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/crasHY5HCdI

Old but Gold.

Nobody who defends Heliocentrism dare watch and dispute any of the claims made and referenced from Jesuit sources on why Heliocentrism became the new Ideology pushed by the Church and Academia.

Claiming that light "bends" can be misleading because it suggests that the individual photons or light waves are inherently curving or changing direction on their own. In reality, the phenomena that cause changes in the path of light involve interactions with materials or wavefront properties, where the fundamental movement of photons remains in straight lines. This illustrates why saying light "bends" can be misleading:

1. Straight-Line Travel:
- Core Concept: Photons, the particles of light, travel in straight lines unless they interact with a medium or particles.
- Misleading Aspect: Using the term "bend" suggests that photons deviate from straight-line motion intrinsically, which is not accurate.

2. Refraction:
- Mechanism: Refraction occurs when light changes speed as it moves from one medium to another, resulting in a change in direction at the interface.
- Photon Perspective: Photons travel in straight lines within each medium. The "bending" occurs only at the boundary where the speed changes, not as a continuous curve.
- Misleading Interpretation: Describing this as bending overlooks the fact that photons are still moving in straight lines within each medium, and only their path changes direction at specific points.

3. Diffraction:
- Mechanism: Diffraction involves the spreading of waves around obstacles or through openings, leading to interference patterns.
- Photon Perspective: Photons travel in straight paths, but the overall wavefront appears to bend due to constructive and destructive interference.
- Misleading Interpretation: Saying light bends here ignores the straight-line travel of individual photons and the wave nature responsible for the observed pattern.

4. Scattering:
- Mechanism: Scattering involves photons being deflected by particles in different directions.
- Photon Perspective: Each photon travels in a straight line until it interacts with a particle, causing a change in direction.
- Misleading Interpretation: Describing this as bending conflates the redirection of photons due to interactions with an inherent curvature in their path.

5. Precise Terminology:
- Importance: Using precise terminology helps avoid misconceptions about the nature of light and its behavior.
- Alternative Phrasing: Instead of "bending," terms like "changing direction," "redirecting," "refracted," or "diffracted" more accurately describe the phenomena without implying an intrinsic curving motion.

In summary, while the observed path of light can appear to bend due to interactions with different media or obstacles, the photons themselves always travel in straight lines between these interactions. Thus, saying light "bends" oversimplifies and misrepresents the actual physics involved.

It was invented by a jesuit priest... shocker!!

https://old.bitchute.com/video/qL0smLxWGB7O/

https://youtu.be/TbUtpmoYyiQ

So a bunch of jews got together and developed NASA right after they invented the Holocaust and they expect us to believe this bullshit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_zcEgx1IgQ

Kikes shape the globetards worldview.

In map-making, "projection" simply refers to the method of translating geographic data onto a flat surface. It does not mean taking one map and placing it onto another. Instead, it involves using a specific technique to represent distances and directions from a reference point on a flat map. The projection defines how spatial information is mathematically converted into a two-dimensional format.

The azimuthal equidistant projection map is created by following these steps:

1. Central Point Selection: Choose a central point on the Earth's surface. This point serves as the origin from which distances and directions are measured.

2. Distance Measurement: Measure the distances between the central point and various other locations on the Earth's surface using terrestrial methods. These measurements are done directly on the ground and not based on any spherical assumptions.

3. Projection Application: Use the azimuthal equidistant projection to map these distances onto a flat surface. This projection preserves the proportional distance from the central point to other locations. It also maintains the correct direction from the center to these locations.

4. Mapping Process: Transfer the measured distances and directions onto the flat map. The central point is placed at the center of the map, and the distances to other points are scaled proportionally according to the projection's formula.

5. Map Accuracy: The resulting map accurately reflects the distances and directions from the central point based on the measurements. The projection ensures that distances from the central point are correct.

An azimuthal equidistant projection map is made by measuring real-world distances from a central point, applying these measurements to a flat surface, and ensuring that distances and directions are accurately represented.

The process Alexander Gleason used to create his map:

https://files.catbox.moe/syz6od.jpg

Projection Accuracy: Alexander Gleason's map utilizes the azimuthal equidistant projection, which accurately represents distances from a central point, maintaining correct proportionality. This projection is effective for mapping distances and directions on a flat surface.

Empirical Measurements: Gleason's map was created using detailed empirical data, measuring real-world distances between landmarks. His method involved careful data collection and accurate representation of these distances on his map.

Consistency with Observations: The distances and spatial relationships depicted on Gleason's map align with observed patterns and measurements on the Earth's surface. This consistency supports the accuracy of the map in representing a flat, stationary plane.

Modern Utilization: Modern maps that use the azimuthal equidistant projection for navigation and other purposes validate the effectiveness of this projection. If Gleason's map, which uses the same projection, is accurate in these contexts, it confirms that the map reliably represents distances on a flat surface.

Accurate Representation: The fact that Gleason's map, based on empirical data and a valid projection, shows accurate distances and spatial relationships indicates that his representation of the world is correct. This accuracy supports the view that the map accurately depicts a flat Earth.

Alexander Gleason's map is accurate in representing distances and spatial relationships based on the azimuthal equidistant projection and empirical data. The consistency of these representations and the use of the projection in modern maps support the conclusion that his map correctly depicts a flat Earth.

So the idea that Alexander Gleason used a projection of a globe map is retarded. It is called the Gleason's map because Gleason made the map. It is called a projection because all maps are a projection. What kind of projection is it? It's an azimuthal equidistant projection which has absolutely nothing to do with a globe.

http://granddesignexposed.com/2Adventism.html

Kabbalah: The Root of Heliocentrism

Heliocentrism, often seen as a scientific model describing the solar system, is deeply intertwined with Kabbalistic thought. The theory that the Earth orbits the Sun, known as heliocentrism, has roots in the ancient mystical traditions of Kabbalah, which have influenced various ideological systems and scientific frameworks.

The Kabbalah, a mystical and esoteric tradition within Judaism, plays a significant role in shaping heliocentric theory. This connection is evident when considering the broader context of how heliocentrism fits into a model of the universe. The adoption of heliocentrism coincided with a period of significant intellectual and philosophical change, influenced by Kabbalistic ideas.

The Copernican Revolution of 1543, which introduced the heliocentric model, was not merely a scientific fraud but also a reflection of Kabbalistic influences. Nicolaus Copernicus, whose work marked the beginning of the heliocentric theory, was part of a broader intellectual movement that incorporated elements of Kabbalistic thought.

This Kabbalistic influence is also evident in organizations like Freemasonry, which integrate sun-worship and esoteric symbolism that align with heliocentric ideas. Heliocentrism, with its focus on the Sun as the central body of our solar system, reflects the symbolic and ritualistic aspects of sun-worship found in Kabbalistic traditions.

NASA and other institutions that promote heliocentric views often align with these esoteric traditions, perpetuating a worldview rooted in Kabbalistic symbolism. This alignment is not coincidental but reflects a deeper integration of Kabbalistic principles into modern scientific paradigms.

The observable reality of a flat and stationary Earth challenges the heliocentric model, highlighting a disconnect between Kabbalistic-based theories and empirical observations. Heliocentrism, by positioning the Earth as a moving object in relation to the Sun, contrasts with the empirical evidence supporting a stationary, flat Earth.

In summary, heliocentrism is not merely a scientific model but a concept with deep Kabbalistic roots. This perspective is important for understanding the broader influences on our current scientific and ideological frameworks, particularly when considering the objective reality of a flat and stationary Earth.