Transit of Mercury

  • 230 Replies
  • 19265 Views
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #210 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...




Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #211 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #212 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.

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #213 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...

*

Pezevenk

  • 14975
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #214 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...

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?
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

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!
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)

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #215 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? 

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? 

*

Pezevenk

  • 14975
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #216 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? 

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."
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

  • 14975
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #217 on: May 17, 2016, 01:57:35 AM »
Perhaps if you read your sources, you would have avoided many similar mistakes  ;D ;D ;D
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)

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #218 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.

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #219 on: May 30, 2016, 04:49:25 PM »
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.



Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #220 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? 

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.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 03:06:25 AM by Empirical »

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #221 on: May 31, 2016, 02:51:58 AM »
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.




Did you take that? If you did it is seriously impressive.

*

Pezevenk

  • 14975
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #222 on: May 31, 2016, 07:36:51 AM »
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.



WTF what's the aperture of your telescope?????
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)

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #223 on: May 31, 2016, 09:59:18 AM »
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.



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

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #224 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.

*

getrealzommb

  • 894
  • We do actually live on a ball: But who cares?
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #225 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



« Last Edit: May 31, 2016, 12:52:06 PM by getrealzommb »

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #226 on: May 31, 2016, 12:49:55 PM »
I WILL POST PHOTOS OF CANCER IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ME!!!

Hi Geoff!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #227 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.

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 19003
  • Or should I?
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #228 on: May 31, 2016, 04:46:42 PM »
Had some nice pics of mars tonight, Here's one that i liked.



Awesome pic man, super impressive.
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

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #229 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.
  • I learnt very convincingly what an idiot jroa is, though highly successful in his usual role of de-railing a promising thread.
    Very early he chimes in with
    Looks to me that weeks have passed between the two images.  I suppose you are going to claim that you took both pictures this morning?  ::)
    When anyone with the slightest knowledge would know that the transit of Mercury takes a few hours.
    But congratulations, jroa, from then on the thread was diverted into your stupid accusations. Wonderful derailing!

    But I will grant you, he did finally admit he was wrong:
    I was wrong, just as 80 sock puppets pointed out.  Perhaps you have some salt to pour in my wound?  Maybe some lemon juice?   You can be a dick, just like the shill meat puppets, if you want to be.  But, you cant take me down until the NASA agents get to me.
    And so graciously too!

  • Then of course Papa Legba smelled his name mention and has to stick his nose in with his usual "no information" post.
    Followed by one up to his usual idiocy:
    Now; you claim that a tiny dot in the sky proves we live on an enormous spinny globe?
    When I don't believe that anyone, except jroa claimed that!

    Then poor Papa competes with jroa as to who can derail most effectively! I think Papa wins hands down on a (derails)/(word count) measure - congratulations Papa!
But so far I haven't what I wanted! Thanks jroa and Papa for a "most effective derailing team effort"!

Re: Transit of Mercury
« Reply #230 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.