Transit of Mercury

  • 230 Replies
  • 24019 Views
*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #30 on: May 09, 2016, 04:19:39 PM »
Good ole jroa. Says something stupid and now won't fess up.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #31 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. 

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #32 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...

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).


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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #33 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.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #34 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...

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).


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? 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #35 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. 

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #36 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

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #37 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. 

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #38 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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #39 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.   

*

sokarul

  • 18802
  • Extra Racist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #40 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.

 
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #41 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.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #42 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? 

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #43 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #44 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.

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #45 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!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #46 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. 

*

Blue_Moon

  • 846
  • Defender of NASA
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #47 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. 
Aerospace Engineering Student
NASA Enthusiast
Round Earth Advocate
More qualified to speak for NASA than you are to speak against them

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19891
  • Or should I?
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #48 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.
BOTD member

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #49 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.


Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #50 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #51 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!

*

Pezevenk

  • 15095
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #52 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.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15095
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #53 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...



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!
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15095
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #54 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!
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15095
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #55 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...

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).


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.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 15095
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #56 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.
Member of the BOTD for Anti Fascism and Racism

It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from
-Intikam (again)

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #57 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...



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!

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #58 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.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #59 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).


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.
Quote from: jroa
Wow, great non-response
Quote from: disputeone
I don't understand females but am still pretty sure they exist.
Quote from: markjo
Your first mistake was to presume there would be an academic debate anywhere on this forum.