inappropriately used term in the lines of "autist"? How old are you, 12? Get a life, you toolbox...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 07:57:57 AM
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?
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.

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.

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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 08:00:09 AM
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?  ::)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 08:09:08 AM
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?
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 08:10:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 08:17:53 AM
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?
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.

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.

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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 08:20:57 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 08:31:55 AM
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.

It's one thing to change your mind about trivial stuff, and another to go from:
1) Believing the Earth is round
2) Passionately arguing against FE
3) Being an atheist
To:
1) Well, I guess your signature sums it up. By the way, do I even have to point out how fallacious it is?
And all that while being an adult! I only know of one person who as an adult underwent a change even close to this (he was an atheist and now he is religious and a creationist), but even there, a traumatic experience was involved! When exactly did you change your mind?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 16, 2016, 08:38:02 AM
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?
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.

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.

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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 08:51:16 AM
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?
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.

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.

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? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: JohnRozz on May 16, 2016, 09:03:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Empirical on May 16, 2016, 09:06:25 AM
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?
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 09:14:05 AM
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.

Not shit.  That is why I specifically said, at least twice now, that I made a mistake by saying populum instead of verecundiam.  Do you even read the threads that your respond to?  Perhaps you shills should network a little better together so that you don't make yourselves look like asses over accusing people of things that they already admitted to have made a mistake?  You people should practice like footballers so you can have a strong game instead of being renegades stepping on each others toes and making your whole squad look dumb. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 09:16:23 AM
Would it feel as great if I did the same thing for your posts?

Well, you've already admitted to going through all 28000 of jroa's in search of dirty linen, as has your Satanic sperg-lord 'Team Autism - Thought Police' pal 'disputeone' about all 5000 of mine...

So why don't you start a thread on it, eh?

Call it 'Butthurt OCD Stalking Bullshit Nobody Cares About', maybe?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Jadyyn on May 16, 2016, 09:18:09 AM
Honestly, can we get back on topic?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 09:29:32 AM
Honestly, can we get back on topic?

It would appear to me that your people are the ones who drug this off topic, but go ahead and blame the flatties, like you always do.  ::)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: 29silhouette on May 16, 2016, 10:10:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 10:25:28 AM
Honestly, can we get back on topic?

What, the 'topic' of a gang of brain-damaged thugs trolling one of the mods off the forum?

Sure, knock yourselves out!

But if you mean the 'topic' of explaining the similarities between the heliocentric model & phallocentric Sun-Worshipping Cults, then nah...

You ran away from that.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 12:58:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 01:46:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 02:06:28 PM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 16, 2016, 02:19:44 PM
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.

Sounds legit.  Tell us more.   
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 02:20:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 02:28:26 PM
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?...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 02:39:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 02:46:53 PM
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?


No,

What about what I said was "mental"?

And what made your "flesh crawl"?

The fact that you found a fairly mundane story "mental" suggests that you no doubt have some psychological instability yourself. Should I alert the authorities?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 02:48:27 PM
Just stop.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 02:54:29 PM
Just stop.

No. If you don't like what I have to say then you can disappear. None of what you post means a damn thing anyway. You're just some nutjob with a chip on his shoulder. My post was aimed at Jroa so I will await his response and ignore yours.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 03:00:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 03:16:03 PM
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
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 03:22:23 PM
You're seriously full of shit.

Stop posting your CP here.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 03:27:04 PM
You're seriously full of shit.

Stop posting your CP here.

Wtf is CP?
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: getrealzommb on May 16, 2016, 03:31:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 03:36:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 16, 2016, 03:38:45 PM
Wtf is CP?

Wtf is that shit you posted?

Stop trying to be normal & go find a forum that cares about your nonsense.

I suggest JREF.

Booom!

Hi Rayzor!

Nice telescope.

Bet you say that to all the boys...

You & Rich will get on nicely at JREF.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: getrealzommb on May 16, 2016, 03:40:33 PM
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.

Uh hu, and this place attracts them in droves. I love to watch the train wrecks.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 03:46:05 PM
Wtf is CP?

Wtf is that shit you posted?


That's a picture of the real world...a place that you clearly have no experience of.

It is proof that my story is factual and therefore that my pictures are genuine...which actually relates to the topic, unlike any of the drivel you post.

You, apparently, are a brainless troll with no life

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 04:07:39 PM
...aaaanyway, ignoring that sad case, here are some more pictures I took of the transit, adding to the mountains of evidence...

(https://imageshack.com/i/plGRRsAhp)

(https://imageshack.com/i/plca8tXgp)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: 29silhouette on May 16, 2016, 06:04:11 PM
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,
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
  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?

Quote
  You have got to be the lowest paid shill here.
I wish.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 16, 2016, 11:03:17 PM
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,
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
  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?

Quote
  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.

Look up planets in "the Wiki" and see if that can explain transits.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: richaddis on May 16, 2016, 11:39:01 PM
I see that the end of that thread from last night got deleted. It's probably for the best. I hope that a ban was issued for the comments made by a certain demented person. At least now we can back to the actual topic at hand now, well mostly...
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2016, 12:57:34 AM
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?
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.

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.

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?

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!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 17, 2016, 01:38:15 AM
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%20numerum
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.

Perhaps you should do a little research in the future before making yourself seem ignorant? 
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2016, 01:56:53 AM
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%20numerum
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.

Perhaps you should do a little research in the future before making yourself seem ignorant?

Even your source says that they're nearly identical, and the definitions mean pretty much the same thing. No matter where else I looked, they were synonymous, and they're written by similar professors as well. Were you just trying to make it seem like I made more mistakes than I did?

"California State University Northridge seems to disagree with you.  Perhaps you are simply smarter than all of those professors?" 


What does it disagree with, that you're full of fallacies? By the way, isn't what you're doing ad verecundiam going by your definition?

Maybe you should look up in your source ad hominem, ad logicam, complex question, dicto simpliciter, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, red herring, straw man and tu quoque, because you use them all the time.

Oh, I almost forgot, here's what your source has to say about argumentum ad verecundiam: "This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.

At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so."
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 17, 2016, 01:57:35 AM
Perhaps if you read your sources, you would have avoided many similar mistakes  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on May 17, 2016, 02:09:26 AM
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.

What a tiny mind to believe in such a tiny universe, I honestly feel sorry for you!

As I read the history of astronomy, right from centuries BC, I am amazed at the ingenuity and the detail that could found just by visual observation without any modern instruments. Really you don't know what you are missing to denigrate these greats and their findings. Imagine plotting the courses of the planets among the "fixed stars", leading to those of Ptolemy's day to try fit these into a sensible pattern.

But, you couldn't care less, so I'll leave you to your tiny "Universe"!

The KJV says:
Quote from: David
Psalm 19:19
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

To me an immense Universe is really far more fitting for an infinite God, rather that a "heavens" filled with "energy entities in the space".
I know it's a personal matter, but I see the idea of "Space-time" as so fitting with a God the sees all of time and space - as if He is outside Space AND Time - is seems to fit perfectly.
Quote
Isaiah 46:9
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done.
               
Quote
Isaiah 46:9
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done.
Don't ask me to prove it, or expand on it, because I don't think that I could. maybe my ideas are foolish, well so be it.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: getrealzommb on May 30, 2016, 04:49:25 PM
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)
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 02:47:16 AM
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%20numerum
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.

Perhaps you should do a little research in the future before making yourself seem ignorant?
That is appeal to authority, your saying it's true just because some university says it is.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 31, 2016, 02:51:58 AM
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)


Did you take that? If you did it is seriously impressive.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Pezevenk on May 31, 2016, 07:36:51 AM
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?????
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: getrealzommb on May 31, 2016, 09:59:18 AM
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
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on May 31, 2016, 11:54:51 AM
Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: getrealzommb on May 31, 2016, 12:42:21 PM
Quote
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

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.

Its good but seems to have a focus issue. Its magnification is awesome as is  the light levels you can achieve, you just cant seem to get a crisp focus with it though... I think the mirror is slightly out of alignment or slightly twisted. Still good though. He based it on this design but has a solid tube

(https://thumb.ibb.co/dj8Ryv/327dd7ca2cea5f9e079cc82002ba1c43.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dj8Ryv)

Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Papa Legba on May 31, 2016, 12:49:55 PM
I WILL POST PHOTOS OF CANCER IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!

Hi Geoff!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: Empirical on May 31, 2016, 02:30:59 PM
I WILL POST PHOTOS OF CANCER IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!

Hi Geoff!
Go back to bed.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2016, 04:46:42 PM
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)

Awesome pic man, super impressive.
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: rabinoz on June 23, 2016, 06:10:06 PM
I was reviewing this thread in the hope of getting some useful information, and I sure did, just not the sort of information I wanted.
But so far I haven't what I wanted! Thanks jroa and Papa for a "most effective derailing team effort"!
Title: Re: Transit of Mercury
Post by: yobbo on June 25, 2016, 11:45:25 AM
One thing I would like the flat earth point of view about this is, if the sun is only 3000 miles away. How far away are Mercury and Venus, since they pass in front of the sun.