DPTT
Winger
His deflection tactics have been rather impressive today mindIf you can't guess, I'm not going to tell you.
But I'll give you a clue:- It's to do with something.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
His deflection tactics have been rather impressive today mindIf you can't guess, I'm not going to tell you.
But I'll give you a clue:- It's to do with something.
Can see it got a few pics as wellbbc telling us where to see the projection. thank you bbc
Jupiter in opposition: You'll be able to see Jupiter in the sky this month
Jupiter will be the closest it's been to Earth for nearly 60 years soon.www.bbc.co.uk
fuck opposition to jupiter, opposition to glove earth is real topicCan see it got a few pics as well
It does raise that question but it also raises the question of how a supposed gas giant can offer what's shown, exactly all of the time.I have, regularly and can verify that at different times of the year Jupiter and (and other planets) can look bigger and brighter.
This is one I have handy from my archives:
Logon or register to see this image
An interesting point there is that you can barely see the big red spot, you will notice it is just on the top right of the image, rather than being mid-lower left as it is in traditional images. There are two reasons for this. The first is that my telescope imaging rig flips the image upside down (due to the way optics work and is not worth going into). The second is that this storm gives the exact appearance of rotating around the planet.
So if you are going down the route of dismiss everything unless you have seen it yourself, I have seen this myself and observed in detail. If this is being projected then there must be some kind of animated source in the middle of the planet with an identical image that is being projected up and somehow remains in a pretty good focus. Bearing in mind this was a £300 scope and £100 camera so very low budget imaging. It raises the question of what is this thing in the earth that looks exactly like what the rest of us know as Jupiter and how does it project it upwards?
Done
Believe what?To believe it, you'll have to look yourself.
Predict what?
Brilliant! I knew we'd get back to the planetarium sooner or later.So, back to my answer.
What's seen in the sky is what's going on around the internal of Earth which comes right back to what's known as a planetarium projection only on a bigger scale and using central energy (sun) as the projector.
Well that's a start, projectors and projections exist, yours doesn't though for several reasons.I don't deny projections.
Can you mark the uk on that drawing I did.It does raise that question but it also raises the question of how a supposed gas giant can offer what's shown, exactly all of the time.
It also still offers the conundrum of hydrogen and helium which apparently makes up just about all of the so-called gas giant, showing colour, and of course why it should spin and stay exactly as people see it.
And so-called moons spinning around a gas giant. Why and how?
So, back to my answer.
What's seen in the sky is what's going on around the internal of Earth which comes right back to what's known as a planetarium projection only on a bigger scale and using central energy (sun) as the projector.
Believe what?
That it's a gas giant with its own moons?
I believe there's something up there. I believe there are many things up there but they're naturally projected, as in so-called planets and stars.
As for what we're told they are, as in, planets and stars in a space vacuum, I don't believe a word of it for obvious reasons.
Predict what?
I'm not arguing against something being there. I'm arguing as to what it really is.
I don't deny projections.
He’s completely ignored this nowCan you mark the uk on that drawing I did.
Maybe Japan too just so we get a rough idea of your layout and distances.
Use the one including your "dome foundation" if you prefer
You asked for a photo and now say "believe what?"Believe what?
That it's a gas giant with its own moons?
Their opinions are SO similar that you think it HAS to be him, but then sometimes Sceptimatic seems so much more literate than Nukey.
I wonder if he's had a head injury at some point since 2013 when he was posting more regularly on the Flat Earth Society forum. Or maybe he's just pissed all the time nowadays. Or dementia is setting in or something.
Just my musings, but they all make sense.
Of course, it's impossible for you. You believe you spin on a globe in space so I honestly don't expect you to think anything other than that and I do not expect you to take any notice of what I say.Brilliant! I knew we'd get back to the planetarium sooner or later.
It's still utterly impossible.
I'm not sure how you arrive at that.Well that's a start, projectors and projections exist, yours doesn't though for several reasons.
To even begin to reproduce what can be seen and verified in the sky your projector would have to be dead centre inside a perfect sphere. There could be no deviation from centre and the sphere could not deviate in any way from absolutely perfectly spherical.
I'm still not getting why you say it.The projector would need constant direct line of sight access to all parts of the sphere at all times, no shade casting objects, flat or globular between it and the sphere.
It's a big Earth and you see whatever you see as those points of light and projections circulate and whatnot.It would have to create the impression of the stars circling Earth with no change in their relative positions. One half of the sphere would be in sunlight at all times with the lit portion also circling the Earth but at a different speed.
Have you ever taken a picture of Jupiter without its red spot?Next it would need the ability to convincingly project what appeared to be further spheres circling the Sun, many with still more. smaller spheres circling those, visible to telescopes, verifiably spherical, shadows included.
I don't think it fails at all. I think it offers massive potential for what we see in that sky.Your projector theory fails at ever point. Some are just absolutely impossible while others are beyond unlikely.
Why would the reflection need to be in the centre?Once you have ignored/dismissed/failed to address all those points ask yourself this... If the daylight is from the Sun, and the Sun is just a reflection on that non-existent dome... Why isn't the Sun always in the very centre of the fully lit half of the Earth?
Because if you shine a light from a central point into a concave mirror it won't behave in the same way that you think it does.Why would the reflection need to be in the centre?
The sun itself would be in the centre of Earth as the physical energy but the reflection would vary as it went over and around the Earth.
Something isn't impossible just because you believe in an opposing idea.Of course, it's impossible for you. You believe you spin on a globe in space so I honestly don't expect you to think anything other than that and I do not expect you to take any notice of what I say.
Throw up your drawing.Can you mark the uk on that drawing I did.
Maybe Japan too just so we get a rough idea of your layout and distances.
Use the one including your "dome foundation" if you prefer
I simply asked for a photo.You asked for a photo and now say "believe what?"
You're deflecting before you even know what to deflect.
I still don't get where you're going.Because if you shine a light from a central point into a concave mirror it won't behave in the same way that you think it does.
Landmass position around the circle.How can the sun which is reflected from a carbon arc in the centre illuminate Australia, South Africa and Argentina at the same time, whilst also illuminating the UK, but having Russia/China and USA/Canada in darkness?
Explain.This reflection is almost anchor shaped
And something isn't necessarily possible just because you believe in it.Something isn't impossible just because you believe in an opposing idea.
If you believe all that stuff then you are welcome to it.How does all this malarkey fit inside a dome @Nukehasslefan ?
Or is it just more NASA lies?
If so, it seems to be an insanely elaborate cover up.
I mean they even went to the trouble of providing a live stream of the event.
NASA's DART mission successfully slams into an asteroid
NASA's DART mission successfully slams into an asteroid | CNN
A NASA spacecraft deliberately crashed into a tiny asteroid on Monday. The collision between the DART spacecraft and the asteroid Dimorphos happened at 7:14 p.m. ET in humanity's first test of asteroid deflection technology.www.cnn.com
It's impossible NOT because of anything I believe. It's impossible for the verifiable reasons listed.Of course, it's impossible for you. You believe you spin on a globe in space so I honestly don't expect you to think anything other than that and I do not expect you to take any notice of what I say.
I fond the global shenanigans impossible so I get where you're coming from.
I know. That's why you continue to think your projector is possible.I'm not sure how you arrive at that.
Does the Sun appear to pass over and around us at the same speed as the stars ?I'm still not getting why you say it.
Can you elaborate?
As above. Does everything that appears to move over and around Earth appear to move at the same speed? It's not difficult, the answer is no.It's a big Earth and you see whatever you see as those points of light and projections circulate and whatnot.
As for a different speed. What do you mean?
Not relevant.Have you ever taken a picture of Jupiter without its red spot?
Because you don't understand what you're seeing in the sky as you have clearly shown a few lines back up there.I don't think it fails at all. I think it offers massive potential for what we see in that sky.
Why would the sunlit portion of sky not surround it symmetrically?Why would the reflection need to be in the centre?
The sun itself would be in the centre of Earth as the physical energy but the reflection would vary as it went over and around the Earth.