Halley's Comet - Crosspost from Q&A

About Halley's Comet which was discussed in the Q&A thread of the forums.

Wise said,

Quote from: EvolvedMantisShrimp on April 10, 2019, 06:50:58 PM

Quote from: wise on April 08, 2019, 11:01:24 PM

Quote from: flattard777 on March 16, 2019, 11:58:43 PM

If the earth is flat and we don't live in a heliocentric model than how does Halley's Comet come back every 75 years 

We saw it for once and never will see again. You can define all celestial bodies as Halley  which not defined yet.

So in 1705 when Edmund Halley predicted that a comet(that would later be named Halley's Comet) had passed by several times before and predicted that it would return in 1758 and even what direction it would return from, he was just really amazingly lucky that a entirely new comet just happened to pass by from his predicted direction in his predicted timeframe?

Nope. events like this happen continuously, and all you have to do is say, "Halley is back" when you see one of "shooting stars". Nobody can prove or disprove you, but people will belive you since your name is NASA.

We can measure the semi major axis of the comet by observing it using telescopes. We can then use Kepler's Third Law to then find the orbital period of the comet, which is 75.3 years. It would be impossible for different comets to look the same, that coincidentally become visible from Earth every 75/76 years. This comet has been studied since ancient times. There were tons of reports observing the comet, that were in intervals of 75/76 years over the centuries. Edmund Halley finally concluded it was the same comet coming back. The last time Halley's Comet was visible from Earth was in 1986. How come this was predicted if you claim it isn't the same comet?

He also says,

Quote from: flattard777 on March 16, 2019, 11:58:43 PM

If the earth is flat and we don't live in a heliocentric model than how does Halley's Comet come back every 75 years 

We saw it for once and never will see again. You can define all celestial bodies as Halley  which not defined yet.

That is false.

Template of the Babylonians who studied the comet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#/media/File:Babylonian_tablet_recording_Halley%27s_comet.jpg Year: 164BC

Chinese who studied the comet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#/media/File:Chinese_report_of_Halley%27s_Comet_apparition_in_240_BC_from_the_Shiji_(%E5%8F%B2%E8%A8%98).jpg Year: 240BC

Photograph of the comet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#/media/File:Halley%27s_Comet_-_May_29_1910.jpg Year: 1910

Those are just 3 examples. Look at the years: 240BC, 164BC, 1910

With these numbers, also note that they have the same time intervals of ~75-76 years. For example, 164BC is 76 years after 240BC, which is the same time it takes for Halley's Comet to orbit the Sun.

This contradicts the more popular Flat Earth Theory. That being, the stars, moon, and the Sun complete one full rotation above the Earth in 24 hours.

There are many more examples. There's a chart at the bottom showing this at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#History

Original thread: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80154.0

Thanks for splitting / merging my posts. First of all, this has to be in "debate" or "angry ranting" subforum, not in QA. Anyways.

We can measure the semi major axis of the comet by observing it using telescopes.

No you can not measure anything about comets. You can just deceive yourself by claiming something.

We can then use Kepler's Third Law to then find the orbital period of the comet, which is 75.3 years.

Your predictions are wrong. Kepler isn't a God and his theories are not bible. You are free to believe them. What you use it your problem.

It would be impossible for different comets to look the same, that coincidentally become visible from Earth every 75/76 years.

I don't remember a fallen star at the sky seemed different than others, do you?

This comet has been studied since ancient times.

There is nothing proves its being same thing, just some NASA cgi'es.

There were tons of reports observing the comet, that were in intervals of 75/76 years over the centuries.

Again, there is nothing proves its being same thing.

Edmund Halley finally concluded it was the same comet coming back.

Everybody can claim everything. Its name being Halley can't prove its being true. My name isn'T Halley so I am true, right? Names can not bring you an evidence.

The last time Halley's Comet was visible from Earth was in 1986.

Sorry, I was looked at the sky in 1986 and saw nothing in the name of Halley.

How come this was predicted if you claim it isn't the same comet?

You claim its being comet, I didn't saw anything different other than other stars and fallen stars. Can you give a day? Why did not NASA give a day everybody can observe the comet? Was it a ghost comet?

That is false.

That is true. Just you deny the truth because of some benefits. These benefits can not buy the wise.

Template of the Babylonians who studied the comet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#/media/File:Babylonian_tablet_recording_Halley%27s_comet.jpg Year: 164BC

Chinese who studied the comet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#/media/File:Chinese_report_of_Halley%27s_Comet_apparition_in_240_BC_from_the_Shiji_(%E5%8F%B2%E8%A8%98).jpg Year: 240BC

Photograph of the comet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#/media/File:Halley%27s_Comet_-_May_29_1910.jpg Year: 1910

wikipedia org is forbidden our country. I have no idea about what you talk. It is your problem I have arrive your links or not. You can write what they claim. Links are not prove anything, just your claims, maybe. You claim nothing here.

Those are just 3 examples. Look at the years: 240BC, 164BC, 1910

We did not live in those dates. We can enlarge it 2400BC, 24000BC, 275000BC, who can verify whether if we are true or wrong?

With these numbers, also note that they have the same time intervals of ~75-76 years.

Your numbers are your problems. These are not evidence. Numbers are not evidence. I can write 55, 56 years, 3,5 years, 1500,1550 years can not prove anything.

For example, 164BC is 76 years after 240BC, which is the same time it takes for Halley's Comet to orbit the Sun.

It is a lie. They were anything else, not Halley.

This contradicts the more popular Flat Earth Theory.

ıt contradicts because it is lie.

That being, the stars, moon, and the Sun complete one full rotation above the Earth in 24 hours.

They are already so. Your so called comet can not changed the facts, just lies, lies and more lies. If I want to listen lies I can open any of NASA TV channels.

There are many more examples.

There are not a true example.

There's a chart at the bottom showing this at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet#History

Again, wikipedia is forbid in our country because of they are supporting the fetö the terrorist organization. I do not have to read your fetö source to discuss with you on a scientific issue.

Original thread: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=80154.0

If you want to continue in original thread so go on continue at there.

We can then use Kepler's Third Law

There is no such thing as Kepler's third law.

Kepler fudged/faked/falsified the entire Nova Astronomia treatise:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776670#msg1776670

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1776680#msg1776680

This comet has been studied since ancient times.

You haven't done your homework on Halley's comet at all.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735

Template of the Babylonians who studied the comet:

One day, in 1849, a certain archaeologist made an important discovery at Nineveh.

Once these tablets were brought to England, they wished they had never found them in the first place.


And that is because the Ammizaduga Venus tables show that the orbit followed by Venus in the past was markedly different from that observed in the present.


http://www.skepticfiles.org/neocat/ammi.htm

Charles Ginenthal (Sagan and Velikovsky) has a great deal to
say about the Ammizaduga tablets, pp 281 - 284, quoting Livio C.
Stecchini's "The Velikovsky Affair":

     "The Venus tablets of Ammizaduga is the most striking document
     of early Babylonian astronomy.  These tablets, of which we
     possess several copies of different origin, report the dates
     of the helical rising and setting of the planet Venus during
     a period of 21 years...

     "Since the first effort at explanation of Archibald Henry
     Sayce in 1874, these figures have challenged the wit of a
     score of experts of astronomy and cuneiform philology.
     (Father Franz Xavier) Kugler (1862 - 1929), a recognized major
     authority on Babylonian and biblical astronomy, chronology and
     mythology, opposed the contention of those who claim that
     these documents must be dismissed as nonsense."  [because they
     do not conform to present orbital patterns for Venus]

 "Let me give some typical passages from the tablet:

 
     "In the month of Sivan, on the twenty fifth day, Ninsianna
     [that is, Venus] disappeared in the east; she remained absent
     from the sky for two months, six days; in the month Ulul on
     the 24'th day, Ninsianna appeared in the West - the heart of
     the land is happy. In the month Nisan on the 27'th day,
     Ninsianna disappeared in the West; she remained absent from
     the sky for seven days; in the month Ayar on the third day,
     Ninsianna appeared in the east - hostilities occur in the
     land, the harvest of the land is successful.


     "The first invisibility mentioned in these lines involves a
     disappearance in the east, an invisibility of two months, six
     days, and a reappearance in the west.  This seems to be a
     superior conjunction. The second invisibility involves a
     disappearance in the west, an invisibility of seven days, and
     a reappearance in the east.  This seems to be an inferior
     conjunction.  Most of the data in groups one and three on the
     tablet are of this form.  But the lengths and spacings of
     these invisibilities have a certain irregularity about them,
     and they do not conform to the manner in which Venus moves at
     present.

     "The data given in the second group on the tablet do have
     regularity - even too much regularity to be believable, - but
     they do not conform to the present state of affairs
     either.....


'How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan . . .") ? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.

The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months. "The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 months 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly."


If the tables are true, then both the attractive law of gravity AND Kepler's third law of motion are completely wrong; if they have been falsified, then we have another extraordinary proof of how the "ancient" history has been forged, confirming the findings of Dr. Gunnar Heinsohn:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110720184710/http://www.specialtyinterests.net/heinsohn.html

Chinese who studied the comet:

The great wall of China was built very recently:

http://de.geschichte-chronologie.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83:chronological-revolution-part-1&catid=2:2008-11-13-21-58-51&Itemid=90 (glorious Chinese history is a fake section)

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27892#27892 (not so ancient china 1)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27945#27945 (not so ancient china 2)
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=27981#27981 (not so ancient china 3)

Damodar Kosambi, India's greatest historian of the 20th century:

"There is virtually nothing of what we know as historical literature in India...
all we have is a vague oral tradition and an extremely limited number of
documented data, which is of a much greater value to us than that obtained
from legends and myths. This tradition gives us no opportunity of
reconstructing the names of all the rulers. The meagre remnants that we do
possess are so nebulous that no date preceding the Muslim period [before the
VIII century A.D.] can be regarded as precise... the works of the court
chroniclers didn't reach our time... all of this leads some rather earnest and
eminent scientists claim that India has no history of its own".
 
"Written memorials of the Indus culture defy decipherment to this day. .. not a
single finding can be associated with an actual person or historical episode. We
don't even know the language that was spoken by the inhabitants of the Indus
valley."

We are told further on that many vital issues concerning the "ancient" history
of India are based on the manuscripts found as late as the XX century. It turns
out, for instance, that:"the main source of knowledge in what concerns the
governmental system of India and the policy of the state in the epoch of
Maghadhi's ascension is the Arthashastra - the book. .. that had only been
found in 1905, after many a century of utter oblivion". It turns out that this
book is basically an Indian version of the famous me-diaeval oeuvre of
Machiavelli. However, in this case the "ancient Indian Arthashastra" couldn't
have been written before the Renaissance. This could have happened in the
XVII-XVIII century, or even the XIX."

Emperor Ashoka, considered to be India's greatest ruler, never existed:

https://madhesi.wordpress.com/2008/09/24/did-ashoka-exist/

There are many more examples. There's a chart at the bottom showing this at this link

You like comets, don't you?

Here is comet Holmes/P17 which totally contradicts each and every RE theory:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2066035#msg2066035

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2066114#msg2066114

No you can not measure anything about comets. You can just deceive yourself by claiming something.
Scientists observe the comet by using telescopes, and to find its other orbital characteristics.

Your predictions are wrong. Kepler isn't a God and his theories are not bible. You are free to believe them. What you use it your problem.
Well his famous formula is still correct 400 years later. We still use it to find the orbital period of an object.

Again, there is nothing proves its being same thing.
There are tons of templates that describe the return of the comet which they record their observations.

There is nothing proves its being same thing, just some NASA cgi'es.
As I said, there are templates/documents in ancient times in an interval of 75-76 years, which proves it comes back every 75 years.

Everybody can claim everything. Its name being Halley can't prove its being true. My name isn'T Halley so I am true, right? Names can not bring you an evidence.
I never said that is evidence for the comet. I just mentioned that because that's how the comet was made and that his prediction was true. Just some background

You claim its being comet, I didn't saw anything different other than other stars and fallen stars. Can you give a day? Why did not NASA give a day everybody can observe the comet? Was it a ghost comet?
I'm sure NASA and literally everybody, probably your teachers too (depending how old you were in 86).My teacher goes nuts over a lunar eclipse that happened months ago at our place, I'm sure people would be stoked that a comet being visible only once every 76 years, most likely once-in-a-lifetime opprotunity. The last perihelion was Feb 9, 1986.

wikipedia org is forbidden our country. I have no idea about what you talk. It is your problem I have arrive your links or not. You can write what they claim. Links are not prove anything, just your claims, maybe. You claim nothing here.
That's understood. Here's one picture from one of the links that isn't linked to Wikipedia.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiigIb0sNPhAhUCQ60KHRXACioQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AHalley%2527s_Comet_-_May_29_1910.jpg&psig=AOvVaw1muzhfsA2DyJ2ktQ_2NSfz&ust=1555461803913062
Hopefully that works, if it doesn't; oh well. It is a picture taken in 1910, 76 years before it's next approach at 1986.

We did not live in those dates. We can enlarge it 2400BC, 24000BC, 275000BC, who can verify whether if we are true or wrong?
No, because there would be no evidence that people recorded their observations in those years.

Your numbers are your problems. These are not evidence. Numbers are not evidence. I can write 55, 56 years, 3,5 years, 1500,1550 years can not prove anything.
We claim that the comet returns every 75.3 years, which can be verified by observations over the centuries. 1910 photograph ^^^, with it's last appearance at 1986. Which is what they predicted. How can we predict the comet precisely appearing July 2061?

It is a lie. They were anything else, not Halley.
Can you provide any evidence supporting that claim?

ıt contradicts because it is lie.
Again, please provide evidence. All you have said was "if...." These are lies, those are lies. NASA lies. "Could be different comet", etc. Yet you have provided no evidence.




Hopefully I covered your main points. I left some stuff out because some of it is repeated stuff.

By the way, I couldn't debate you on the other Q&A thread because I got a warning for doing it. Which is why I had to post here.

Also, I didn't do extremely in-depth replies because I don't have much spare time on my hands, and too lazy.