shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #80 on: January 16, 2019, 07:16:35 PM »
Quote
Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.

You are right I don't personally own that one but a friend of mine (who paid a lot less than 30K USD for it) who lives just a few miles away does and he is more than happy to let me use it any time I wish.  My own scope only cost me £2k but it is more than good enough.  In any case you cannot prove what I have or what I don't have unless you have made your own mind up about that just like you do everything else.  I would be more than happy to show you fine details on Jupiter if I possibly could. I am not biased or fussy about who I show the beauty of the heaven to. It is then up to them to make up their own mind about what they accept as real or not.

What kind of telescope did you use in your astronomy class?  I might be able to explain why you didn't see any detail that time round.  You do have to make sure the telescope is focused of course before you can see anything properly.

Jimmy McGill

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #81 on: January 16, 2019, 10:17:14 PM »
The fact is that I can quote any number of sources on the web or books that quote a figure for the size and distance of Jupiter but Tom will only accept evidence from a single source that happens to agree with his beliefs on the subject.  Is that the zetetic way?

To demonstrate and to seek only by inquiry is the "zetetic way," and the subject matter of the book which goes into the validity of those numbers is far more demonstrative than just posting the numbers themselves.

If you are going to insist on a number in a book, and wish to look no further, then why are you even here? Find a book that will tell you that the earth is round and stop bothering us.
Why do you think this book is correct and recent measurements are wrong?

The book is correct because the author is showing us that the "triangulation" used does not make a triangle. See p. 18.

It's quite the stretch to just come right out and say "the book is correct because..." But fine, whatever. You still haven't addressed, at all, the OP and page 18 of your book doesn't do so either, if it, in fact, addresses anything. But that aside.
A well known and time worn and tested method (still utilized by current surveyors) in assessing height of objects above the surface of the Earth is suddenly qualified as, "...quite the stretch..."?
The OP is: "How do flat earthers explain the rotation of Jupiter and the orbit of it's moons?"
It might perhaps be helpful for the OP to explain how the object known as Jupiter is related to the flat earth and its inhabitants.
In FET, what causes Jupiter to rotate and it's moons to orbit around it?
How do you know Jupiter is rotating, for one, and how do you know it has moons orbiting around it?

Look in the sky with a good pair of binoculars or better yet a cheap telescope and you can watch the planet Jupiter rotate, and witness with your own eyes the moons orbit and cast shadows on the planet.

Don't believe me, do it yourself.
I can link some really good beginner telescopes to get you started.

Jimmy McGill

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2019, 10:22:12 PM »
How do I know Jupiter is rotating?  Because I have seen it rotating through my telescopes.  I take it you don't have a telescope then otherwise you would be able to see the same thing I do.  I can send you images of the red spot moving across the disk if you wish.  Not a problem for me.  Images that I took by the way with my own equipment with no funding (sadly!) from NASA.
You see a red spot on the surface of any object and come to the conclusion that because you see the red spot moving the object must be moving?

I find this conclusion to be highly dubious.

I have observed Jupiter through a telescope in my astronomy class while in college. I wasn't able to ascertain any rotation.

Further, I doubt you are in possession of a 30K USD instrument of any form and fashion.

You see a spot on the surface of the object rotate around the circular surface, then come back into view every ~10 hours or so, regularly, on a loop, as if it's rotating. Yea, dubious conclusion, sure.
You looked at jupiter for a few minutes with a telescope years ago while not looking for anything in particular, I'm sure you gathered tons of data.
You don't need a $30k piece of equipment to view these things, although if you use google, you may find a local astronomy club with members who do have this equipment. I'm sure they'd love to let you use it.

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2019, 10:43:36 PM »
Of course they will. That is what local astronomy clubs are for. I realise I am not talking to fellow astronomers here but I can only describe my experiences and what I have seen over the years. I have spoken to many, many people who haven't the first idea what you can see through telescopes. People who are not used to using them very rarely see what I do because they don't really know that they are looking for.

Imaging has really come to the fore over the last few years and now the Internet and magazines are plastered full of brilliant colour images planets, galaxies and nebulae. Astronomy has become form of art as well as a science. To take hi res images of Jupiter or any of the planets for that matter you need a telescope and camera combo which gives you a decent image scale scale so that small details come out. You need to take into consideration the telescope focal length, the number of pixels on the camera sensor and the pixel size. The best images are taken with optical systems with effective focal ratios between F20 and F30. My scope has a focal length of 2000mm so for a 10" telescope that means 2000/250mm = F8. So I need to use a a 2.5x barlow to get into the F20-30 bracket.


Once you achieve that you get an image scale on Jupiter that allows the fine details to pop out under steady seeing conditions and capture the satellites as they pass in front of or behind the disk.  The telescope turns what looks like just a bright star in the sky to the naked eye into a mini solar system. And yes you are right Jimmy, personally I have gathered gigabytes of data from Jupiter videos over the years.  Best to use a high frame rate camera (60-100fps) and then capture say 2000-3000 frames over a 120sec period max. Then align and stack the still frames from the video using Registax and similar.  More than 120sec per video and you get blurring of the disk detail due to Jupiters rotation.  A program called WinJupos incorporates a derotation feature to correct this.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 11:01:42 PM by shootingstar »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #84 on: January 16, 2019, 11:26:46 PM »
Of course they will. That is what local astronomy clubs are for. I realise I am not talking to fellow astronomers here

Do your fellow astronomers also point at numbers in a book as their proof while refusing to discuss the validity of the method to get those numbers?

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #85 on: January 16, 2019, 11:44:23 PM »
Don't think so Tom no.   We use numbers all the time but not in the context of needing to prove anything to ourselves. For instance we know the Jovian longitude of the GRS and sources such as the BAA handbook quotes the longitude of the visible central meridian of Jupiters disk at any one time as seen from Earth.  We can then use that to determine whether or not we will see the GRS for the time we are observing.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #86 on: January 16, 2019, 11:45:43 PM »
Don't think so Tom no.   We use numbers all the time but not in the context of needing to prove anything to ourselves.

So you admit to astronomers being uninterested in truth then?

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #87 on: January 16, 2019, 11:48:01 PM »
What truth would that be then?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #88 on: January 16, 2019, 11:59:24 PM »
What truth would that be then?

The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in  discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 12:01:47 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2019, 12:04:42 AM »
What truth would that be then?

The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in  discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.

That's a bit ironic considering how your flawless source of everything flat-earth is a book that's almost 140 years old. 
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

shootingstar

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #90 on: January 17, 2019, 12:05:58 AM »
Almost missed a trick there didn't I Tom with your last comment about the truth.  To quote Jack Nicholson I think it was from a famous film of his also starring Tom Cruise... "You can't handle the truth!..."

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #91 on: January 17, 2019, 12:20:47 AM »
What truth would that be then?

The continual validation and revalidation of astronomy. Astronomy is alleged to be a science. Yet you admit to astronomers being uninterested in  discussion, validation, and checks of basic knowledge.

That's a bit ironic considering how your flawless source of everything flat-earth is a book that's almost 140 years old.

The Flat Earth movement has been performing continuous validation and checks of Earth Not a Globe.



Where can we see similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy?

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #92 on: January 17, 2019, 12:24:25 AM »
Yeah, I got one of those, too.




Regarding Jupiter, which one is it, guys?  You can't seem to agree on planets.  Who will concede?  Sandokhan, or the others?

Quote from: From the FAQ
If the planets are round, why isn't the Earth?
The 2007 retrograde of Mars. Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky.

Planets (from Ancient Greek ἀστὴρ πλανήτης [astēr planētēs, "wandering star"], or just πλανήτης [planḗtēs, "wanderer"]) are orbiting astronomical objects. The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve. The earths uniqueness, fundamental differences and centrality makes any comparison to other nearby celestial bodies insufficient - Like comparing basketballs to the court on which they bounce.

Other planets/moons are not flat

Here is an answer to that question:

Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?

A. The earth is not a planet. The earth very large and unlike the characteristics of the wandering stars called "planets" in numerous ways. This is like asking why basketballs are round, but not the basketball court. The basketball court is a fundamentally different kind of entity than the small balls which may bounce upon its surface.

Jupiter has the same diameter as that of the Moon, Sun, Black Sun, Shadow Moon.

Its shape is discoidal, it is the layers of clouds which rotate above its surface.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #93 on: January 17, 2019, 12:29:14 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #94 on: January 17, 2019, 12:30:49 AM »
Don't think so Tom no.   We use numbers all the time but not in the context of needing to prove anything to ourselves. For instance we know the Jovian longitude of the GRS and sources such as the BAA handbook quotes the longitude of the visible central meridian of Jupiters disk at any one time as seen from Earth.  We can then use that to determine whether or not we will see the GRS for the time we are observing.
Those are all based upon angular measurements, not direct measurements of distance to Jupiter or the dimensions of Jupiter.  You need theory to bridge the gap between angular measurements and tangible measurements.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 12:32:42 AM by George Jetson »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1240
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #95 on: January 17, 2019, 12:33:29 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

We do, otherwise why would the question be raised in the OP that has yet to be addressed from an FE perspective:

"How are these observations explained on a flat earth? What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Jupiter
« Reply #96 on: January 17, 2019, 12:36:01 AM »


"How are these observations explained on a flat earth? What drives the orbit of the moons if not gravity? What casts the shadow on the planet if not the moons coming between Jupiter and the sun?"
Unknown.  Possibly electromagnetic fields.  Not germane to shape of Earth.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 1379
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #97 on: January 17, 2019, 12:57:24 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?
==============================
==============================
Pete Svarrior "We are not here to directly persuade anyone ... You mistake our lack of interest in you for our absence."

Tom Bishop "We are extremely popular and the entire world wants to talk to us. We have better things to do with our lives than have in depth discussions with every single curious person. You are lucky to get one sentence dismissals from us"

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6458
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #98 on: January 17, 2019, 01:18:38 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?

Certainly far more than the number of Flat Earthers. The number of amateur astronomers boasts in the hundreds of thousands to 1 million+, in fact  Yet none appear interested in discussion or validation of the claims of astronomy. Look at the dancing around of the issue that the methods of triangulation in astronomy are invalid in this thread, for example.

*

Offline Bad Puppy

  • *
  • Posts: 216
  • Belief does not make something a theory.
    • View Profile
Re: Jupiter
« Reply #99 on: January 17, 2019, 01:24:20 AM »
I don't see any similar independent validation and checks for the claims of astronomy. It appears that you guys don't care about validation or inquiry at all.

How many astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists and similar folk do you think there are in the world, Tom?

Certainly far more than the number of Flat Earthers. The number of amateur astronomers boasts in the hundreds of thousands to 1 million+, in fact  Yet none appear interested in discussion or validation of the claims of astronomy. Look at the dancing around of the issue that the methods of triangulation in astronomy are invalid in this thread, for example.

I would imagine there's a fair amount of discussion and validation of the claims of astronomy in any university astronomy and astrophysics classroom.  Do you really think they're just a bunch of sheep that will take what's fed to them without any critical thinking?

And how about Jupiter's discoid shape, Tom?  Do you agree or disagree with Sandokhan that Jupiter is discoid?
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 01:26:23 AM by Bad Puppy »
Quote from: Tom Bishop
...circles do not exist and pi is not 3.14159...

Quote from: totallackey
Do you have any evidence of reality?