Hap Rho

1

11

Hap Rho@haprho·8m

@FooleryT @trin357 @xyphophor @newbsharp @Masterzips @ken_caudle @TimGlauert @ThatGuyM77 @RogHawk1 @Not_yourpilot @grok @Angry_Amphibian @_free_f0rever_ @entropie42 @WisenheimuR @BillySwift8 @AlteredEggoEgo @lrdofkbl @scorpion_bird @hawk_yeah123 @Mctoon27 @egolder256 I've just destroyed the lie that Michelson-Morley proved stars spin around a stationary Earth x.com/haprho/status/…

Hap Rho@haprho

Your parroting false tropes. Airy & Michelson-Morley were both looking for evidence of AETHER by looking for the effect aether had on light as Earth moved through the aether at 30km/s. It says so EXPLICITLY in both their papers. Nowhere in either paper does it say they were trying to confirm Earth's 30km/s motion. I've shown you Airy, now I'll show you MMX. Attachment #1 is where MMX define the goal of their experiment. Michelson-Morley say¹: "The subject of the present experiment is a trial of the first hypothesis, which is aether is at rest except in a tranparent media" Their conclusions are in attachment 2 where they state¹: "Three different theories of aether are refuted (red underlines) proposed by the scientists Fresnel, Lorentz, and Stokes". These two excerpts (definition of experiment & conclusions) from MMX make crystal clear the focus was on aether, not Earth motion². There's not a single word written in MMX (or Airy – already covered) suggesting they were looking to confirm 30km/s. Not a single word in either paper was written suggesting Earth's 30km/s wasn't found, that there was any mystery or confusion about it, or that they thought "gee golly! Earth isn't moving!" It is a flat-Earth lie that Airy & Michelson-Morley failed to find Earth's motion. ——— ¹ paraphrased ² except as used to test aether's effect on light as Earth traveled through the aether at 30km/s

English

1

12

𝕏oolery 𝕏om@FooleryT·16m

@trin357 @xyphophor @newbsharp @Masterzips @ken_caudle @TimGlauert @ThatGuyM77 @RogHawk1 @Not_yourpilot @grok @Angry_Amphibian @_free_f0rever_ @haprho @entropie42 @WisenheimuR @BillySwift8 @AlteredEggoEgo @lrdofkbl @scorpion_bird @hawk_yeah123 @Mctoon27 @egolder256 Trin, if the earth were flat, the horizon would converge with the sky at eye-level. So, for there to be a dip, perspective must stop short of that convergence.

English

0

16

Tip Of the Day@trin357·13 Nis

So foreground obstruction doesn't exist either in your paradigm? Oh yeah, b/c you need it to be your "erf curve". Hijacking perspective. We know the EFFECT! Low camera angles when closer to objects mimick distance and objects moving into that distance. Same effect!

GIF

English

49

5

13

39.6K

Hap Rho@haprho·36m

@ken_caudle damn. first word and I can't spell YOU'RE

English

4

Hap Rho@haprho·43m

Your parroting false tropes. Airy & Michelson-Morley were both looking for evidence of AETHER by looking for the effect aether had on light as Earth moved through the aether at 30km/s. It says so EXPLICITLY in both their papers. Nowhere in either paper does it say they were trying to confirm Earth's 30km/s motion. I've shown you Airy, now I'll show you MMX. Attachment #1 is where MMX define the goal of their experiment. Michelson-Morley say¹: "The subject of the present experiment is a trial of the first hypothesis, which is aether is at rest except in a tranparent media" Their conclusions are in attachment 2 where they state¹: "Three different theories of aether are refuted (red underlines) proposed by the scientists Fresnel, Lorentz, and Stokes". These two excerpts (definition of experiment & conclusions) from MMX make crystal clear the focus was on aether, not Earth motion². There's not a single word written in MMX (or Airy – already covered) suggesting they were looking to confirm 30km/s. Not a single word in either paper was written suggesting Earth's 30km/s wasn't found, that there was any mystery or confusion about it, or that they thought "gee golly! Earth isn't moving!" It is a flat-Earth lie that Airy & Michelson-Morley failed to find Earth's motion. ——— ¹ paraphrased ² except as used to test aether's effect on light as Earth traveled through the aether at 30km/s

English

0

32

Hap Rho@haprho·1d

. TRIVIAL CHALLENGE ANSWERED: Bradley measured Earth's orbital velocity around the Sun Looking for parallax in 1725-9, he instead discovered stellar aberration (SA) and directly measured ~30km/s. His achievement has stood for 300 years as one of mankind's greatest scientific achievements. The evidence supporting stellar aberration and its explanation via Earth's ~30 km/s orbital speed is extensive, definitive, universally accepted in science, and has remained unchallenged for 300 years. No alternative explanation accounts for the observed periodic displacement across all stars. cc: @AntiDisinfo86 @ken_caudle @space_audits

English

4

1

19

543

Hap Rho@haprho·38m

@ken_caudle It was nicknamed "failed" by MMX because "aberration was unchanged"

English

4

Kenbo@ken_caudle·1h

@haprho He got the same in air. Everybody sees the aberration. It is attributed to earths orbital motion. Airys experiment was to confirm this attribution by adding water to increase that aberration. It FAILED, hence the name Airys Failure.

English

0

7

Hap Rho@haprho·1h

These all demonstrate curvature. Can you refute a single one? ▪︎ plumb lines (RZA) ▪︎ spherical excess (surveying) ▪︎ satellite orbits & satellite imaging ▪︎ bottom-up obstruction ▪︎ sunsets ▪︎ gyros, coriolis, Eötvös, weather patterns, tides ▪︎ because of earth's rotation, constant mass objects weigh 0.5% more at the poles than at the equator ▪︎ high-altitude balloons ▪︎ eclipses ▪︎ moon's orientation changes with latitude ▪︎ celestial navigation ▪︎ Polaris elevation angles ▪︎ Reeeeeally precise aberration observations (Gaia) ▪︎ Mt. Canigou & Pic Gaspard and all "see too far" memes ▪︎ No working flat map ▪︎ horizon dip increases with altitude ▪︎ horizon would never appear as a sharp line on flat ▪︎ aircraft flight paths

English

0

4

22

Just TRi 🐥⛓️‍💥@JustTRi4·10 Mar

@Gleem39694761 @ianfmusgrave @EBagnatori @CalmLogical @birp234 @ImNux @ken_caudle @ThatGuyM77 @sly_sparkane @newbsharp @Alvamiga @HarryWorp @jpvanhoy @xyphophor @lastr3sponder @surfpurzel @guitardude42 @4dots899721 @OBJuanJuan @Not_yourpilot @Stinkhorn11 @FooleryT @Marjori88206011 @First_Won_ @Evil_MerlinX @CatManitarMike @Gbear831 @earthlyskeptick @GrokProgrammer @haprho @Rudeboymessiah @8getoveritman8 @JuicyStuffing @ThoughtByJer @theSGM78 @RealAceFox1 @Copernicium1473 @space_audits @CoralBlob @MaxQHellcat @locky82903378 @Notaspud_ @GlobeSlay3r @mrjaybeevee @TheSilverWave @PannyTickles @PiPiPyuPyu @cryptonian7665 @grok Bruh, you can read it yourself in your link. "Both completely unknown." That's it? Your definition is just "unknown planet," so Planet X at NASA have the same regard as the "unknown" Rahu Ketu or others in eclipses? x.com/Gleem39694761/…

English

3

0

2

601

Hap Rho@haprho·3h

You keep confusing simplicity itself by babbling and deflecting to aether & motion tropes. Here's simplicity: 1️⃣ Airy was testing Klinkerfues's utl 2️⃣ Airy concluded Klinkerfues was untenable 3️⃣ Airy got the same results for stellar aberration (SA) that Bradley got in 1729 4️⃣ your impotent and lame attempt to find justification for your faithful belief fails.(here: x.com/ken_caudle/sta…) Airy was NOT looking for earth motion and reading his paper (and your post) makes that clear. 5️⃣ Every scientist since Bradley, including Airy, Michelson, Morley, FitzGerald, Eddington, Young, Fresnel, Einstein, Fizeau, Tesla, Dayton Miller, Gale, et al., accepts Bradley's explanation that stellar aberration is due to Earth's ~30km/s orbital motion around the Sun. There is nothing significant in ANY scientific literature that disputes SA is due to earth motion. Gaia has corroborated SA trillions of times.

English

0

11

Kenbo@ken_caudle·3h

You need the aether to drag it in the opposite direction. The slowing of the light in the water allows the telescope to move. Even MMX only has the light being affected by the aether in the direction of motion, no other light is affected by it. You cannot link this to the aether to save your life. The light going in the telescope is not in the direction of earths motion. Either the telescope moves out from under it, or it does not. You can’t claim the aberration that is measured is due to motion, but the increased aberration due to water being added doesn’t occur because there is no aether. You are absolutely ridiculous making this assertion. No more in this subject with you. You are just making shit up.

English

0

10

Hap Rho@haprho·3h

I haven't learned how to use that diagram. I don't understand it. Teach me. ——— I never post anything I don't understand (at least *mostly* understand 😉). I understand any one of these attached procedures demostrate curvature. I can tell you how & refer you to further information. Interested? It won't take long to learn not a single observation has ever existed in all mankind's history contrary to a spinning globe orbiting the Sun. x.com/haprho/status/…

English

0

3

27

Hap Rho@haprho·4h

@lastr3sponder @xyphophor @sly_sparkane @CalmLogical @xeidamoka @JustTRi4 @OBJuanJuan @CoralBlob @Gleem39694761 @ianfmusgrave @EBagnatori @birp234 @ImNux @ken_caudle @ThatGuyM77 @newbsharp @Alvamiga @HarryWorp @jpvanhoy @surfpurzel @guitardude42 @4dots899721 @Not_yourpilot @Stinkhorn11 @FooleryT @Marjori88206011 @First_Won_ @Evil_MerlinX @CatManitarMike @Gbear831 @earthlyskeptick @GrokProgrammer @Rudeboymessiah @8getoveritman8 @JuicyStuffing @ThoughtByJer @theSGM78 @RealAceFox1 @Copernicium1473 @space_audits @MaxQHellcat @locky82903378 @Notaspud_ @GlobeSlay3r @mrjaybeevee @TheSilverWave @PannyTickles @PiPiPyuPyu @cryptonian7665 If your life depended on it, you couldn't explain what that graphic means.

English

0

7

48

Hap Rho@haprho·4h

The aberration does not increase even though the telescope is moving 30km/s because there is no aether to drag the light at a different rate as when it entered the telescope. Since light enters the telescope along the telescopes axis, slowing the light won't deflect it, it will stay parallel to the axis, regardless of telescope & light speed. Your confusion is similar to that which makes you claim airplane flights on a spinning globe contradict common sense. "simultaneously flys sideways at the speed of the earth at a given latitude, and will speed up and slow down accordingly to match earths rotational velocity wherever it is" x.com/haprho/status/…

English

0

9

Kenbo@ken_caudle·4h

You keep skipping over the increased aberration from the slowing of light in the water, giving the telescope a chance to move further in that delay time. This should occur given to things: 1) Light is slowed in water. 2) The earth is in motion around the sun. The first is demonstrable to this day. That leaves the second as not being demonstrated yet. You are tap dancing all around the results without addressing them. So either the earth is not in motion around the sun, or it is and there’s something that counteracts the aberration to cause it to appear as though the earth is not in motion. That’s your problem here. My explanation is that the earth isn’t in motion, and therefore the aberration does not increase. You are stuck with finishing this sentence; the earth isn’t in motion, but the aberration does not increase because…

English

@lastr3sponder @xyphophor @sly_sparkane @CalmLogical @xeidamoka @JustTRi4 @OBJuanJuan @CoralBlob @Gleem39694761 @ianfmusgrave @EBagnatori @birp234 @ImNux @ken_caudle @ThatGuyM77 @newbsharp @Alvamiga @HarryWorp @jpvanhoy @surfpurzel @guitardude42 @4dots899721 @Not_yourpilot @Stinkhorn11 @FooleryT @Marjori88206011 @First_Won_ @Evil_MerlinX @CatManitarMike @Gbear831 @earthlyskeptick @GrokProgrammer @Rudeboymessiah @8getoveritman8 @JuicyStuffing @ThoughtByJer @theSGM78 @RealAceFox1 @Copernicium1473 @space_audits @MaxQHellcat @locky82903378 @Notaspud_ @GlobeSlay3r @mrjaybeevee @TheSilverWave @PannyTickles @PiPiPyuPyu @cryptonian7665 x.com/haprho/status/…

0

8

Hap Rho@haprho·4h

Hap Rho@haprho

Curvature is trivially measured by: #hrcurve ▪︎ plumb lines (RZA) ▪︎ spherical excess (surveying) ▪︎ satellite orbits & satellite imaging ▪︎ bottom-up obstruction ▪︎ sunsets ▪︎ gyros, coriolis, Eötvös, weather patterns, tides ▪︎ because of earth's rotation, constant mass objects weigh 0.5% more at the poles than at the equator ▪︎ high-altitude balloons ▪︎ eclipses ▪︎ moon's orientation changes with latitude ▪︎ celestial navigation ▪︎ Polaris elevation angles ▪︎ Reeeeeally precise aberration observations (Gaia) ▪︎ Mt. Canigou & Pic Gaspard and all "see too far" memes ▪︎ No working flat map ▪︎ horizon dip increases with altitude ▪︎ horizon would never appear as a sharp line on flat ▪︎ aircraft flight paths ▪︎ common sense ▪︎ ad infinitum

QME

3

36

Bobby@lastr3sponder·4h

@xyphophor @sly_sparkane @CalmLogical @xeidamoka @JustTRi4 @OBJuanJuan @CoralBlob @Gleem39694761 @ianfmusgrave @EBagnatori @birp234 @ImNux @ken_caudle @ThatGuyM77 @newbsharp @Alvamiga @HarryWorp @jpvanhoy @surfpurzel @guitardude42 @4dots899721 @Not_yourpilot @Stinkhorn11 @FooleryT @Marjori88206011 @First_Won_ @Evil_MerlinX @CatManitarMike @Gbear831 @earthlyskeptick @GrokProgrammer @haprho @Rudeboymessiah @8getoveritman8 @JuicyStuffing @ThoughtByJer @theSGM78 @RealAceFox1 @Copernicium1473 @space_audits @MaxQHellcat @locky82903378 @Notaspud_ @GlobeSlay3r @mrjaybeevee @TheSilverWave @PannyTickles @PiPiPyuPyu @cryptonian7665 Never said it propagates in circles and all the phenomenological evidence holds the first true

English

7

0

1

99

Hap Rho@haprho·5h

@ken_caudle @upsssco1732

QME

15

Kenbo@ken_caudle·5h

They didn’t mention Aether for Airy either. Must have been ignoring the fact that the Aether was disproven by Airy, so they could measure earths velocity through it in their own experiment. Man, they must be idiots. All of them. Had to wait for Hap to come explain to the world what they were really doing and how they were too dumb to read the results. You are something else Hap. A legend in your own mind.

English

3

0

14

Hap Rho@haprho·7h

Aww, poor flerfs — they have no understanding of Airy 1️⃣ Airy was testing Klinkerfues's utl 2️⃣ Airy concluded Klinkerfues was untenable 3️⃣ Airy got the same results for stellar aberration (SA) that Bradley got in 1729 4️⃣ Every scientist since Bradley, including Airy, Michelson, Morley, FitzGerald, Eddington, Young, Fresnel, Einstein, Fizeau, Tesla, Dayton Miller, Gale, et al., accepts Bradley's explanation that stellar aberration is due to Earth's ~30km/s orbital motion around the Sun. There is nothing significant in ANY scientific literature that disputes SA is due to earth motion. Gaia has corroborated SA trillions of times. If @ken_caudle, @antidisinfo86, or @space_audits had any information (citations, experiments, data, etc.) proposing SA is caused by something other than 30km/s, they would have have presented it by now. They've never presented anything refuting that Earth orbits the sun with a velocity of ~30km/s

English

8

240

Hap Rho@haprho·5h

@ken_caudle @upsssco1732 Nobody was trying to measure Earth's velocity. They were looking for evidence of aether by looking for the effects of Earth moving through the aether.

English

18

Hap Rho@haprho·5h

"They didn’t mention Aether for Airy" – ken Read the MMX paper, ken. On their opening page, they EXPLICITLY mention aether for Airy when they refer to utl: "The difficulties in this apparently sufficient explanation were overlooked until after an explanation on the UNDULATORY THEORY OF LIGHT was proposed. This new explanation was at first almost as simple as the former. But it failed to account for the fact proved by experiment that the aberration was unchanged when observations were made with a telescope filled with water."

English

10

Hap Rho@haprho·5h

Hmm. You're right. Not one physicist said Airy "disproved" aether. Michelson-Morley open their 1887 experiment saying Airy’s experiment was a "failure" because "aberration was unchanged" (note: all scientists knew aberration was caused by Earth motion, so MMX open their paper saying Airy saw the expected Earth motion by saying he saw aberration just as predicted by Bradley's equations). Because Airy failed to see evidence of aether (not disproved it), MMX was designed to see if THEY could detect aether another way. It was a very confusing time in physics. All scientists knew Earth orbited the sun, and the evidence was overwhelming enough that no more verification was needed for that. Physicists also 'knew' aether existed, as it was required for light propagation (they were wrong). Physicists could find no evidence of aether. Airy failed so MMX tried. They failed, too.

English

0

32

Kenbo@ken_caudle·5h

@haprho If it detected no Aether, that leaves corpuscular. Yet no one has made that claim, right? A very natural conclusion if the aether is not detected, right? Not one physicist is saying Airy disproved the aether. Hmm 🤔

English

0

6

Hap Rho@haprho·5h

Aww, poor flerfs – the concepts may be a bit beyond their cognitive abilities, but the reasoning is 100% sound. –——— Globe proof with no a priori assumptions: Every point on Earth's surface has a unique zenith (straight-up direction), which maps 1:1 to a unique RA/Dec coordinate on the celestial sphere — and vice versa. The angular separation between any two celestial points (stars) exactly equals the great-circle (geocentric) angle between their corresponding zenith ground points (sub-stellar points) on Earth — and this exact match holds from every observer location worldwide. Only a spherical Earth surrounded by a distant celestial sphere produces this perfect, distortion-free, angle-preserving radial projection everywhere. A flat plane cannot: zenith directions would be parallel (no unique 1:1 mapping), and measured sky angles would distort with observer position/direction. Celestial navigation relies on this exact equivalence for centuries → Earth must be (approximately) a globe. cc: @ken_caudle @AntiDisinfo86 @space_audits

English

1

12

201

Hap Rho@haprho·6h

Globe proof with no a priori assumptions: Every point on Earth's surface has a unique zenith (straight-up direction), which maps 1:1 to a unique RA/Dec coordinate on the celestial sphere — and vice versa. The angular separation between any two celestial points (stars) exactly equals the great-circle (geocentric) angle between their corresponding zenith ground points (sub-stellar points) on Earth — and this exact match holds from every observer location worldwide. Only a spherical Earth surrounded by a distant celestial sphere produces this perfect, distortion-free, angle-preserving radial projection everywhere. A flat plane cannot: zenith directions would be parallel (no unique 1:1 mapping), and measured sky angles would distort with observer position/direction. Celestial navigation relies on this exact equivalence for centuries → Earth must be (approximately) a globe.

English

5

TheGreenMan@77TheGreenMan77·7h

@surfpurzel @Jared_Morrison @sashuwa77246 @SueSuemaria1 @First_Won_ALT @Evil_MerlinX @BadrHarry72 @MaxQHellcat @Back_Again_Oh1 @StupidSCOTUS @iLeedy1987 @Cleopatra653169 @guitardude42 @lavalmxhr @archie57426 @NeverV82625 @Mike6150817700 @AlwaysWrightDM @karleastlondon1 @YourFerntasy @Skink101 @FootDolphin @CatManitarMike @ImNux @sly_sparkane @haprho @4dots899721 @VonConspirator @CreatorJonwPuck @Rudeboymessiah @space_audits @xyphophor @8getoveritman8 @SchallR64430 @JasonBeeYorn @DoljaninJo80605 @bobfrogg77 @HarryWorp @DutchPatriot72 @GaryTheAlien44 @RComparin55076 @LHorne95691178 @Notaspud_ @mattysp911 @digital_bow012 @egolder256 @OhDearWhat666 @mrjaybeevee @Burki677 @hawk_yeah123 The sun is a focal point. Learn how that works. Your cosmology is utter nonsense. It is assumption based, a sphere is ALWAYS an assumption. Find me a globe proof where the sphere is not assumed first. You cannot.

English

8

0

2

35

Hap Rho@haprho·6h

@upsssco1732 @ken_caudle Yep! They have selective blindness to facts

English

0

27

Lesath@upsssco1732·6h

@haprho @ken_caudle Interesting that in the MMX paper they love, the earth’s velocity is described in the 1st paragraph!

English

0

18

Hap Rho@haprho·6h

@StillBuffering2 @ken_caudle ✔️💯🎯

QME

7

CuriousNeuron@StillBuffering2·6h

@ken_caudle @haprho The Doppler Shift of starlight measures Earth's velocity at 30 km/s directly. How does a stationary Earth explain why every star in the universe changes its color frequency based on the human calendar?

English