The Transit of Mercury

  • 26 Replies
  • 1501 Views
*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
The Transit of Mercury
« on: November 05, 2019, 02:54:03 PM »
On November 11th, Mercury will transit in front of the Sun. This is an opportunity for the Flat Earth community to collect evidence for their hypotheses and refine them.
Nullius in Verba

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #1 on: November 07, 2019, 06:01:01 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

*

Stash

  • 6313
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #2 on: November 07, 2019, 07:12:53 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2019, 07:52:32 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Nullius in Verba

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #4 on: November 08, 2019, 06:29:17 AM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?




Ha, that brought back memories of doing that in physics class.  Everyone was trying to do it without flinching, which is really hard.  So one kid overcompensated by actually shoving his head forward....with predictable results.   ::)
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #5 on: November 08, 2019, 08:28:17 AM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

*

Stash

  • 6313
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #6 on: November 08, 2019, 10:57:02 AM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Personally, no. But many people have for the past few hundred years from Kepler and Halley on up. I'm not sure what your point is nor why the smug hostility?

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #7 on: November 08, 2019, 12:12:11 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #8 on: November 08, 2019, 02:53:13 PM »
Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.
If those little black dots are not Mercury and Venus crossing the Sun I wonder how Kepler was able to predict that "that, in 1631, both Mercury and Venus would transit the sun within less than a month of each other".
Quote from: Joe Rao
Space.com, Mercury Transit: Kepler predicted it, but Gassendi observed it
It was Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) who made the surprising discovery that, in 1631, both Mercury and Venus would transit the sun within less than a month of each other. Mercury would transit the sun on Nov. 7, followed by Venus on Dec. 6. The sight of a planet passing in front of the solar disk had never been seen before, so Kepler and his soon-to-be son-in-law, Jacob Bartsch, issued an "admonition" to all astronomers to be on the watch for these events. Because Kepler himself was uncertain about the exact circumstances (as he was concerned about the accuracy of his own tables), he urged prospective observers to carefully watch the sun a day early and, should nothing be seen, not give up until the day after.

Unfortunately, early November 1631 brought a very stormy and unsettled period of weather to much of Europe. So far, as historians know, only three individuals actually observed the transit of Mercury and only one, Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), left a detailed account. According to Gassendi's writings, he observed the transit from Paris, by means of projecting an 8-inch-wide (20 centimeters) image of the sun from his telescope's eyepiece onto a white screen. At around 9 a.m. local time on Nov. 7, through a scattered-to-broken layer of cloud cover, Gassendi anxiously watched the black dot of Mercury ó which was much smaller than he had expected ó as it slowly moved across the sun.
I'd be a bit nervous too!

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2019, 07:43:30 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.

Every time someone uses the data and equations in order to tune a telescope in on Mercury's position and finds it waiting there exactly as predicted, it's another confirmation of the data and equations. I don't think he realizes just how many people do exactly that every single year.
Nullius in Verba

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #10 on: November 10, 2019, 01:49:51 PM »
So... no interest. No scientific curiosity whatsoever. Just wait for it to pass and go back to Youtube jockeys and wild speculations?
Nullius in Verba

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2019, 02:14:27 PM »
So... no interest. No scientific curiosity whatsoever. Just wait for it to pass and go back to Youtube jockeys and wild speculations?
This seems to be the attitude of many flat earthers to astronomy:
Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it.  I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky.  How much can we expect to ever know about them? 
In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy.  Zetetic means "seeker."  As in, seeker of truth. Zetetic Astronomy, CHAPTER XII. THE CAUSE OF TIDES.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2019, 06:01:27 AM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Personally, no. But many people have for the past few hundred years from Kepler and Halley on up. I'm not sure what your point is nor why the smug hostility?

My point?: Hmm. But if one of the key tenets of Flat Earth is that the majority of people are lying about simple things, why would you choose as a subject for collecting evidence something that relies heavily on lots of complex evidence from other people, many of whom have been dead for a long time?

Smug hostility?: That's called projection.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2019, 06:41:06 AM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.

Typical reasoning here.

Quote something you read on the internet as the absolute truth.

Have no personal experience with it.

Just curious, have either you or EvolvedMantisShrimp ever seen the shiny star in the sky Mercury, let alone a "transit of Mercury"?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40507
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2019, 06:48:57 AM »
Just curious, have either you or EvolvedMantisShrimp ever seen the shiny star in the sky Mercury, let alone a "transit of Mercury"?
Have you?  Would you like to?  If so, then today is the day to gain such experience (assuming that you get a clear sky).
« Last Edit: November 11, 2019, 06:50:48 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2019, 06:58:43 AM »
Curious likes to point out bad arguments.
This is a bad argument amd will widely be ignore by the Fe'rs.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2019, 07:16:39 AM »
Just curious, have either you or EvolvedMantisShrimp ever seen the shiny star in the sky Mercury, let alone a "transit of Mercury"?
Have you?  Would you like to?  If so, then today is the day to gain such experience (assuming that you get a clear sky).

Of course I have. I don't speak from positions of ignorance.

*

Stash

  • 6313
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2019, 11:54:24 AM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Personally, no. But many people have for the past few hundred years from Kepler and Halley on up. I'm not sure what your point is nor why the smug hostility?

My point?: Hmm. But if one of the key tenets of Flat Earth is that the majority of people are lying about simple things, why would you choose as a subject for collecting evidence something that relies heavily on lots of complex evidence from other people, many of whom have been dead for a long time?

Smug hostility?: That's called projection.

All I was saying was that basically I didn't know what the argument was from the OP, but that maybe it has to do with 'predictability'. I apologize if that came off as smugness. It wasn't intended to be, literally just a question. But you interpreted it that way and immediately jumped in with your "Oh!...".

From a predictability standpoint, perhaps the argument is that, "Hey, you don't have to rely 'heavily on lots of complex evidence from dead people'," you can actually see it for yourself. And one can see that its occurrence and actual transit is as predicted by seeming globe earth science.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2019, 12:51:37 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.

Typical reasoning here.

Quote something you read on the internet as the absolute truth.

Have no personal experience with it.

Just curious, have either you or EvolvedMantisShrimp ever seen the shiny star in the sky Mercury, let alone a "transit of Mercury"?

Yeah, the old man had a telescope, and we used to find planets and stars together when I was young.  Amazingly right where they were supposed to be, according to the tables in the Astronomical Journal.  Whoíd have thunk?

This was before the internet, so we had to rely on the published journals.  You know, real science.  Are you sure you want to play the ďsomething you read on the internetĒ card?  Here of all places?  LOL

Whatever, let me know when Flat Earthers have worked out where the Sun is supposed to be.  Without this hilariously simple first step towards some kind of model, itís pointless trying to say much about any transits across it.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2019, 01:38:14 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.

Typical reasoning here.

Quote something you read on the internet as the absolute truth.

Have no personal experience with it.

Just curious, have either you or EvolvedMantisShrimp ever seen the shiny star in the sky Mercury, let alone a "transit of Mercury"?

Yeah, the old man had a telescope, and we used to find planets and stars together when I was young.  Amazingly right where they were supposed to be, according to the tables in the Astronomical Journal.  Whoíd have thunk?

That's great that you had that experience. Many today don't actually go out and observe. I would hazard that few people have seen (and know that they were seeing) Mercury in the sky.  I get the feeling that many of the people who posit arguments here do so without the benefit of actual real-world experience. (E.g., citing Mercury transits without having seen one, citing horizon dip from a height without ever having measured it, citing ships' hulls disappearing on the ocean without ever having observed it. Or citing that the Sun moves across the sky at 15 degrees per hour. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82127.0)

This was before the internet, so we had to rely on the published journals.  You know, real science.  Are you sure you want to play the ďsomething you read on the internetĒ card?  Here of all places?  LOL

I would be happy to play that card for any of the material and references I have ever posted. I can't speak for anyone else's choices.

Whatever, let me know when Flat Earthers have worked out where the Sun is supposed to be.  Without this hilariously simple first step towards some kind of model, itís pointless trying to say much about any transits across it.

Yeah. It would be great when all globe earthers could agree on where the Sun is supposed to be, too. (See above discussion.)

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 926
  • Physical Comedian
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2019, 02:06:09 PM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.

Typical reasoning here.

Quote something you read on the internet as the absolute truth.

Have no personal experience with it.

Just curious, have either you or EvolvedMantisShrimp ever seen the shiny star in the sky Mercury, let alone a "transit of Mercury"?

Yes and Yes.
Nullius in Verba

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2019, 02:21:32 AM »
Why would a dark spot moving across the face of the Sun be equated with the shiny pre-dawn and post-dusk twinkly star from weeks before? What personal evidence can you give that the two are the same?

Predictability?

Oh! You have personally witnessed and recorded data from sufficient multiple "transits of Mercury" and recorded enough angular position data of the Sun and the shiny star to equate the two in a statistically relevant way? Kudos to you, that's a lot of work over a lot of time!

Typical backwards reasoning to be found here.

No one needs to personally verify whatís been firmly scientifically established.  Thatís already been done long ago, and all the information is in the public domain.

If you have a problem with it, itís up to YOU to present your observations.  Even if itís highly unlikely that thousands of professional astronomers and millions of amateur astronomers somehow havenít noticed.

This is how scientific progress works.

Typical reasoning here.

Quote something you read on the internet as the absolute truth.

Have no personal experience with it.

Just curious, have either you or EvolvedMantisShrimp ever seen the shiny star in the sky Mercury, let alone a "transit of Mercury"?

Yeah, the old man had a telescope, and we used to find planets and stars together when I was young.  Amazingly right where they were supposed to be, according to the tables in the Astronomical Journal.  Whoíd have thunk?

That's great that you had that experience. Many today don't actually go out and observe. I would hazard that few people have seen (and know that they were seeing) Mercury in the sky.

Yeah, in this case I had some limited experience as a child.  But even I donít regard decades old memories of not particularly careful observations with an amateur telescope as evidence of much.  Just enough to think that regular astronomical charts seem to roughly work. 

Iíd expect anyone else to regard that as very flimsy anecdotal evidence. 

Quote
I get the feeling that many of the people who posit arguments here do so without the benefit of actual real-world experience. (E.g., citing Mercury transits without having seen one, citing horizon dip from a height without ever having measured it, citing ships' hulls disappearing on the ocean without ever having observed it.

Citing a professional or well documented amateur source is far more credible than what I told you.

Quote
Or citing that the Sun moves across the sky at 15 degrees per hour. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=82127.0)

I trust you noticed my comments in this?    Itís not quite 15 degrees per hour in a line across the sky, but if you are tracking with an equatorial mount, you would drive Right Ascension at 15 degrees per hour.  Not really sure why you made such a big deal about this distinction?

Quote
This was before the internet, so we had to rely on the published journals.  You know, real science.  Are you sure you want to play the ďsomething you read on the internetĒ card?  Here of all places?  LOL

I would be happy to play that card for any of the material and references I have ever posted. I can't speak for anyone else's choices.

It mainly comes down to what is a credible or reasonable source to use.

Quote
Whatever, let me know when Flat Earthers have worked out where the Sun is supposed to be.  Without this hilariously simple first step towards some kind of model, itís pointless trying to say much about any transits across it.

Yeah. It would be great when all globe earthers could agree on where the Sun is supposed to be, too. (See above discussion.)

All globe earthers?  Why?

This is my basic point.

ďGlobe EarthersĒ I take it just means everyone who isnít a Fat Earther.  Most normal people accept they donít know everything there is to know, and certainly donít need to personally observe everything to believe it.

Itís reasonable to assume that the people who study a subject understand it best.  As long as the work is properly documented, checked and published, it should be fine, until someone else finds a problem with it.

Flat Earthers on the other hand are the ones who are saying that itís all wrong (or lies), so someone needs to come up with better explanations.

The validity of a model does not depend on the level of understanding of any particular person you are talking to.  Itís not necessary for everyone who supports a model to fully understand it, but somebody should.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40507
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #22 on: November 14, 2019, 06:31:04 AM »
The validity of a model does not depend on the level of understanding of any particular person you are talking to.  Itís not necessary for everyone who supports a model to fully understand it, but somebody should.

I think that this quote sums things up nicely:

ďNature doesn't ask your permission; it doesn't care about your wishes, or whether you like its laws or not. You're obliged to accept it as it is, and consequently all its results as well.Ē ― Fyodor Dostoevsky,
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #23 on: November 14, 2019, 09:55:22 AM »

I trust you noticed my comments in this?    Itís not quite 15 degrees per hour in a line across the sky, but if you are tracking with an equatorial mount, you would drive Right Ascension at 15 degrees per hour.  Not really sure why you made such a big deal about this distinction?


Because they're completely different? If something can be different by more than 5% because of a fundamental misunderstanding and there's no cause to point it out, why are people so bent out of shape when danang gets the value of pi wrong by 1%?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40507
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2019, 10:26:06 AM »

I trust you noticed my comments in this?    Itís not quite 15 degrees per hour in a line across the sky, but if you are tracking with an equatorial mount, you would drive Right Ascension at 15 degrees per hour.  Not really sure why you made such a big deal about this distinction?


Because they're completely different? If something can be different by more than 5% because of a fundamental misunderstanding and there's no cause to point it out, why are people so bent out of shape when danang gets the value of pi wrong by 1%?
Because pi is often used where tolerances are far tighter than 1%.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #25 on: November 14, 2019, 11:22:10 AM »

I trust you noticed my comments in this?    Itís not quite 15 degrees per hour in a line across the sky, but if you are tracking with an equatorial mount, you would drive Right Ascension at 15 degrees per hour.  Not really sure why you made such a big deal about this distinction?


Because they're completely different? If something can be different by more than 5% because of a fundamental misunderstanding and there's no cause to point it out, why are people so bent out of shape when danang gets the value of pi wrong by 1%?
Because pi is often used where tolerances are far tighter than 1%.

Is it used in such cases by a majority of people on this site? By a quarter? By a tenth? Not likely.

*

Stash

  • 6313
Re: The Transit of Mercury
« Reply #26 on: November 14, 2019, 02:21:54 PM »

I trust you noticed my comments in this?    Itís not quite 15 degrees per hour in a line across the sky, but if you are tracking with an equatorial mount, you would drive Right Ascension at 15 degrees per hour.  Not really sure why you made such a big deal about this distinction?


Because they're completely different? If something can be different by more than 5% because of a fundamental misunderstanding and there's no cause to point it out, why are people so bent out of shape when danang gets the value of pi wrong by 1%?
Because pi is often used where tolerances are far tighter than 1%.

Is it used in such cases by a majority of people on this site? By a quarter? By a tenth? Not likely.

It's used in the machining of the pistons in the engine in my car.