GLOBAL CONSPIRACY

  • 1592 Replies
  • 247020 Views
*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2129
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #660 on: January 13, 2015, 12:12:25 PM »
Same with Einstein, they need Special Relativity to work for their "theory" so its right, but General Relativity is so blatantly wrong to them, even though SR is built up from GR.

/shrug
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #661 on: January 13, 2015, 05:58:05 PM »
@Alpha2Omega, nice theory, only there isn't a shred of truth in it!

These are the same. Traditionally, drawings are made with down toward the bottom of the page, and that's just convention and what people are used to seeing, but it doesn't have to be this way. What would be the advantage to using the inverted, upper, drawing?
This is not just about the convention, this is about the reality, about the literal hypothetical shape of the trans-atlantic tunnel and how it would be really shaped on a supposed globe, also!
I'm not sure I get your point. Does turning a drawing upside down make the drawing itself invalid?

Quote
Neither "follows" the other; they are both pulled into a spherical shape by the force of earth's own gravity, so you have a slightly smaller sphere (the Abyssal Plain) below (inside) and concentric with a slightly larger one (the ocean surface). They both take that spherical shape for the same reason, but independent of each other...Sure. The answer is because the surface of the water makes an equipotential surface; every point on it has the same potential energy. Absent forces other than gravity, such as wind, sea currents, tides, and rotation, sea level would be a perfect sphere (if you also assume the density of the interior of the Earth doesn't vary laterally). If any part of the ocean surface were higher (further from the center) than another, the water would flow from the high point into the low, until the potential was equalized.

GOCE GEOID : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Accompanying words for a video above:

Quote
After two years in orbit, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) is nearing the end of its planned life span in February, producing the most accurate map ever of the so-called geoid -- an Earth-encompassing spirit level and global reference surface. An unused supply of xeon fuel will allow the mission to be extended until at least the end of 2012.

Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior.

Isn't that what I said?

Quote
Comment no. 1:

Wow, what a lumpy piece of shit planet we live on. I'm moving to the moon.

Comment no. 2:

For some reason, I don't believe this crap.
Are you going to alert ESA about your concerns?

Quote
So many pictures show earth as an almost round orb. why don't the real pictures we have seen over the years make the earth look like this,
Because the illustrations here have the variations highly exaggerated so they are obvious. In your forays through the GOCE maps and descriptions, did any indicate what the difference between the geoid and reference ellipsoid is, in meters, or how much exaggeration was applied to the graphics?

Quote
if this is true. april fools one day late. I guess the next thing we'll be told, is "oops, the earth really is flat.'[/i]
It's quite true, but you have to be working at a very fine scale to measure any of this. It shows up on illustrations only with extremely high exaggeration.

Quote
Comment no. 3:

So they were right about the earth being flat....at least in places
Which places? How large are they?

Quote
Comment no 4:

The actual shape of planet earth as revealed by #ESA  mission #GOCE GOCE Geoid

Comment no. 5:

To anyone that thinks this is a hoax, you've been misled.

A geoid accounts for gravity and density irregularities, and depicts what a mean sea level surface would be if water could freely flow across Earth's surface.
Which means they are accounting for the things that were explicitly excluded in my description above.

Quote
Geodesy is the field of study in which measurements are made to determine the actual shape of the planet. Geophysics also uses the concept of the geoid extensively in performing experiments and observations. This updated version of the geoid is the most accurate to date, and the implications it holds in those fields of study that employ it are massive.[/i]

So, they say that the Earth looks like this, after all:


If the differences from datum (they probably state which one; likely it's WGS 84) are magnified, then, sure. Do they say what the scale of the differences are? Can you give a reference for this image?

Quote

What is interesting here is that in 99 % cases you will find on the internet only upper number according to which abyssal plains vary in depth 100 cm per 1 km, although in Encyclopedia Britannica you can read these words:

These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
So? 1 meter of depth change in 1 km is still, to use the technical term from the article below, damn flat.
Quote
In reality abyssal plains are flatter than Kansas, and Kansas is much flatter than a pancake.



http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
I'd wondered what had happened to the good old JIR, so thanks for that link. The description of the old Journal of Irreproducible Research is "It contains a unique mix of jokes, satire of scientific practice, science cartoons, and discussion of funny but real research." Much of the talent that made the JIR what it was apparently fled to the new publication cited above in the '90s after an ownership change. It's fun to read, can make you think, but don't take it too seriously. "Flat as a pancake" is a colloquialism. Don't take it too seriously, either. Pancakes - if properly prepared - are certainly flatter than, say croissants or coffeecakes, but not sheets of paper (if they're flat). 

Can you provide more details for "we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas's [sic] flatness is approximately 0.999"?

Quote
So, to get the idea how really flat abyssal plains are, you have to imagine something flatter than these:

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

Did you ever find the topographic map with 6-inch (or less) contour interval that would verify this?

Quote
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile[Citation Needed],"
Does this mean you're finally giving up on the one foot in 1,000 miles claim?

Quote
A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

In above picture what we are really facing with, is kind of a timid recognition of the fact that abyssal plains are flatter than anything else in the world.
There's a well-recognized and well-understood reason for that, too. The abyssal plains are extensional, which, in relatively uniform material, tends to reduce irregularities, and they also become blanketed in sediment, which fills the lows at a faster rate than it covers the high points.

Quote
Quote
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain

The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.

So, without the gravity, the surface of an oceans would follow the shape of the bottom of the oceans which is flat.
By "flat", oceanographers mean "at a constant depth below mean sea level", or (nearly) spherical, but with a smaller radius. "Following the shape" would make the surface of the oceans spherical. But - without gravity, the water in the oceans wouldn't "stick" to the Earth at all. Earth wouldn't be pulled into a spherical shape, either - it wouldn't even form. So this statement is, at the very least, fanciful.

Quote
<fanciful mage>

Now, what about the gravity?

1. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
You keep bringing this old chestnut up, and it's quoted out of context. The first part, more completely,  reads:
"It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity..."

Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human; things like this happen. That's not the only thing he was wrong about, either... his day job for much of his life was alchemist. This is little remembered since this work led to insights into physics, but no success in alchemy.

Quote
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
Incorrectly categorized "great absurdity”, it turns out. So, nothing to see here, folks.

Quote
2. The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times)[Citation Needed] because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface[Citation Needed]. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to  gravity which  holds  them  down. They had believed that the  sacrifice is  a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity.
That 0.35% is about right; where's the problem?

Quote
Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.
Why? If gravity is pulling me down by 1 and centrifugal acceleration is pulling me up by 0.0035, I'm still being pulled down by 0.9965, which is still pretty darn close to 1.

Quote
The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure  in the atmosphere[Citation Needed]. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth.
"Redundant force and should leave the Earth"? What does this mean?

Quote
The Newtonian fellows accept that, the air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth. Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge dynamic pressure. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003
I thought I'd read all the above before.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645079#msg1645079

Quote
3. Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory[Citation Needed] has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether[Citation Needed] to keep all of its elementary particles spinning[Citation Needed]. We are just in the way of this influx[Citation Needed]. This view explains what gravity is[Citation Needed], and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating[Citation Needed]. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity[Citation Needed].

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light[Citation Needed], a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time[Citation Needed]. This influx is what gravity is[Citation Needed]. As ether is absorbed[Citation Needed] two[Citation Needed] things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin[Citation Needed], and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy[Citation Needed], is transformed into electromagnetic energy[Citation Needed]. That[Citation Needed] is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.

Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock[Citation Needed].

4. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339

On top of that:

We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
Well, that stuff in blue is certainly oversimplified. Wind and currents can push water to a higher level in some places and it will remain there as long as they don't change.

Quote
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046
This already has been debunked.
 
[Edit] Nested quote. Minor clarification.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2015, 06:10:01 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #662 on: January 13, 2015, 06:11:22 PM »
@Alpha2Omega, nice theory, only there isn't a shred of truth in it!

These are the same. Traditionally, drawings are made with down toward the bottom of the page, and that's just convention and what people are used to seeing, but it doesn't have to be this way. What would be the advantage to using the inverted, upper, drawing?
This is not just about the convention, this is about the reality, about the literal hypothetical shape of the trans-atlantic tunnel and how it would be really shaped on a supposed globe, also!
I'm not sure I get your point. Does turning a drawing upside down make the drawing itself invalid?

Quote
Neither "follows" the other; they are both pulled into a spherical shape by the force of earth's own gravity, so you have a slightly smaller sphere (the Abyssal Plain) below (inside) and concentric with a slightly larger one (the ocean surface). They both take that spherical shape for the same reason, but independent of each other...Sure. The answer is because the surface of the water makes an equipotential surface; every point on it has the same potential energy. Absent forces other than gravity, such as wind, sea currents, tides, and rotation, sea level would be a perfect sphere (if you also assume the density of the interior of the Earth doesn't vary laterally). If any part of the ocean surface were higher (further from the center) than another, the water would flow from the high point into the low, until the potential was equalized.

GOCE GEOID : " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Accompanying words for a video above:

Quote
After two years in orbit, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Gravity field and steady-state Ocean Circulation Explorer (GOCE) is nearing the end of its planned life span in February, producing the most accurate map ever of the so-called geoid -- an Earth-encompassing spirit level and global reference surface. An unused supply of xeon fuel will allow the mission to be extended until at least the end of 2012.

Markedly different from a simple sphere or ellipsoid, the geoid is the mathematically 'true' shape of Earth. It represents a motionless global ocean but takes into account the effects of the Earth’s rotation, weight difference resulting from the position of mountains and ocean trenches, and uneven mass distribution and density variations in the planet’s interior.

Isn't that what I said?

Quote
Comment no. 1:

Wow, what a lumpy piece of shit planet we live on. I'm moving to the moon.

Comment no. 2:

For some reason, I don't believe this crap.
Are you going to alert ESA about your concerns?

Quote
So many pictures show earth as an almost round orb. why don't the real pictures we have seen over the years make the earth look like this,
Because the illustrations here have the variations highly exaggerated so they are obvious. In your forays through the GOCE maps and descriptions, did any indicate what the difference between the geoid and reference ellipsoid is, in meters, or how much exaggeration was applied to the graphics?

Quote
if this is true. april fools one day late. I guess the next thing we'll be told, is "oops, the earth really is flat.'[/i]
It's quite true, but you have to be working at a very fine scale to measure any of this. It shows up on illustrations only with extremely high exaggeration.

Quote
Comment no. 3:

So they were right about the earth being flat....at least in places
Which places? How large are they?

Quote
Comment no 4:

The actual shape of planet earth as revealed by #ESA  mission #GOCE GOCE Geoid

Comment no. 5:

To anyone that thinks this is a hoax, you've been misled.

A geoid accounts for gravity and density irregularities, and depicts what a mean sea level surface would be if water could freely flow across Earth's surface.
Which means they are accounting for the things that were explicitly excluded in my description above.

Quote
Geodesy is the field of study in which measurements are made to determine the actual shape of the planet. Geophysics also uses the concept of the geoid extensively in performing experiments and observations. This updated version of the geoid is the most accurate to date, and the implications it holds in those fields of study that employ it are massive.[/i]

So, they say that the Earth looks like this, after all:


If the differences from datum (they probably state which one; likely it's WGS 84) are magnified, then, sure. Do they say what the scale of the differences are? Can you give a reference for this image?

Quote

What is interesting here is that in 99 % cases you will find on the internet only upper number according to which abyssal plains vary in depth 100 cm per 1 km, although in Encyclopedia Britannica you can read these words:

These submarine surfaces vary in depth only from 10 to 100 cm per kilometre of horizontal distance, the larger plains are hundreds of kilometres wide and thousands of kilometres long.
So? 1 meter of depth change in 1 km is still, to use the technical term from the article below, damn flat.
Quote
In reality abyssal plains are flatter than Kansas, and Kansas is much flatter than a pancake.



http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html
I'd wondered what had happened to the good old JIR, so thanks for that link. The description of the old Journal of Irreproducible Research is "It contains a unique mix of jokes, satire of scientific practice, science cartoons, and discussion of funny but real research." Much of the talent that made the JIR what it was apparently fled to the new publication cited above in the '90s after an ownership change. It's fun to read, can make you think, but don't take it too seriously. "Flat as a pancake" is a colloquialism. Don't take it too seriously, either. Pancakes - if properly prepared - are certainly flatter than, say croissants or coffeecakes, but not sheets of paper (if they're flat). 

Can you provide more details for "we did a more complex analysis, and after many hours of programming work, we were able to estimate that Kansas's [sic] flatness is approximately 0.999"?

Quote
So, to get the idea how really flat abyssal plains are, you have to imagine something flatter than these:

"The plains of Venezuela and New Granada, in South America, chiefiy on the left of the Orinoco, are termed llanos, or level fields. Often in the space of 270 square miles THE SURFACE DOES NOT VARY A SINGLE FOOT."

Did you ever find the topographic map with 6-inch (or less) contour interval that would verify this?

Quote
"The Amazon only falls 12 feet in the last 700 miles of its course; the La Plata has only a descent of one thirty-third of an inch a mile[Citation Needed],"
Does this mean you're finally giving up on the one foot in 1,000 miles claim?

Quote
A FLAT SURFACE IS THE GENERAL CONTOUR OF THE BED OF THE GREAT OCEANS FOR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SQUARE MILES.

In above picture what we are really facing with, is kind of a timid recognition of the fact that abyssal plains are flatter than anything else in the world.
There's a well-recognized and well-understood reason for that, too. The abyssal plains are extensional, which, in relatively uniform material, tends to reduce irregularities, and they also become blanketed in sediment, which fills the lows at a faster rate than it covers the high points.

Quote
Quote
An abyssal plain is an underwater plain on the deep ocean floor, usually found at depths between 3000 and 6000 m. Lying generally between the foot of a continental rise and a mid-ocean ridge, abyssal plains cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface. They are among the flattest, smoothest and least explored regions on Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abyssal_plain

The abyssal plains cover about 30% of the Atlantic and nearly 75% of the Pacific ocean floors.

So, without the gravity, the surface of an oceans would follow the shape of the bottom of the oceans which is flat.
By "flat", oceanographers mean "at a constant depth below mean sea level", or (nearly) spherical, but with a smaller radius. "Following the shape" would make the surface of the oceans spherical. But - without gravity, the water in the oceans wouldn't "stick" to the Earth at all. Earth wouldn't be pulled into a spherical shape, either - it wouldn't even form. So this statement is, at the very least, fanciful.

Quote
<fanciful mage>

Now, what about the gravity?

1. In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692,  Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a  distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.
You keep bringing this old chestnut up, and it's quoted out of context. The first part, more completely,  reads:
"It is inconceivable that inanimate Matter should, without the Mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual Contact…That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of any thing else, by and through which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity..."

Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human; things like this happen. That's not the only thing he was wrong about, either... his day job for much of his life was alchemist. This is little remembered since this work led to insights into physics, but no success in alchemy.

Quote
Sir Robert Ball says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”
Incorrectly categorized "great absurdity”, it turns out. So, nothing to see here, folks.

Quote
2. The idea of Earth’s rotation was not being accepted by most thinkers (in all times)[Citation Needed] because of one logical reason; objects on a rotating Earth should be repelled off the surface[Citation Needed]. Unconsciously, the Newtonian fellows sacrificed their precious gravity in order to enforce the idea of Earth’s rotation: objects on a rotating Earth are subject to  gravity which  holds  them  down. They had believed that the  sacrifice is  a matter of 0.35% of the total gravity.
That 0.35% is about right; where's the problem?

Quote
Here is the precious sacrifice: if the Earth were experiencing a rotation, then the concept of gravity is useless to hold objects down.
Why? If gravity is pulling me down by 1 and centrifugal acceleration is pulling me up by 0.0035, I'm still being pulled down by 0.9965, which is still pretty darn close to 1.

Quote
The greatest task of holding objects down on a rotating Earth (rigid and air) would become for the real-change of air pressure  in the atmosphere[Citation Needed]. The gravity would become a redundant force and should leave the Earth.
"Redundant force and should leave the Earth"? What does this mean?

Quote
The Newtonian fellows accept that, the air atmosphere undergoes a rotation with the rigid Earth. Otherwise, if the Earth rotates without the air atmosphere, it will leave the air behind; it will generate a huge dynamic pressure. Read more : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645003#msg1645003
I thought I'd read all the above before.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1645079#msg1645079

Quote
3. Take the Earth, for instance. Classical physics sees the force of gravity as some type of almost magical attractive force between stars and planets. Ether theory[Citation Needed] has a totally different view. The reason we fall back to the Earth when we jump up is not this mystical force of gravity, but rather it is because the Earth is constantly absorbing a tremendous amount of ether[Citation Needed] to keep all of its elementary particles spinning[Citation Needed]. We are just in the way of this influx[Citation Needed]. This view explains what gravity is[Citation Needed], and also explains Tesla’s seemingly odd statement that the sun is absorbing more energy than it is radiating[Citation Needed]. The more you think about it, the more this seemingly nutty idea makes perfect sense. The sun requires a gargantuan amount of etheric energy to keep its integrity[Citation Needed].

Once it is realised that electrons spin at speeds in excess of the speed of light[Citation Needed], a new paradigm is born. The idea simply is that the elementary particles, by their nature, are absorbing ether all the time[Citation Needed]. This influx is what gravity is[Citation Needed]. As ether is absorbed[Citation Needed] two[Citation Needed] things happen. (1) The process enables the elementary particles to maintain their spin[Citation Needed], and (2) Simultaneously, this etheric energy, probably stemming from what some physicists call the zero point energy realm, which is a vast reservoir of untapped energy[Citation Needed], is transformed into electromagnetic energy[Citation Needed]. That[Citation Needed] is Grand Unification, Einstein’s dream of how to combine gravity with electromagnetism.

Tesla understood ether theory a lot better than Einstein did, and he dismissed Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 as mathematical poppycock[Citation Needed].

4. http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays-Gravity/Download/5339

On top of that:

We know from practical experiment that water will find its level, and cannot by any possibility remain other than level, or flat, or horizontal — whatever term may be used to express the idea.
Well, that stuff in blue is certainly oversimplified. Wind and currents can push water to a higher level in some places and it will remain there as long as they don't change.

Quote
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1650046#msg1650046
This already has been debunked.
 
[Edit] Nested quote. Minor clarification.
As well as high and low pressure systems: http://gemini.gsfc.nasa.gov/aplo/

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #663 on: January 14, 2015, 05:08:59 AM »
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...

It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega...  ;D



So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.

Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing force?

Why not? 

GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:

At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found  it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo  recognised this difficulty,  and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.

The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such  mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”

Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us  is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its  scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”

Here again we observe  that  the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all
; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why  they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to  make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.

The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!!

Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and  prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound.

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball
says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”


DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :

0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is  the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could  have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned  to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the  sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods,  with always the same result, or there­abouts.

In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another.  .  .  . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical;  but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then,  when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the  subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.” 

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in  1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.

That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!

Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.”  The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and  revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument,  U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions,  with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so  they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s  186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000  miles.” 

It is  so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites  ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam.

"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18

Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself? Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!

Sorry, but that is the fact!

Or are they just a shills?
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 05:19:37 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 18334
  • Discount Chemist
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #664 on: January 14, 2015, 07:10:49 AM »
Newtonian Gravity theory  has been disproved, although it can still be used in some cases. I suggest instead of looking for really old papers about Gravity, look for newer ones. This will end your confusion.

If you think you are still right, simply explain why a six pound bowling ball and a sixteen pound bowling ball fall with the same rate.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2129
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #665 on: January 14, 2015, 07:44:07 AM »
Newtonian Gravity theory  has been disproved, although it can still be used in some cases. I suggest instead of looking for really old papers about Gravity, look for newer ones. This will end your confusion.

If you think you are still right, simply explain why a six pound bowling ball and a sixteen pound bowling ball fall with the same rate.

But all of his copypasta is based on the old papers and it would be really hard to update it.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #666 on: January 14, 2015, 08:09:51 AM »
Newtonian Gravity theory  has been disproved, although it can still be used in some cases. I suggest instead of looking for really old papers about Gravity, look for newer ones. This will end your confusion.

If you think you are still right, simply explain why a six pound bowling ball and a sixteen pound bowling ball fall with the same rate.

Actually, Newton's laws work in all cases except a select few like really close to a huge object like the Sun.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #667 on: January 14, 2015, 08:39:02 AM »
So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris),
Polaris is not perfectly aligned to Earth's celestial pole. It just happens to be the brightest star around the celestial pole.
is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1)
It's not exactly 365 days per year at all, it's more like 365 and 1/4 days per year. And even that is not perfect. Leap years help, but still are not perfect. That is to be expected if you divide anything like rotations/orbit.
in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
So there's a problem with this.... how? Because there are a lot of zeros to your feeble human brain? Try using scientific notation, it really helps.
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."
Cool story.
And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.

Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing force?

Why not? 

GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:

At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found  it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo  recognised this difficulty,  and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.

The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such  mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”

Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us  is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its  scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”

Here again we observe  that  the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all
; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why  they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to  make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.
Blah, blah. So because gravity is not defined exactly in dictionaries and encyclopedias which don't need to delve into complex physics- it's wrong? Wow.
The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!!

Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and  prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound.

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball
says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”


DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :

0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is  the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could  have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned  to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the  sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods,  with always the same result, or there­abouts.

In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another.  .  .  . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical;  but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then,  when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the  subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.” 

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in  1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.
You know, you should really check the source from which you copy and paste. Or even better, cite it.
I don't know about you, but the first measurements of the distances between celestial bodies didn't use the speed of light, first of all. Second, why the hell are you using the measurements taken by old time scientists with methods that are no longer accepted? It's the biggest strawman you've ever made. There are tons of ways to measure the distance to the sun. All of them arrive at the same conclusion. Just google it.
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!

Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.”  The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and  revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument,  U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions,  with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so  they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s  186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000  miles.” 

It is  so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites  ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.
See above.
All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun,
Citation needed.
and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam.[/color][/b]
Citation needed. And no, we have a pretty good idea of the distance to the sun now, thanks. Instead of blindly copy pasting, how about you do some research?
"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18
Cool story.
Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself? Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!

Sorry, but that is the fact!

Or are they just a shills?


Well! I haven't seen that much plagiarism since our 9th grade research paper. Have fun!
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 08:42:22 AM by Jet Fission »
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #668 on: January 14, 2015, 09:26:41 AM »
cikljamas, you are a christian?  Me to, good to know.

In Genesis it says that (paraphrased) "God put all the land in one place and called it Earth" and that hasn't been confirmed scientifically until satellites (which are supposedly fake) made measurements and discovered tectonic plate activity that suggests that all of the continents were once all one super-continent called Pangaea.  If you deny the truthfulness of that data then you are denying the truthfulness of the Bible, yet that data was collected by satellites and according to your standards it's a fabrication, but how can the data be true if it's fake?

Also, the distance to the sun is known, on average it's center point 92,955,807 miles away from the center point of the (round) Earth.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #669 on: January 14, 2015, 12:50:46 PM »
@ mikeman7918, this is for you:

A LIAR IS A THIEF, A THIEF IS A MURDERER

“ The two beliefs (modern astronomy and Bible cosmology) cannot be held together in the same mind ; for he who thinks he believes both, has thought very little of either."  Thomas Paine, "Age  of Reason".

Unlike most Christians, Bible-Scientists insist that if conventional science is true, the Bible must be false. Flat-earther John Hampden put it plainly: “No one can believe a single doctrine or dogma of modern astronomy, and accept Scriptures as divine revelation.”

The belief that the Earth is rotating on an "axis" and orbiting the sun is THE GRANDADDY OF ALL DECEPTIONS IN THE WORLD TODAY...

Launched from its modern founder's deathbed in 1543, the Copernican Revolution ushered in a movement that has totally reshaped and re-directed ALL of man's knowledge!


Over the centuries, superstars in the physical sciences established the Copernican model as an unchallenged fact. This success paved the way for conquest of the biological sciences (Darwin et al). This transvaluation of values and philosophy (Nietzsche et al) then quickly spread to the social and behavioral sciences (Marx, Freud et al), to mathematics (Einstein et al), the Arts (Picasso et al), Education (Dewey et al), and so on through today's media reinforcement of all of the above. ..As the 21st Century gets its feet wet, man's "knowledge" is almost totally secularized and the Bible all but ignored as the source of absolute Truth from God Himself. ..The "sciences" reign supreme, and they do so because of the victory of Copernicanism over the Bible's motionless earth.

20th century man may think that it is of no importance whatever whether the sun or the earth was proved to be the center of the universe. But it was then and it is now. History has verified this. To understand it, one must seek to study history on its own terms, and in the context of that era. Before the Galileo heresy the Christian, as opposed to the progressive modern man, was not only geocentric, but theocentric (God-centered). Before the "earth-movers" arrived on the scene, Western Civilization had an orderly world-view; everything had its place. First of all, man believed in God, the Creator of Heaven and earth, and in Holy Mother the Church. He also believed that God sent His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to the center of the universe, the motionless earth, in order to redeem man. And, contrary to his worldly 20th century counterpart, man yearned for Heaven where God reigned. The only means of enjoying the Beatific Vision was through Christ’s Church.

Then, with the new world view, came doubt, the enemy of faith. As the famous English poet, John Donne, so aptly bemoaned: "And new philosophy calls all in doubt." Man, now displaced from the center of the universe, not only sustained a loss of dignity, purpose, and direction, but also he was most tragically and psychologically divorced from God, the all-unifying Creator. This is precisely why this controversy is crucial.

“He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” (1 Chronicles 16:30)

“Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …” (Psalm 93:1)

“Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.” (Psalm 104:5)

“…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…” (Isaiah 45:18)

“The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.” (Ecclesiastes 1:5)
Read more : http://www.energeticforum.com/258073-post180.html

While the Bible doesn’t flatly state the shape of the earth, it repeatedly says in plain Hebrew that the earth is immovable.


Had there been any way to prove that the Earth is submitted to any kind of motion, scientists would have supplied us with these proofs up until now, and by doing this they would have provided immortal fame for themselves.

Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1638336#msg1638336

1. The Earth is at rest, there are no motions (of any kind) of the Earth, this is 100 % proven fact!
Read more: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1636141#msg1636141

2. If the Earth is at rest then the first consequence of that fact is this: There isn't a tilt of the Earth!

Now, the question:

If there isn't a tilt of the Earth and if we still stick with the idea that the Earth is round, how in the world we could get 16,5 hours of daylight at latitude 51 degree North (London)?

A reminder: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1643528#msg1643528

CONCLUSION:

IF THE EARTH IS AT REST, THEN SHE HAS TO BE FLAT, ALSO!

Bible vs science:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637959#msg1637959
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637695#msg1637695

In a Scientific Lecture, delivered in 1878, at Berlin by Dr. Schcepper, proving that the Earth neither rotates nor revolves, he quoted the following still stronger protest of Gothe against the delusions of Modern Astronomy. " In whatever way or manner may have occurred this business, I must still say that I curse this modern theory of Cosmogony, and hope that perchance there may appear, in due time, some young scientist of genius, who will pick up courage enough to upset this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics." Read more : http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62199.msg1637315#msg1637315

HC theory is much more dangerous than an atomic bomb:

 "The clash of the scientist who wanted to make the bomb and then wanted to stop versus the politician who couldn't wait to use it is really quite a dramatic event in itself," Lanouette said.

In June 1945, Szilard helped to author the Franck Report, warning that even if the atomic bomb helped to save lives during the present war, it could ultimately lead to a nuclear arms race and perhaps even a nuclear war with far more devastating results.

After the war, Szilard continued his efforts to stem the rising tide of nuclear weapons. He often spoke in public, and authored a number of satires, including one in 1947 titled "My Trial As a War Criminal."

That short story describes how, after the Russians won World War III, they rounded up all of the people who worked on the atomic bomb, including Szilard, and put them on trial as war criminals.

"It was his way of pointing out that scientists do have responsibilities for their effects," Lanouette said.

You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
 John 8:44 ESV

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. John 10:10 ESV

THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN MARTIN LUTHER STATES:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."


AND ACCORDING TO JOHN CALVIN:

"Those who assert that 'the earth moves and turns'...[are] motivated by 'a spirit of bitterness, contradiction, and faultfinding;' possessed by the devil, they aimed 'to pervert the order of nature.'"

And finally, you have this thread in which i have proved beyond any reasonable doubt (on scientific basis) that the Earth is flat!

God doesn't lie, He cannot not to be (He is Absolute), He cannot lie, because He is Absolute Truth and Perfect Love, and Bible is a true word of God!
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

sokarul

  • 18334
  • Discount Chemist
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #670 on: January 14, 2015, 02:11:25 PM »
Martin Luther 10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546
John Calvin 10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564

You can ignore me all you want. Still won't make your copy paste correct. Bible was written by man with the knowledge of the time. Nothing more.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #671 on: January 14, 2015, 06:29:43 PM »
it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and  prevents them falling toward each other 
So after all this time and talk, you still don't understand how 'orbit' works. 

Quote
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also!
I could tell you the same thing, but I don't need stoop to your level, because I'm smarter than you.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #672 on: January 14, 2015, 07:42:16 PM »
Jet Fission  and others did a pretty thorough job replying to this post, but you're lucky that it's a bit slow slow around here, so here are some of the gaps.

Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...

It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega...  ;D
Where have I ever claimed to never make mistakes?

Quote
<images of geoid emphasizing deviations from ellipsoid>

So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
The "exactly one additional annual rotation per year" has nothing to do with synchronization, or coincidence, or anything else. The "exactly one" difference between sidereal and solar days in a year is the orbit itself. Regardless the period of rotation or length of the year, the number of sidereal days in a year will always differ from the number of solar days by exactly one.

Quote
" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.
Yep. Sure is. Although, as your illustration shows, at the very fine scale, it's not exactly uniform. Close, but not exact.

Quote
Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing[Citation Needed] force?

Why not? 
Well, the first reason would be that we've already covered this several times before.

The second would be because what you're about to say is just plain wrong.

Maybe the order of those is reversed. I am human after all.

Quote
GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:

At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found  it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo  recognised this difficulty,  and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.

The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such  mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”

Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us  is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its  scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”

Here again we observe  that  the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all
; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why  they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to  make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.

The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!![Citation Needed]

Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning,
Actually, it's gravitation that gives weight its meaning. But why quibble over words?

Quote
something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and  prevents them falling toward each other or apart.
That's kind of the whole Newton falling-apple, moon-in-the-sky thing in action, isn't it? Pretty cool that it works that way, but work it does.

Quote
The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural[Citation Needed]; and the theory is scientifically unsound.[Citation Needed]

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692, Newton says <quote taken out of context>

Sir Robert Ball[/b] says: <quote with lots of font size and color changes to show how correct and profound they are, but still wrong>


DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :

0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is  the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed]. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could  have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned  to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions[Citation Needed] — they will say that they know the  sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods,  with always the same result, or there­abouts.

In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another.  .  .  . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical;  but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment- be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then,  when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the  subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.”  [Citation Needed]

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.
Is that, perhaps, more quotes from Rowbotham? It reads like his stuff.

Quote
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!
[sarcasm]Now, now... watch your language please! You don't want to invoke the wrath of the moderators[/sarcasm]

Quote
Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.”  The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and  revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument,  U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions,  with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth[Citation Needed], and so  they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s  186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000  miles.” 

It is  so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4[Citation Needed] how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites  ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth[Citation Needed], so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun[Citation Needed], and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done[Citation Needed]; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam[Citation Needed].

"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18

Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself?
Hey, we're in the Flat Earth Society forums. The obvious answers to that question are thicker here than most anywhere on the Internet (with the possible exception of the "other" Flat Earth Society)!

Quote
Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity [as a flat earth] are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!

Sorry, but that is the fact!

Or are they just a shills?
Nah, the ones who assert the Earth is flat are mostly just ignorant, or out for a good time. A few are possibly genuinely stupid.

[Edit] Fixed screwed-up nested quotes.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 07:49:23 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Jet Fission

  • 519
  • NASA shill
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #673 on: January 14, 2015, 07:58:16 PM »
it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and  prevents them falling toward each other 
So after all this time and talk, you still don't understand how 'orbit' works. 

Quote
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also!
I could tell you the same thing, but I don't need stoop to your level, because I'm smarter than you.

Wouldn't it be awesome if we got RE'ers to play Kerbal Space Program?
To a flat earth theorist, being a "skeptic" is to have confirmation bias.
Just because I'm a genius doesn't mean I know everything.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #674 on: January 14, 2015, 08:02:24 PM »
Wouldn't it be awesome if we got RE'ers to play Kerbal Space Program?
I need to get the full version sometime.  I've messed with the demo a bit.  Landed on Mun and walked around.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #675 on: January 15, 2015, 05:27:21 AM »
Quote
That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also!
I could tell you the same thing, but I don't need stoop to your level, because I'm smarter than you.

Yeah, maybe you are smarter than me, but certainly you are not smarter than Alpha2Omega...  ;D

Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...

It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega...  ;D
Where have I ever claimed to never make mistakes?

Now that you said that, let's see how much truth is in these words of yours (which comes right after your question):

So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artificially) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
The "exactly one additional annual rotation per year" has nothing to do with synchronization, or coincidence, or anything else. The "exactly one" difference between sidereal and solar days in a year is the orbit itself. Regardless the period of rotation or length of the year, the number of sidereal days in a year will always differ from the number of solar days by exactly one.

Wrong! Come on Alpha2Omega, you should know better than that. If the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we slowed down rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would be true, also, only the synchronization would not be such perfect in that case.

But, if the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would not be true, because in that case we would have two annual rotations per year, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 2 degree (under the same conditions), then we will get three annual rotations per year, and so on...

So, it is quite damn good ARTIFICIALLY synchronized rotation, after all, wouldn't you agree with me?

Secondly, how come that you had nothing sanely to say about the essence of this argument:

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.”  [Citation Needed]

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.

That is why all heliocentrists can... (oops, i already have said that...)  ;D ;D ;D



"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #676 on: January 15, 2015, 07:49:09 AM »
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...

It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega...  ;D
Where have I ever claimed to never make mistakes?

Now that you said that, let's see how much truth is in these words of yours (which comes right after your question):

So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artificially) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!
The "exactly one additional annual rotation per year" has nothing to do with synchronization, or coincidence, or anything else. The "exactly one" difference between sidereal and solar days in a year is the orbit itself. Regardless the period of rotation or length of the year, the number of sidereal days in a year will always differ from the number of solar days by exactly one.

Wrong! Come on Alpha2Omega, you should know better than that. If the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we slowed down rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would be true, also, only the synchronization would not be such perfect in that case.

No, it's quite simple, really. Over exactly a year, the Sun traces a path exactly one time around the ecliptic, so the number of solar transits in a year will always be exactly one different from the number of transits of any particular star. It doesn't matter what rate the Earth spins[nb]Or even what direction.[/nb] or how long the year is; there will be exactly one less solar day than sidereal day in exactly one year[nb]If the direction of rotation is reversed, that "one less" becomes somewhat confusing. If you use the convention that a retrograde rotation is negative, then the number of days in a year is negative and the number of solar days is still one less (more negative), although the absolute value is one greater. This means there would be one more solar transit than sidereal transit, but in the opposite direction.[/nb].

Quote
But, if the length of Earth's orbit and orbital speed of the Earth stayed the same, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 1 degree, then your words would not be true, because in that case we would have two annual rotations per year, and if we speed up rotational period of the Earth for 2 degree (under the same conditions), then we will get three annual rotations per year, and so on...

So, it is quite damn good ARTIFICIALLY synchronized rotation, after all, wouldn't you agree with me?

Nope. See the above.

Quote
Secondly, how come that you had nothing sanely to say about the essence of this argument:

Because all those unattributed and unsubstantiated quotes are, frankly, not believable. Can you provide some substantiation for the ones marked? Without citations and data they're simply anonymous, baseless claims.

I am interested in that “Nodes of the Moon” calculation mentioned in passing in there. I've never heard of this. I don't see why it should work, so don't really question that was discredited, but don't know anything at all about it. A search on that exact term turns up a lot of hits, but none seem related to this; can you provide something describing it?
 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #677 on: January 15, 2015, 10:20:20 AM »
Alpha2Omega, i know that you are a really good astronomer, that is why i have to think twice before i say: "it is 100 % true" regarding some particular heliocentric catch...

This is my reasoning: If the rotational period of the Earth were roughly 23 h 52 min, instead of 23 h 56 min 4 sec, i suppose that we could still keep our 24 hours convention (for one solar day), and the difference would be consisted in the amount of time that we would have to wait for the alignment between the Sun and the specific meridian on the Earth. That time would be roughly 8 min, instead of 3 min 56 sec...

What would be the consequence of this "8 min." longlasting alignment?

Wouldn't it (the consequence) be "a two degree sidereal shift per day"?

If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720

If no, why?

As for the source of my quotation, it's here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf

I already had offered this link to you, a few months ago or so...

For those who like this quotation, let's quote it once more:

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.”  [Citation Needed]

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2129
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #678 on: January 15, 2015, 10:24:15 AM »
Alpha2Omega, i know that you are a really good astronomer, that is why i have to think twice before i say: "it is 100 % true" regarding some particular heliocentric catch...

This is my reasoning: If the rotational period of the Earth were roughly 23 h 52 min, instead of 23 h 56 min 4 sec, i suppose that we could still keep our 24 hours convention (for one solar day), and the difference would be consisted in the amount of time that we would have to wait for the alignment between the Sun and the specific meridian on the Earth. That time would be roughly 8 min, instead of 3 min 56 sec...

What would be the consequence of this "8 min." longlasting alignment?

Wouldn't it (the consequence) be "a two degree sidereal shift per day"?

If yes, then the math is simple 2 * 180 = 360 ; 360 * 2 = 720

If no, why?

As for the source of my quotation, it's here : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/library/books/Kings%20Dethroned%20%28Gerard%20Hickson%29.pdf

I already had offered this link to you, a few months ago or so...

For those who like this quotation, let's quote it once more:

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.”  [Citation Needed]

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889[Citation Needed], was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax[Citation Needed].

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824[Citation Needed], and later by Gill in 1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong[Citation Needed], because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.

Got any sources from the last 50 years?
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #679 on: January 15, 2015, 10:33:39 AM »
Got any sources from the last 50 years?

Yes, i have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

a. The Earth Floats on Water

In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).

Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.

Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2129
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #680 on: January 15, 2015, 10:48:14 AM »
Got any sources from the last 50 years?

Yes, i have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

a. The Earth Floats on Water

In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).

Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.

Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

I said a source from the last 50 years and you bring up someone from Ancient Greece? Just because someone wrote about him in the last 50 years doesn't change the fact his ideas are over 2000 years old.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #681 on: January 15, 2015, 11:06:25 AM »
Got any sources from the last 50 years?

Yes, i have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

a. The Earth Floats on Water

In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).

Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.

Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

I said a source from the last 50 years and you bring up someone from Ancient Greece? Just because someone wrote about him in the last 50 years doesn't change the fact his ideas are over 2000 years old.

Ad hominem argument. The wheel is an idea thousands of years old, and just as valid as it ever has been.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2129
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #682 on: January 15, 2015, 11:11:24 AM »
Got any sources from the last 50 years?

Yes, i have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

a. The Earth Floats on Water

In De Caelo Aristotle wrote: 'This [opinion that the earth rests on water] is the most ancient explanation which has come down to us, and is attributed to Thales of Miletus (Cael. 294 a28-30). He explained his theory by adding the analogy that the earth is at rest because it is of the nature of wood and similar substances which have the capacity to float on water, although not on air (Cael. 294 a30-b1). In Metaphysics (983 b21) Aristotle stated, quite unequivocally: 'Thales . . . declared that the earth rests on water'. This concept does appear to be at odds with natural expectations, and Aristotle expressed his difficulty with Thales's theory (Cael. 294 a33-294 b6).

Perhaps Thales anticipated problems with acceptance because he explained that it floated because of a particular quality, a quality of buoyancy similar to that of wood. At the busy city-port of Miletus, Thales had unlimited opportunities to observe the arrival and departure of ships with their heavier-than-water cargoes, and recognized an analogy to floating logs. Thales may have envisaged some quality, common to ships and earth, a quality of 'floatiness', or buoyancy. It seems that Thales's hypothesis was substantiated by sound observation and reasoned considerations. Indeed, Seneca reported that Thales had land supported by water and carried along like a boat (Sen. QNat. III.14). Aristotle's lines in Metaphysics indicate his understanding that Thales believed that, because water was the permanent entity, the earth floats on water.

Thales may have reasoned that as a modification of water, earth must be the lighter substance, and floating islands do exist. Herodotus (The Histories, II.156) was impressed when he saw Chemmis, a floating island, about thirty-eight kilometres north-east of Naucratis, the Egyptian trading concession which Thales probably visited. Seneca described floating islands in Lydia: 'There are many light, pumice-like stones of which islands are composed, namely those which float in Lydia' (Sen. QNat., III.25. 7-10). Pliny described several floating islands, the most relevant being the Reed Islands, in Lydia (HN, II.XCVII), and Pliny (the Younger) (Ep. VIII.XX) described a circular floating island, its buoyancy, and the way it moved. Thales could have visited the near-by Reed Islands. He might have considered such readily visible examples to be models of his theory, and he could well have claimed that the observation that certain islands had the capacity to float substantiated his hypothesis that water has the capacity to support earth.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/thales/

I said a source from the last 50 years and you bring up someone from Ancient Greece? Just because someone wrote about him in the last 50 years doesn't change the fact his ideas are over 2000 years old.

Ad hominem argument. The wheel is an idea thousands of years old, and just as valid as it ever has been.

True, but my original question is if he could produce a source that was less than 50 years old. He then posted something written by a person in the last 50 years, discussing the ideas of a man over 2000 years ago. Might address the letter of the question but he is being obtuse.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #683 on: January 15, 2015, 12:05:33 PM »
Newton was bemused by the concept of force at a distance without an intervening medium. It turns out he was wrong here. He was human...

It's good to know that you are not (just a human being), you are much more than that, you are Alpha2Omega...  ;D



So, we should believe that this clump, shaped as potato, is perfectly (artifically) tilted (to accommodate with the heliocentric explanation for seasons ("ecliptic-analema")), is perfectly spatially fixed (Potato's axis) with respect to nothing (to be aligned with Polaris), is perfectly sinhronized (Potato's rotation on it's axis) so to accomplish exactly one additional annual rotation per year (365 + 1) in its (Patato's) 925 000 000 km long orbit around the Sun, and rotates at the terrific speed of 1660 km per hour, fleeing through space round the orbit at 30 km per second(108 000 km/h), and hurtling 500,000 MPH around a galaxy as well as retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!

" We declare that this motion is all mere ' bosh,' and that the arguments which uphold it are, when examined by an eye that seeks Truth, mere nonsense and childish absurdity."

And the crucial force in all this astronomical mumbo-jumbo affair, which allegedly helps to shape this Potato into a spherical form (uniformely-evenly pulling the water of all the oceans towards the "centre of the globe"), that helps us to be stuck to the surface of the Earth (and not to fly off the ground), and which also plays the crucial role in explaining the motion of the celestial "bodies" is again gravitation.

Shall we say something more about this mysterious, non-existing force?

Why not? 

GRAVITATION - SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY:

At this time the Copernican theory of astronomy was well established, and was accepted by all the scientific world, though it is probable that the public in general found  it difficult to reconcile the idea of an earth careering through space at prodigious speed with common sense and reason. Even the most ardent followers of Copernicus and Galileo  recognised this difficulty,  and some strove to find a satisfactory explanation. Two hundred years ago Kepler had suggested that some kind of unknown force must hold the earth and the heavenly bodies in their places, and now Sir Isaac Newton, the greatest mathematician of his age, took up the idea and built the Law of Gravitation.

The name is derived from the Latin word “gravis,” which means “heavy,” “having weight,” while the Law of Gravitation is defined as “That mutual action between masses of matter by virtue of which every such  mass tends toward every other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses, and inversely as the square of their distances apart.”

Reduced to simplicity, gravitation is said to be “That which attracts every thing toward every other thing.” That does not tell us much ; and yet the little it does tell us  is not true; for a thoughtful observer knows very well that every thing is not attracted towards every other thing... The definition implies that it is a force; but i does not say so, for that phrase “mutual action” is ambiguous, and not at all convincing.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica tells us that “The Law of Gravitation is unique among the laws of nature, not only for its wide generality, taking the whole universe into its  scope, but in the fact that, so far as is yet known, it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever.”

Here again we observe  that  the nature of gravitation is not really defined at all
; we are told that masses of matter tend toward each other, but no reason is given why  they do so, or should do so ; while to say that “it is absolutely unmodified by any condition or cause whatever ”is one of the most unscientific statements it is possible to  make. There is not any thing or force in the universe that is absolute, no thing that goes its own way and does what it will without regard to other forces or things.

The thing is impossible; and it is not true!!!

Again, gravitation is spoken of as a pull, an agent of attraction that robs weight of its meaning, something that brings all terrestrial things down to earth while at the same time it keeps the heavenly bodies in their places and  prevents them falling toward each other or apart. The thing is altogether too wonderful, it is not natural; and the theory is scientifically unsound.

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th,  1692, Newton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance — is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it .” Yet many have fallen into this “great  absurdity.”  Such men  therefore—according  to Newton — have not  "a competent faculty of thinking” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball
says: — “The law  of  gravitation ... underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”


DISTANCES BETWEEN CELESTIAL "BODIES" :

0f all the various methods of estimating the distance of the sun, that by means of the measurement to Mars is by far the most important, while the second in order of merit is  the one we have just dealt with ; the computation by the transit of Venus, which, it will be remembered, was first used by Encke in 1824. But there are, no doubt, many adherents of astronomy who will still hope to save the time-honoured dogma which hangs upon the question of the distance to the sun ; too egotistical to admit that they could  have been mistaken, or too old-fashioned  to accept new truths ; and so— while they cannot any longer defend the Mars and Venus illusions— they will say that they know the  sun is 93,000,000 miles away because it has been estimated and verified by quite a number of other methods,  with always the same result, or there­abouts.

In these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to touch upon these also. The brief examination we shall give to them will be illuminating, and Astronomers will probably be surprised in one way while the layman will be surprised in another.  .  .  . There are some things which every man or woman of ordinary intelligence knows are nonsensical;  but when such things have been permitted to pose for generations as scientific knowledge it is not sufficient merely to say that they are absurd ; they must— for the moment-
be treated as seriously as though they really were the scientific concepts they are supposed to be, and it must be shown just how, and why, and where, they are absurd. Then,  when that is done, they can masquerade no more, and will no longer obstruct the road to knowledge. Any one of these means of estimating the sun's distance might be made the  subject of a lengthy argument, for they are like "half-truths” which, as we all know, are harder to deal with than down-right falsehood.

Every one of these things which are believed to be methods of computing the distance to the sun, or means of verifying the 93,000,000 mile estimate, presumes the distance of the sun to be already known ; and in every case the method is the result of deductions from the figure  “93,000,000  miles.” 

The verification of the sun’s distance by the measurements to the minor planets Victoria, Iris and Sappho, in 1888 and 1889, was done in the same manner as the measurement to Mars, and fails in precisely the same way, by the fallacy of Dr. Hailey’s  Diurnal Method of Measurement by Parallax.

There is the calculation of the sun’s distance by the “Nodes of the Moon,”  which it is not necessary for me to dilate  upon, because it has already been discredited, and is  not  considered of any value by the authorities on astronomy themselves. The computation of the distance to the sun by the ”Aberration  of  Light  ”  is  based  upon  the  theory that the earth travels along its orbit at the velocity of 18.64 miles per second.  This velocity of the earth is the speed at which it is supposed to be travelling along an orbit round the sun, 18.64 miles a second, 66,000 miles an hour, 1,584,000 miles a day, or five hundred and seventy eight million miles in a year (578 000 000 miles/year).

The last of these figures is the circumference of the orbit, half of whose diameter— the radius— is of course the distance of the sun itself, and it is from this (pardon the necessary repetition) distance of the sun, first calculated by Encke in 1824, and later by Gill in  1877, that the whole of the  figures—including the alleged “velocity of the earth  18.64 miles a second”— were deduced.

The 18.64 miles is wrong, because the 93,000,000 is wrong, because neither Encke nor Gill obtained any measurement of the sun’s distance whatever; and the whole affair is nothing more than a playful piece of arithmetic, where the distance of the sun is first presumed to be known; from that the Velocity of the earth per second is worked out by simple division, and then the result is worked up again by multiplication to the original figure, “93,000,000,” and the astronomer then says that is the distance to the sun.

That is why it is absurd.

That is why all heliocentrists can kiss my ass, also! @AusGeoff, be free to quote this sentence as many times as you wish!

Finally the sun’s distance as 93,000,000 miles is said to be justified by the “Velocity of Light.”  The Velocity of Light was measured by an arrangement of wheels and  revolving mirrors in the year 1882 at the Washington Monument,  U.S.A., and calculated to be 186,414 miles a second. N.B.— Experiments had been made on several previous occasions,  with somewhat similar results, but Professor Newcomb’s result obtained in 1882, is the accepted figure.

Taking up this figure, astronomers recalled that in the 17th century Ole Roemer had conceived the hypothesis that light took nearly 8 1/2 minutes to travel from the sun to the earth, and so  they multiplied his 8 1/2 minutes by Newcomb’s  186,414, and said, in effect — “there you are again— the distance of the sun is 93,000,000  miles.” 

It is  so simple ; but we are not so simple as to believe it, for we have shown in diagram 4 how Ole Roemer deduced that 8 1/2 - minute hypothesis from a mistaken idea of the cause of the difference in the times of the Eclipses of Jupiter’s Satellites  ; and we know that there is no evidence in the world to show that light takes 8 1/2 minutes to come from the sun to the earth, so the altogether erroneous and misconceived hypothesis of Ole Roemer can not be admitted as any kind of evidence and used in conjunction with the calculation of the Velocity of Light as an argument in favour of the ridiculous idea that the sun is ninety-three — or any other number of millions of miles from this world of ours.

All the extraordinary means used by astronomers have failed to discover the real distance of the sun, and the many attempts that have been made have achieved no more result  than if they had never bee done ; that is to say— that it is not to be suppose that they may perhaps be somewhere near the mark but it is to be understood, in the most literal sense the word, that the astronomers of to-day have no more knowledge of the sun’s  real distance than Adam.

"God made the two great lights--the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night--and the stars. God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good." Genesis 1:16-18

Is there anything in this world which is even more stupid and more pathetic than the HC theory itself? Sadly, but we have to admit that there is: those who still believe in such stupidity are more pathetic and more stupid than HC theory!

Sorry, but that is the fact!

Or are they just a shills?

I didn't read much if that, but I did read the part about how you think it's crazy that Earth's axis maintains it's orientation.  The dictionary definition of axis is "the line about which a rotating body, such as the earth, turns.".  In other words: if Earth's axis didn't maintain it's orientation then by definition it wouldn't be an axis.  Saying that it's absurd and stupid that Earth's axis always points the same way is as crazy as saying that it's absurd and stupid that the center of an object is always located in the exact center of that object.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

cikljamas

  • 2174
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #684 on: January 15, 2015, 12:58:27 PM »
To be honest, i can't remember when i was laughing so much in last 10 years of my life. Thanks guys, laughter is one of the best therapeutic method for treating various problems. Strong recomendation!

The wheel is an idea thousands of years old, and just as valid as it ever has been.

The wheel is an example of a good idea.

How about the round earth idea? Grrrrrrrr




Trust your eyes, trust your ears: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">]

@ Lemmiwinks, you should really have to read that book which is older than 50 years, wow, more than 50 years, can you imagine such age?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 01:00:27 PM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2129
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #685 on: January 15, 2015, 01:07:50 PM »

@ Lemmiwinks, you should really have to read that book which is older than 50 years, wow, more than 50 years, can you imagine such age?

I've read plenty of books that are over 50 years old. I just don't base all of my conception of the world and how it works on them. :P
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #686 on: January 15, 2015, 03:09:21 PM »

@ Lemmiwinks, you should really have to read that book which is older than 50 years, wow, more than 50 years, can you imagine such age?

I've read plenty of books that are over 50 years old. I just don't base all of my conception of the world and how it works on them. :P

Apart from those published by Newton, Faraday, Rutherford, Einstein etc.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

*

sokarul

  • 18334
  • Discount Chemist
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #687 on: January 15, 2015, 03:21:44 PM »
Newton was actually wrong. The neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932. But yeah, just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong. But when you have to quote someone from 1500 or 200 BC to try and prove a scientific point you might have a problem.

Quote from: cikljamas
Trust your eyes, trust your ears: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">]
That is the dumbest thing I have seen all year. It's going to be tough to top it even though there is still over 11 months left in the year.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 03:28:09 PM by sokarul »
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #688 on: January 15, 2015, 03:32:23 PM »
Newton was actually wrong. The neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932. But yeah, just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong. But when you have to quote someone from 1500 or 200 BC to try and prove a scientific point you might have a problem.

Quote from: cikljamas
Trust your eyes, trust your ears: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">]
That is the dumbest thing I have seen all year. It's going to be tough to top it even though there is still over 11 months left in the year.
I couldn't watch the whole video.  But right off the bat, he says, look, the light is hitting to bottom of the clouds... which oddly would only happen if we are on a round earth.  We all know that at noon the sun is above the clouds.  If the earth is flat and the sun stays way up yonder, how is it that the sun is shinning on the bottom of the clouds?  Typical FE.  It's like saying ice is not slippery, then saying, look, I'm sliding on the ice, there is no way the ice could be slippery.  At what point are you allowed to call someone an idiot?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 03:36:22 PM by gpssjim »

*

sokarul

  • 18334
  • Discount Chemist
Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« Reply #689 on: January 15, 2015, 03:36:22 PM »
Newton was actually wrong. The neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932. But yeah, just because it's old doesn't mean it's wrong. But when you have to quote someone from 1500 or 200 BC to try and prove a scientific point you might have a problem.

Quote from: cikljamas
Trust your eyes, trust your ears: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">]
That is the dumbest thing I have seen all year. It's going to be tough to top it even though there is still over 11 months left in the year.
I couldn't watch the whole video.  But right of the bat, he says, look, the light is hitting to bottom of the clouds... which oddly would only happen if we are on a round earth.  We all know that at noon the sun is above the clouds.  If the earth is flat and the sun stays way up yonder, how is it that the sun is shinning on the bottom of the clouds?  Typical FE.  It's look saying ice is not slippery, then saying, look, I'm sliding on the ice, there is no way the ice could be slippery.  At what point are you allowed to call someone an idiot?
Yeah he is clueless. I skipped some of it, but towards the end he says the sky turns red at sunset because the sun is moving away, as in red shifting. I even looked at his other videos. I gave up at watching "galaxys don't exist" because he was eating chips and all I could concentrate on was the crunching. I think it's safe to call him an idiot.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.