Sign into an existing account

The Solomon Asch Experiment

The Solomon Asch experiments, conducted in the 1950s, are seminal studies in social psychology that demonstrated the power of conformity in groups. Solomon Asch, a Polish-American psychologist, designed a series of experiments to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could influence a person to conform.

The Experiment Setup

1. Participants: The study involved groups of 7 to 9 male college students.

2. Task: The task was a simple perceptual one, where participants had to match the length of a line on one card to one of three lines on another card. The correct answer was always obvious.

3. Confederates: All but one of the participants in each group were confederates, meaning they were in on the experiment. The real participant, unaware of the setup, was seated either at the end or second to last in the line-up.

4. Procedure: Confederates were instructed to give unanimous but incorrect answers on 12 out of 18 trials, called "critical trials."

Findings

1. Conformity Rate: On average, about one-third (32%) of the participants conformed to the clearly incorrect majority on the critical trials.

2. Individual Differences: About 75% of participants conformed at least once, while 25% never conformed.

3. Responses: When interviewed after the experiment, many participants said they did not really believe the group’s answers but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar. A few of them said they actually believed the group's answers were correct.

Factors Influencing Conformity

1. Group Size: Conformity increased with group size up to a point, with the highest levels of conformity observed with three to four confederates. Larger groups did not significantly increase the level of conformity.

2. Unanimity: The presence of just one ally who also gave the correct answer significantly reduced conformity. When participants had at least one other person who supported their correct choice, the pressure to conform was substantially decreased.

3. Confidence: Participants who were more confident in their judgments were less likely to conform.

Implications

The Asch conformity experiments highlighted the powerful impact of social pressure and group dynamics on individual behavior. These findings have been applied to various fields, including education, business, and politics, to understand how group influences can shape decision-making and behavior.

The Asch experiments remain a cornerstone in social psychology, illustrating the profound effect of group pressure on individual judgments and behaviors. They paved the way for further research into social influence, conformity, and group dynamics, shaping our understanding of human social behavior.

Application to the Heliocentric Lie

1. Perceived Consensus: To convince the masses of the heliocentric model, it is not necessary to convince each individual directly. Instead, the strategy involves creating a perceived consensus. If people believe that the majority, including respected authorities and peers, accept the heliocentric model, they are likely to conform to this view, even if it contradicts their own observations and logic. The Asch experiment shows that individuals often doubt their own senses when they see others unanimously endorsing a different perspective.

2. Authority and Expertise: The role of scientific authorities, educational systems, and media is crucial. By presenting the heliocentric model as an established and uncontested fact through these channels, a powerful illusion of unanimous agreement is created. Asch's findings suggest that under such conditions, individuals are likely to adopt the prevailing view to avoid social isolation or the perception of ignorance.

3. Social and Psychological Pressure: The Asch experiment highlights how social pressure can lead to conformity. In the context of heliocentrism, individuals who question or refute the model may face ridicule, ostracism, or even professional consequences. This social pressure discourages dissent and promotes conformity to the accepted narrative, further reinforcing the lie.

4. Educational Indoctrination: From a young age, individuals are taught the heliocentric model as an unquestionable truth. This early indoctrination, combined with the perception of unanimous belief among teachers, peers, and media, ensures that the belief is deeply ingrained. The Asch experiment illustrates how once a belief is established within a social framework, it becomes self-perpetuating, as individuals conform to avoid conflict and maintain social harmony.

5. Media Manipulation: The widespread dissemination of space flight narratives and astronomical imagery through movies, news, and documentaries reinforces the heliocentric model. The Asch experiment demonstrates that when an individual perceives a unanimous belief in such media portrayals, they are likely to align their views accordingly, even if they personally doubt the authenticity of space flight or astronomical observations.

Conclusion

The Solomon Asch experiment reveals that convincing the masses of a lie, such as the heliocentric model, does not require direct persuasion of each individual. Instead, by creating a strong perception of consensus and leveraging social and psychological pressures, the illusion of truth can be maintained. People are more likely to conform to what they believe everyone else believes, even if it contradicts their own observations and reason. This powerful insight into human behavior underscores how the heliocentric model could be perpetuated as a grand deception.

https://youtu.be/wO5cYRJNFi8

This is before the jews removed it.

Michelson-Morley Experiment (1887)

Objective:
The aim was to measure the Earth's motion through the luminiferous ether, a medium through which light was thought to propagate.

Experimental Setup:
An interferometer was employed to compare the speed of light in perpendicular directions, expecting to detect the "Earth's supposed motion" through an "ether wind."

Result:
The experiment yielded a much smaller effect than anticipated—about 1/6th of the predicted value—resulting in a "null result."

Interpretations and Reactions

1. Detection of Ether:
- The small effect suggested that the light did not behave as initially predicted, but it did not disprove the ether's existence. It implied that the Earth's motion through the ether might be different from what was expected.
- The smaller effect still supported the interaction with the ether, contradicting the immediate conclusion that the ether was nonexistent.

2. Reevaluation of Predictions:
- Scientists reexamined their framework to account for the reduced effect, leading to various alternative hypotheses within the ether framework.

Alternative Hypotheses and Post-Hoc Reasoning

1. Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction:
- Lorentz proposed that objects contract in the direction of motion through the ether, which would explain the reduced effect observed. This hypothesis used post hoc reasoning to reconcile the null result with the expectation of a moving Earth, preserving the heliocentric model while supporting the ether theory.

2. Ether Drag Hypothesis:
- It was suggested that the ether might be dragged along by the Earth, reducing the relative motion detectable by the interferometer. This hypothesis also utilized post hoc reasoning to maintain the assumption of a moving Earth.

3. Non-Moving Earth:
- An alternative view suggested that the Earth might not be moving relative to the ether, which would account for the smaller observed effect. This interpretation aligned with the detection of the ether but challenged the heliocentric model and did not rely on post hoc reasoning.

Einstein's Special Relativity and Fallacies

1. New Framework:
- Introduced in 1905, Einstein's theory of special relativity posited that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames of reference, eliminating the need for the ether. While this was a new concept, it did not disprove the ether but rather offered an alternative that made the ether redundant within the theory.

2. Illogical Fallacies in Relativity:
- Circular Reasoning: Special relativity’s assertion that the speed of light is constant in all frames was based on assuming that light’s speed is constant. This assumption was used to derive further implications of the theory, creating a circular argument where the premise and conclusion are interdependent.
- Ad Hoc Hypotheses: To address inconsistencies and experimental results, Einstein introduced additional postulates without direct empirical evidence. For instance, the theory's reliance on relativistic effects like time dilation and length contraction were added post hoc to account for observations not directly explained by the initial framework.
- Ignoring Contradictory Evidence: Einstein’s theory did not address all anomalies. For example, the theory did not initially account for certain astronomical observations. The later introduction of dark matter can be seen as an attempt to fix these gaps without revising the core assumptions of relativity.

3. Dark Matter and Post-Hoc Reasoning:
- Inadequacies in Relativity: Special relativity faced challenges in explaining cosmic phenomena, such as the rotation curves of galaxies. The postulation of dark matter was introduced to explain these discrepancies.
- Illogical Justifications: The concept of dark matter was used to address inadequacies within the relativistic framework rather than revising the theory itself. This approach involved introducing a new, unobservable component to justify inconsistencies, which can be seen as a form of ad hoc reasoning.

1987 Air Force Experiment

Objective:
To replicate the Michelson-Morley experiment using modern technology and test the Earth's motion through the ether.

Technological Advancements:
Utilized advanced lasers and interferometers for enhanced precision.

Result:
The results aligned with the original experiment, showing no significant anisotropy in the speed of light and reinforcing the findings of a smaller-than-expected effect.

Reassessment of Predictions

Given the smaller-than-expected effect:

1. Scientific Methodology:
- The detection of a smaller effect supports the presence of the ether and necessitates a reevaluation of predictions about Earth's motion through it. Scientists explored modifications to ether theory and alternative hypotheses.

2. Heliocentric and Relativistic Claims:
- The results suggested inaccuracies in heliocentric predictions regarding Earth's motion through ether, prompting reassessment rather than altering the theory. The use of post hoc reasoning in alternatives like Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and ether drag highlighted efforts to align with the moving Earth model. Similarly, Einstein's introduction of dark matter addressed gaps in relativity's predictions through post hoc adjustments, demonstrating the ongoing complexity and challenges in scientific interpretation and theory adaptation.

Conclusion

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not disprove the ether but detected a smaller-than-expected effect, supporting its presence. This led to the reconsideration of predictions and exploration of alternative hypotheses within the ether framework. Einstein’s special relativity employed illogical fallacies such as circular reasoning and ad hoc hypotheses to address inconsistencies, and the subsequent introduction of dark matter was a post hoc fix to further reconcile discrepancies in the theory. This highlights the intricate nature of scientific theory development and the role of post hoc reasoning in reconciling experimental results with theoretical models.

I'll make this a double debunk. Here's a globohomo claim that angular resolution debunks the flat Earth.

https://files.catbox.moe/t1lngi.jpg

Is the claim correct about angular resolution? Yes. Does it debunk flat earth? No. Here's why.

https://youtu.be/YG40kkbh734

Atmospheric Conditions Causing Obstruction

1. Setup:
- Two adjacent rooms are used, separated by a door.
- One room is completely dry, while the other is humid, similar to a steam room.
- In the dry room, miniature models representing city buildings and ships are placed on the floor at one end.
- A camera is placed at the other end of the dry room, on the floor, focused and zoomed in on the miniatures.
- The camera is set to record a time-lapse video.

2. Procedure:
- The door between the two rooms is opened, allowing humid air to enter the dry room.
- The camera records for an hour as the humidity increases in the dry room.

3. Observation:
- The time-lapse recording shows how the addition of humidity causes the light traveling from the miniatures to the camera to be refracted.
- This refraction separates the light particles, with some light rays (particularly those from the bottom parts of the objects) being bent away from the camera’s line of sight.
- As a result, the lower parts of the miniature models appear to disappear or become obstructed from view.

4. Conclusion:
- This experiment provides evidence that atmospheric refraction, caused by changes in humidity, can make objects appear obstructed from the bottom up even on a flat plane.
- It illustrates how light behaves differently in varying atmospheric conditions, supporting the idea that such effects can explain certain visual phenomena without invoking curvature of the Earth.

In summary, the experiment highlights how environmental factors like humidity can significantly impact visual perception through light refraction, leading to effects that might otherwise be attributed to curvature.

Consider the graphic that claimed to debunk the flat Earth. It was an obvious strawman that purposely presented the flat Earth argument without atmospheric conditions. The flat Earth claim is that objects disappearing at a distance is due to a combination of angular resolution and atmospheric conditions. Exactly what was presented in the experiment above. But let's focus on the other claim that the graphic made.

https://files.catbox.moe/t1lngi.jpg

Perspective: a (object angular size) is greater if h (object size) is greater, & if d (distance) is smaller. If d is distant enough, a approaches zero and the object appears to shrink to a point. Angular resolution is the smallest a that is still recognizable by an optical system.

This part of the claim is accurate, but when we apply these principles to the ISS, it's seems to defy the established logic we understand as angular resolution.

https://youtu.be/48Wg_9wob_o

Not only that but consider the following detailed analysis of the International Space Station (ISS), which challenges the credibility of its existence:

The ISS is purportedly constructed from a mix of aluminum alloys, titanium, stainless steel, Kevlar, polycarbonate, Mylar, and Kapton. Here is a breakdown of these materials and their properties:

- Aluminum alloys: These have a melting point ranging from approximately 463 to 671 degrees Celsius (865 to 1,240 degrees Fahrenheit).

- Titanium: Known for its high melting point of approximately 1,668 degrees Celsius (3,034 degrees Fahrenheit).

- Stainless steel: Its melting point varies between approximately 1,370 and 1,530 degrees Celsius (2,500 and 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit).

- Kevlar: This material decomposes around 500 degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit) rather than melting.

- Polycarbonate: Melts at about 155 to 160 degrees Celsius (311 to 320 degrees Fahrenheit).

- Mylar: A polyester film with a melting point of approximately 254 degrees Celsius (489 degrees Fahrenheit).

- Kapton*: A polyimide film with a melting point of around 400 degrees Celsius (752 degrees Fahrenheit).

The ISS is claimed to orbit Earth at approximately 400 kilometers (about 250 miles) above the surface, which places it within the thermosphere. This atmospheric layer is characterized by extreme temperatures, rising up to 2,500°C (4,500°F) or higher due to the absorption of high-energy ultraviolet and X-ray radiation from the sun.

Given these temperatures, it is important to note that the majority of materials used in the ISS construction either have melting points close to or below the temperatures found in the thermosphere. For instance, Kevlar, polycarbonate, Mylar, and Kapton would all be exposed to conditions that exceed their thermal tolerances.

Question how these materials could possibly withstand such extreme temperatures without melting or decomposing. This inconsistency raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the ISS does not exist where they say it does.

If I asked chatgpt why we don't feel the movement of the earth while it orbits the Sun. This is what I get.







Then I asked if the Earth has an elliptical orbit around the Sun.


When I ask chatgpt If an elliptical gear changes the speed of a chain, this his is what I get.


Just another example of heliocentrism playing by its own rules.

Prove me wrong nigger.

Here's a picture of the entire city of Chicago from the Michigan shoreline.

https://files.catbox.moe/o3hnot.jpg

Here's an abc57 article talking about the picture.

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

From the article:


The article has to claim this because from where the picture was taken, there should be over 2,000 feet of obstruction caused by the supposed curvature of the earth, but yet we see the entire city of Chicago which has its tallest building, the Willis Tower, standing at 1,729 feet tall.

Every single time I see an image that shows an object that should be hidden beneath a supposed physical horizon caused by the supposed curvature of the globular Earth, I'm told it's a "mirage" or that it's "refraction." So they claim that curvature still exists but the lack thereof is only an illusion. I'm going to address this fallacy and prove that mirages and refraction do not create such an illusion.

Let's start with mirages.

The claim in the article is that a "superior mirage" is what's causing the illusion. What's a mirage? It's a reflection. A reflection is the act of light reflecting back. Reflections cause inversion.

Here's an example of a "superior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/huri1b.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship above its true position. The ship is reflecting off the atmosphere above it.

Here's an example of an "inferior mirage."

https://files.catbox.moe/eeg4ad.jpg

Notice the inverted image of the ship below its true position. The ship is reflecting off the surface below it.

The differences between "superior" and "inferior" are simply the position of the mirage.

Is the article suggesting that the mirage is somehow a projected image above the object's true location and without inversion? Maybe they meant to say "Fata Morgana," a "complex" form of superior mirage visible in a narrow band right above the horizon.

So it's "complex." What makes it so complex? Basically, the only thing complex about it is that it's actually not a mirage at all but a misinterpretation of what is called a "false horizon."

Here's an example of a "false horizon."

https://files.catbox.moe/9az794.jpg

Notice the image on the left. It appears to be a ship floating in mid-air. If we were to change the color temperature in the photo, like we see in the image on the right, we can see that it's actually not floating in mid-air but is floating on a section of water that is experiencing a mirage effect. It's caused by a change in the refractive index due to the high temperature near the water and the lower temperature above it. Remember, mirages are reflections. It is reflecting the sky above it, giving the illusion that it itself is part of the sky. So technically, it's just an "inferior mirage" of the sky. Notice where the mirage ends. It's creating a "false horizon." This type of inferior mirage can also be seen on solid surfaces.

Here's an example of an asphalt road experiencing the same type of inferior mirage.

https://files.catbox.moe/o4ctaa.jpeg

The reality is, there is no such thing as a mirage that can be seen as a non-inverted image projecting above an object's true position. The only examples that exist are provably misinterpreted false horizons.

Now that we've established that the Chicago photo isn't caused by a "mirage," let us take a look at the possibility that refraction's causing the illusion.

Refraction's the process by which light shifts its path as it travels through a material, causing the light to bend. That's what refraction is, but most people misunderstand the effect of refraction.

Here's an example of refraction.

https://files.catbox.moe/e9ehww.jpg

Notice you are viewing the pencil as it exists in two different mediums. From your position you see that above the water, the pencil is surrounded by air as you'd normally see it. As it enters The denser medium water, which acts as a lens that bends light, you see that it magnifies the pencil. A lens has limitations though. When an object is magnified within a lens, the entire image is expanded from the center of the lens outward, cutting off the edges that no longer fit in the lens. Since the pencil isn't directly in the center of the image being magnified, it expands outward, giving the illusion of a broken pencil. Also notice that you cannot see the eraser anymore because the bottom of the image is also cut off when it is magnified.

Here's another example that shows what a pencil would do in 3 different positions.

https://files.catbox.moe/yzyz9b.jpg

Notice the image on the far left. The pencil is positioned in the center of the glass. The lens magnifies the image from the center outward. Since the pencil is in the center, it remains in its horizontal position but magnifies, only cutting off the top and bottom slightly. Now notice the image on the far right. The pencil's placed close to the left edge of the lens. Since the lens is magnifying the image from the center of the lens outward, part of the pencil is cut off due to the limitation of the lens not being able to fit the entire image that's now being magnified.

Now that we understand what both reflection and refraction is, and the actual effects they create, let me give you an example of refraction occurring naturally in the atmosphere.

https://youtu.be/Y0bQm8sJwd4

This is called the "Shrinking Mill" because of the refraction that occurs regularly in this area. Notice the object being refracted is magnified at a distance, then reduces in size as it's approached. This effect is no different than holding a magnifying glass out from your face and bringing it closer. You'll notice the closer the magnifying glass is to your face, objects will appear smaller, allowing more of the object to fit inside the lens.

Here's a video of an experiment anyone can do debunking the globohomo claim that the atmosphere isn't magnifying things.

https://youtu.be/YG40kkbh734

Here are some practical experiments that can show you the results we see in our observable reality.

https://youtu.be/UFP4HQQoejs

Here's an example of how refraction would actually prevent you from seeing objects at great distances.

https://youtu.be/s-PhStb6mTQ

Notice how objects at the bottom of the lens disappear as it magnifies. This is because our apparent horizon acts as the bottom of the lens as it's at the bottom of the medium creating the magnification effect.

This is how refraction works. It doesn't magically project an image of an object above its true position. Not only is it nonsense to say it's refraction that allows one to see an object beyond a supposed physical horizon caused by supposed curvature, it's asinine because refraction would actually do the opposite and hide an image you actually could see if it wasn't being magnified by refraction.

Being able to see the entire city of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan is due to the atmospheric conditions creating a LACK OF REFRACTION and it's NOT producing a magnifying effect, allowing the bottom of the lens to be viewed as normal. Like taking the water that's causing refraction out of the glass, allowing you to see the pencil as it truly is.

If we were to view a picture of Chicago from the shoreline of Michigan on a different day with different atmospheric conditions, we will get different results. Like the following.

https://files.catbox.moe/f1g8jb.jpeg

Conclusion: There is no curvature to the earth and any claim that a mirage or refraction can bend light in such a way as to project an image above an object's true position making a globe Earth appear flat is just false. It simply does not work that way and not a single bit of evidence exists that would suggest otherwise.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-03-01/who-got-america-to-the-moon-a-unlikely-collaboration-of-jews-and-former-nazi-engineers