*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1216
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #20 on: June 20, 2017, 12:29:09 PM »
Maybe if roundies didn't present clearly staged or doctored 'evidence' to try and make a point your lot would have more credibility too

You do not know my beliefs - I'm neither FE or RE. I do not believe humanity has evolved to a point where we understand the true nature of the universe?
Yes, you have always seemed to be a "Shape Shifter", but do we have to evolve more just to know the shape of the earth?
This video is a bit long, but the lens wasn't dirty.
The dirty patches are clouds that we get sometimes it Brisbane.

transit of Venus from Brisbane Australia the Last Hour, Luka Botic
It that was a sunspot it was beautifully round and sharp!

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #21 on: June 20, 2017, 08:17:21 PM »
Cool - so in Brisbane, Venus crossed the sun's disk from right to left.   In the video I saw shot in (I believe) the UK - it crossed from left to right.

This is decidedly tricky for the FE'ers to explain.

In RE, it's expected because one observer is standing "upside down" relative to the other on opposite sides of the Earth.

Offline Shifter

  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2017, 05:23:49 AM »
Not tricky at all. In video editing software I can just 'flip horizontal' and voila!!!



Offline Smokified

  • *
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2017, 02:35:46 PM »
Not tricky at all. In video editing software I can just 'flip horizontal' and voila!!!

What motive would there be for this?

Why the mortal fear of just admitting you are wrong when presented with facts that don't support your position?  What gain do you get from lying to yourself?

Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2017, 07:28:26 PM »
Not tricky at all. In video editing software I can just 'flip horizontal' and voila!!!

So are you claiming that all such videos are faked?

Is it only people in the southern hemisphere who ALWAYS fake them or is it only the people in the northern hemisphere who do that?

Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #25 on: June 27, 2017, 09:01:28 PM »
... Can you provide evidence that we are not living in a flat 2D universe and what we see and experience is a 3D 'holographic' representation? I bet you can not....

Contemplate a two dimensional universe. The only thing you could see would be straight lines (a dot being considered a short straight line). No shapes whatsoever, just lines, which i suppose may be blurry at a distance, such that you could distinguish which end of a line at an angle is receding or approaching. That you can see a square or a triangle from above - up but not north, is proof that we live in a universe of at least 3 spatial dimensions. Now try to imagine a universe with 4 spatial dimensions. With 1 spatial dimensions. With zero spatial dimensions. Interesting stuff, I recommend reading Flatland, available free online here http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/


Online 3DGeek

  • *
  • Posts: 565
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2017, 03:51:56 AM »
... Can you provide evidence that we are not living in a flat 2D universe and what we see and experience is a 3D 'holographic' representation? I bet you can not....

Contemplate a two dimensional universe. The only thing you could see would be straight lines (a dot being considered a short straight line). No shapes whatsoever, just lines, which i suppose may be blurry at a distance, such that you could distinguish which end of a line at an angle is receding or approaching. That you can see a square or a triangle from above - up but not north, is proof that we live in a universe of at least 3 spatial dimensions. Now try to imagine a universe with 4 spatial dimensions. With 1 spatial dimensions. With zero spatial dimensions. Interesting stuff, I recommend reading Flatland, available free online here http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

Flatland is a really terrible book - it's not really about a 2D world - and it's REALLY badly thought out as a description of such a place.  Mostly it's a painfully non-politically-correct diatribe against women and it advocates a class-ridden society.   It's 98% politics and 2% about a 2D world.   He says (for example) that their buildings have doors and windows - but a door and a window would be identical in a 2D world...he makes mistakes and slipups all the time.

If you want to really understand the implications of a 2D world, read "Planiverse" by  A. K. Dewdney.   It's REALLY carefully thought through - it has a decent plot and actual characters.   The illustrations alone are amazing.   Try to imagine how a 2D steam engine might work - then look at Dewdney's lovingly thought out diagram of one.

One of my all-time favorite books.


Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2017, 02:08:39 AM »
I do not believe humanity has evolved to a point where we understand the true nature of the universe

That is ultimately a retreat into pure solipsism, which is just plain stupid - or at best cannot be considered as a serious rebuttal. Even hardcore solipsists don't actually conduct their daily lives as if they believe it.

Quote
Case in point

Can you provide evidence that we are not living in a flat 2D universe and what we see and experience is a 3D 'holographic' representation? I bet you can not. Therefore if this turns out it the nature of our existence and universe - both sides of the debate (as far as the term 'flat' or 'globe' would be correct but ultimately the earth (and everything else) would be flat.

There simply is not enough evidence out there to prove or disprove this theory which plenty of actual scientists are devoting time and research into.

That example is not a clever as you apparently think it is, in fact I think it betrays a fair amount of ignorance on the subject. The "Holographic Universe" idea is an abstract mathematical concept related to String Theory. The number of people that understand String Theory at the mathematical level can arguably be counted on one hand, and some of them even admit that no one really "understands" it, other than massaging the math until the outputs to inputs produce a superset of both General Relativity and classical quantum mechanics. There is very little practical real-world application. (Yet, if ever.) The whole point of the Holographic Universe idea is that it doesn't actually matter which it is, and in principle you wouldn't be able to tell, at least at the macroscopic level. Most physicists and cosmologists regard it as immune to disproof and therefore not scientific. (Although others believe that there are, in principle, tests that could be conducted.)

But in the big picture, that is little different than the math of Superstring Theory working only in 11 dimensions. (So voila, 11 dimensions might exist, according to some Superstring Theorists.)

Which are all superseded by the question: are we really in a simulated universe?

But so what? The truth or falsity of those questions - even the "simulated universe" question (assuming it is simulated down to individual subatomic particles), by definition, doesn't affect our understanding of any part of the universe that affects our daily lives, nor do they yet have practical predictive qualities. And just because some physicists indulge themselves in fields that arguably may never produce real-world applications, doesn't mean all science - or even that non-practical field - is frivolous.

Until it can be tested and proven that we live in a computer universe, it doesn't matter if we do or not. (And even then it arguably wouldn't other than to satisfy intellectual curiosity of the why and how.) Until it can be tested and proven that we live in a holographic universe, it doesn't matter. Neither affect our daily lives, or even long-term outlook as a species. And both are likely concepts immune to disproof anyway. (If we did live in a computer-simulated universe but it was fundamentally impossible to either prove or disprove...would it matter?)

The motions of the sun, moon, and planets are things that clearly exist - according to any definition of "exist" that is meaningful on a daily human level - and obviously follow some repeatable, predictable rules that affect us. While understanding them may or may not affect YOUR daily life, that doesn't mean it doesn't matter and that we shouldn't even try to understand. King tides kill people, and are useful to predict. (Which requires accurately predicting the perigees of Earth's orbit around the sun, the moon's around Earth's, and the orbital alignments of Sun, Moon, and Earth. Accurate prediction of phenomenon requires an understanding of the relevant laws of physics that "govern" them - in this case basic Newtonian and Einsteinian physics, as well as ever-improving bathymetric relief.) Many people also find the increasingly more accurate and detailed explanations for observed phenomenon - however meanderingly they may stumble towards describing "reality" - profoundly beautiful. I know I do.

Understanding stellar evolution may save our species, if we don't wipe ourselves out before then. That seems like worthwhile knowledge.

Quote
When people argue for a globe earth they are arrogant in the thinking that they understand the true nature of the universe. You could be wrong.

In what possible sane interpretation is that arrogance? Maybe you are confusing "knowledge", "science", and "the pursuit of understanding", with some egotistic conceit that we can comprehend the full truth of the universe. In science, those words typically have far humbler meanings than you seem to be ascribing. To most, the goal of science is to stumble toward explaining observed phenomenon, to some practical end that reduces suffering of living things, or maybe just to scratch the itch of human curiosity that has helped us survive this far.

It is not arrogant to try to understand how and why the things that affect you, do. Sounds like common-sense survival tactics, to me. Personally, I'm pretty fucking happy that we finally have a decent enough understanding of how tornadoes form, to give a few minutes advanced warning - rather than throwing up our arms and sacrificing virgins to appease the angry sky god, and just dying unnecessarily out of ignorance. It has literally saved the lives of a particular second cousin of mine. Or our breakthroughs with the Germ Theory of Disease. (Which has probably saved the entire genetic lines of both you and me from extinction before we ever existed.) Or advances in telescopes and observational techniques, that could someday help us avoid the fate of the Dinosaurs. (Maybe all of humanity doesn't deserve to survive, but MY kids sure as hell do.) I'm glad we understand how, why, and when solar eclipses happen, rather than just assuming, say, one or more angry gods are responsible. (If anything, being able to predict them is damn cool.)

Why does the heliocentric solar system model predict the orbits of Jupiter's four inner moons, which you can verify for yourself with walmart binoculars?

It seems to me the pinnacle of arrogance - and therefore also hypocrisy - to entertain a hypothesis that the Earth is not just the center of the universe - but is essentially the entire universe - put here by some apparently magical being just for us. Meanwhile justifying the hypothesis with an ancient, inscrutable, insufferably arrogant text, a never-ending series of ad-hoc hypotheses that never overturn or question the underlying ones which become increasingly difficult to justify, and finally resorting to conspiracy theory when all else fails, as pretty much all else has. I know you claim to be agnostic on it, but either way if you want arrogance - look in the mirror.

And of course I could be wrong. About everything I just said. You could be wrong. I could be wrong in my limited understanding of the universe. I could be wrong in my belief that you are probably human and not a parasitic reptile. My understanding that the sun will rise (or otherwise appear) tomorrow, could be dead wrong - and all my best laid plans about what to do tomorrow, laid to waste. But sometimes you gotta take a risk, for long-term planning, you know? I may not be alive to enjoy retirement, but I'm still saving for it and thereby limiting my current economic choices. Life is full of risks, and the risk of being wrong is just one of them. You, me, and everyone could be wrong about anything and everything. So what? What f'ing difference does that make? Should that fact just make us collapse into a heap and give up? Maybe the universe is nothing buy the spasms of a brain in a jar. But even if so, it seems to follow some pretty f'ing reliably predictable patterns.

I don't know what reality is. All I *really* know for sure is that, I believe my children are real, alive, and sentient. Kids have a way of making things really f'ing simple. My biology (or programming or illusions or fevered monster dreams) compels to do whatever it takes to keep them alive, without infringing on the rights of others whom I also believe are alive and sentient. And I use the abundant practical fruits of basic scientific research and discovery, each and every day to help them stay alive. And hey, maybe it's all BS and I'm wasting my time and effort. But what if I go with that hypothesis, and it turns out I was wrong, and my children really die? The most logical choice, for me, is to proceed through this world under the assumption that my kids are real and need my assistance to survive into emotionally and physically healthy adulthood, and that the predictable patterns of objects in the sky are also what they seem to be through binoculars, telescopes, and Nikon P900s are what they seem to be, and robotic space probes have confirmed them to be. So I will get up early tomorrow morning, make breakfast for my sleepy kids, encourage them to get ready in time to make it to summer camp and without too much fighting, then after some complicated kid-transportation logistics, see them early tomorrow evening for dinner. All the while, only occasionally suffering, and mostly enjoying the mysteries of the universe, and this limited time with the people I love.

(Man, why am I wasting time on this then.)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 05:05:31 AM by JoeTheToe »

Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2017, 03:14:45 AM »
Quote
I asked why (if this is perspective) the sun doesn't get much smaller at the horizon because it's further away...and you tell me that the light of the sun is too bright and the laws of perspective don't apply...so again, you came up with a new mechanism (perspective works differently for bright light) to explain your observation.

It's not a new mechanism. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reported the effect of enlarging light in 1850. We must assume that the effect has always been with us. It is a magnification effect we can see with bright lights in the distance. Very empirical.
...
Explanations are fine if there is evidence behind those explanations; not pure speculation, as is the norm in Round Earth sciences.

So am I understanding this correctly: It's fine to propose purely speculative ad-hoc mechanisms ("bright things are immune from the laws of perspective [a concept which our hypotheses are based on but is exempt in this one case], because a guy said so in a purely speculative manner and without a shred of referenced, verifiable, repeatable experimental evidence in the mid 1800s"), that in turn attempt to explain away the problems with earlier proposed speculative ad-hoc mechanisms ("The sun looks like it sets because it gets really far away") - all without ever reconsidering the validity of the earlier mechanisms. But somehow that is not, exactly, pure speculation? I see you have not lost your knack for circular reasoning.

As for your assertion that it is the norm for Round Earth sciences to deal in speculation, I assume you can provide us with one good example, perhaps one that you find most concerning?

Quote
We have discussed the mechanisms we describe very thoroughly. A mechanism is not adopted without empirical evidence behind it. There is empirical evidence for an upwardly accelerating earth, for example, which is why that mechanism is used as an explanation for what keeps us pinned to the surface.

What is the empirical evidence for "bright things are immune from the distance/angular diameter formula, and immune from the inverse square law"? You keep using that phrase, "empirical evidence", but I don't think it means what you think it means. I have yet to see you provide any empirical evidence - only hand-wavy completely unsupported assertions, idle speculation, and references to a 200 year-old book written by a delusional, charismatic victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

In fact, using the Zetetic Method, everyday experience informs us that that is exactly NOT how bright lights and perspective works. If you stick a good flashlight right against your eye, it appears brighter than the sun. Yet move it away - and what do you know: both the angular diameter formula, and the Inverse Square Law hold! It's apparent angular diameter and luminosity both get smaller following an expected curve. Car headlights: Get bigger and brighter as they get closer. Literal spotlights, such as for stage lighting...get smaller and dimmer with distance. We have yet to encounter anything in everyday observational existence, that defies the Inverse Square Law, or the angular diameter formula, no matter how "focused". But we are to believe that in this one case, the "sun light" does defy it? Your proposed mechanisms seem to fail your own logic.

You've also never explained how the flat sun doesn't look oblate when viewed from different perspectives that aren't directly underneath - or is simultaneously a sphere and also a spotlight. Nor have you proposed a non-magical mechanism of illumination (that I can recall). You criticize the idea of stellar fusion all day long, without taking the intellectual risk for proposing an alternative. (That could be - and seems to be frequently - viewed as intellectual cowardice.)
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 03:30:46 AM by JoeTheToe »

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1092
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2017, 02:56:16 PM »

Talking of the Sun, The Solar & Heliospheric Observatory has just lately released this Gif of a recent CME (coronal mass ejection) from a giant sunspot AR2665, see
 

 the explosion comes from the far side of the sun and the effects won’t be felt here but on Mars, but this is an old sunspot that has come around at least three times and is set to reappear in early August and has released several smaller CME’s in our direction that have set off Auroras as predicted. I keep an eye on these (on spaceweather.com) on the off chance that a large geomagnetic storm occurs that will allow me to see an aurora here (British weather allowing).

I know the alerts come via NASA, but the SOHO is primarily an ESA satellite, and the sites predictions of other phenomena (noctilucent clouds etc) have been useful and accurate.

I take it Tom that this is all just rubbish, otherwise these CME’s wouldn’t take the time they do to reach here, the sunspots would be visible to other observers in the world at different times due to parallax, and this Gif has to be a fake as that is what NASA do.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, the unknown, and the incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science. Robert Green Ingersoll

Offline Stu

  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Venus Transit Across the sun
« Reply #30 on: July 28, 2017, 03:59:03 AM »
Why can't venus go in front of the sun?

Do you believe that the sun is 3,000 miles away? Give or take a few thousand miles? Give or take an order of magnitude? Give or take how many orders of magnitude?