"Equator" problem

Quote from: markjo on November 02, 2014, 12:09:35 PM

When is the noonday sun ever north of the Tropic of Cancer? 

Pardon me, i have overlooked that word (noonday), i thought he wants to say that the sun is always (at any time of the day) in the south, and the truth is that it is not. But if the HC theory were true, the sun should be generally always south for the observer at latitude 45 degree N (where i live). However, in the summer the sun rises NORTH-EAST, traverses the sky in southern arc, and at the end of the day the sun sets NORTH-WEST (although significantly less north in comparision with a sunrise)...The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH, and from my own experience i can tell you with certainty that the Sun goes in a direction NORTH-SOUTH-NORTH... Totally opposite from what it should be if in the HC theory we could find a shred of truth !!!

@ Alpha2Omega, now you can respond to these words if you want... (and don't forget: you lose, i win)... No place to hide from the obvious truth, not even a rabbit hole, only deliberately self deluded HC mind...

I fixed the nested quote for you.

Answering markjo and "oh by the way" is a slick way to try to sidestep the rest of the points in my previous post. I know you read it because you're responding to part of it here. I presume you must be satisfied with the answers in the post about the EoT since you bring nothing up, and also no response to the explanation why your "closest to the Sun due to the tilt" statement doesn't actually say what you thought it did. Good!

Would you please lose the "deluded" crap and stick to your point? Ad-hominems make you look defensive and unsure of yourself, and your arguments are already weak enough. Also, you're better off holding the "I win" claim until you've actually at least scored some points somewhere other than your own mind. You are, of course, welcome to think that if it makes you feel better, but repeating it over and over here, without basis, makes you look desperate.

Your mistake is clear enough here. Where do you think the HC model says the Sun cannot rise north of due east or set north of due west if you're north of the Tropic of Cancer? It doesn't. The celestial equator intersects the ideal horizon due east and west of you; if the Sun is north of the Equator, it must rise north of due east and set north of due west, no matter where you are. In fact, near the Arctic Circle around the time of the June solstice, it will rise and set almost due north. This isn't a problem and will segue nicely into your "Midnight Sun" mistaken notion if you want to go there.

"The point of this argument is that the arc of the Sun (in the summer) should go in the direction SOUTH-NORTH-SOUTH [according to HC theory]". Why do you think HC says this? Your basis for this idea is simply mistaken due to the confused way you describe the motion of the Earth.

 Here's how you describe it:

Quote

Observational fact
...
At daybreak the NH is rotating in a downwards direction East-East-South until noon where it reverses and travels upwards East-East-North until midnight. The Sun is seen to travel in the sky in the opposite direction which is West-West-North until noon and then West-West-South until midnight. This is a northern arc...

As we can see, this is EXACTLY opposite to how the Sun is seen to traverse the sky. No matter what the season, the Sun in the Northern hemisphere above the Tropic of Cancer NEVER travels in a northern arc… EVER… not in winter, not in fall/spring, not in summer!

After you admit the trueness of above two irrefutable arguments, there will be no need for answering to the next even more compelling argument against fraudulent HC theory:

First of all, the northern hemisphere (NH) isn't rotating south at all. It only rotates eastward (so does the SH, but that doesn't matter here).

Let's presume we're talking about some point north of the Tropic of Cancer (call it "Point A") at around the northern solstice.

A point in the NH will be moving toward the equatorial plane at sunrise, but not southward. At sunrise in the NH, the parallel of latitude Point A is on is angled downward toward the plane of the orbit in the direction the earth is turning. Since the Sun's rays are arriving parallel to the plane of the orbit, they are arriving at Point A from "above" (north of) its latitude. At local solar noon, Point A is moving parallel to the plane of orbit for a moment, but is still north of it (remember, we're north of the Tropic of Cancer, and the plane of the orbit never intersects the surface of the Earth north of there). "Straight up" from Point A is a line from the center of the Earth through Point A, and since the center of the Earth is in the plane of earth's orbit and A is north of the plane, this line will pass north of the Sun; therefore, the Sun appears south of vertical, or "to the south" at noon. At sunset, the parallel is tilted upward in the direction of earth's rotation, away from the Sun, but the Sun is in the opposite direction, so, again, the rays are arriving from the north. So at Point A the Sun appears north of due east at sunrise, due south at noontime, and north of west at sunset. Exactly as we see.

So much for "irrefutable". You were just confused and disproved an incorrect model. Those later arguments no more compelling.

This is why you may want to avoid words like "irrefutable", "proof", etc. Show some humility. You may not be stupid, but you certainly don't seem to be as smart as you think you are, and isn't hubris a sin?

Alpha2Omega, you are such an awesome con artist, congratulations!

Alpha2Omega, you are such an awesome con artist, congratulations!

No answers to specific questions about your understanding of the Heliocentric model, just "you're lying".

That says it all.

Alpha2Omega, you are such an awesome con artist, congratulations!

We all thank you for taking the time and effort to construct this astute, meaningful, insightful rebuttal of Alpha2Omega's comments.

You've well and truly shot him down haven't you?  And here's your gold star...


—See what you can do when you put your mind to it?  Good boy!

If english were my native tongue i wouldn't need to sacrifice too much time to answer to all your lies, but since it is not, i don't intend (whatsoever) to waste my time by answering to obvious, deliberate lies and misconceptions of an con artist such as you. If you want to hear my opinion on your lies just read again what i already wrote on this subject...

Here: some more stuff for a con artist's distortions:

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.

2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations; all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.

2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

Well this is easy. The southern cross is not directly above(or below to northerners) the south pole.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

Even easier as the stars in the southern hemisphere move in exactly the opposite direction.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations; all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.

Yet in the southern hemisphere, stars seems to "circle" around that southern cross just as they do around polaris in the north. There can't be 2 distinct locations in the sky that stars circle on a flat earth unless those stars are what is moving. The behavior they do exhibit are perfectly explained by HC though.

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

Several observation are recorded in both video and photographic mediums.  Last I checked, cameras aren't biased.  Perhaps you could find some proof that the stars move in a pattern indicative of a flat disk instead of a globe.

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.

Evidence, either photographic or video of this?

2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

So you are saying the Great Bear (Ursa Major) is visible from anywhwere north of the equator at any time of night?  The Southern Cross is at 60 degrees, not 89+ degrees like Polaris.  The great bear is located about 55 degrees and spans 20 degrees of the sky and crux is only about 7. 

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

Who is the author?  Any photographic or video evidence of these 'experiments'?

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations; all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.

All known facts I find when searching indicate a south pole, south polar star, southern circumpolar constellations, etc.  Do you have any sources for 'known facts' that indicate otherwise?  Any long exposure photography or time-lapse video that shows the stars moving away into the distance, curving slightly, growing smaller, moving closer together, and a decrease in rate they 'set into', or 'rise out of' the horizon?

If english were my native tongue i wouldn't need to sacrifice too much time to answer to all your lies, but since it is not, i don't intend (whatsoever) to waste my time by answering to obvious, deliberate lies and misconceptions of an con artist such as you. If you want to hear my opinion on your lies just read again what i already wrote on this subject...

I've already carefully read it. Most of it is simply wrong. I'm not calling you a liar, but you definitely are mistaken about most of what you've written.

Here: some more stuff for a con artist's distortions:

We have seen that wherever the motions of the stars are carefully examined, it is found that all are connected, and move in relation to the northern centre of the earth. There is nowhere to be found a "break" in the general connection. Except, indeed, what is called the "proper motion" of certain stars and groups of stars all move in the same general direction, concentric with the north pole, and with velocities increasing with radial distance from it. To remove every possible doubt respecting the motions of the stars from the central north to the most extreme south, a number of special observers, each completely free from the bias of education respecting the supposed rotundity of the earth, might be placed in various southern localities, to observe and record the motions of the well known southern constellation, not in relation to a supposed south pole star, but to the meridian and latitude of each position. This would satisfy a certain number of those who cannot divest themselves of the idea of rotundity, but is not at all necessary for the satisfaction of those who are convinced that the earth is a plane, and that the extreme south is a vast circumference instead of a polar centre. To these the evidence already adduced will be sufficiently demonstrative.

The points of certainty are the following:--

1st.--Wherever the experiment is made the stars in the zenith do not rise, culminate, and set in the same straight line, or plane of latitude, as they would if the earth is a globe.

Any star that crosses the zenith at a fixed point will be at the same declination, equal to the latitude. They all will follow the same path in the sky (an arc, though, not a straight line). This would be the same for both the flat earth you propose and the spinning globe.

[Edit to add] Actually, it wouldn't be the same for your flat earth except fairly high northern latitudes. It wouldn't be at all similar in the southern hemisphere, so I stand corrected on that. What we actually see is consistent with a spherical earth, not the proposed flat one.

2nd.--The Southern Cross is not at all times visible from every point of the southern hemisphere, as the "Great Bear" is from every point in the northern, and as both must necessarily and equally be visible if the earth is globular. In reference to the several cases adduced of the Southern Cross not being visible until the observers had arrived in latitudes 8°, 14°, and 16° south, it cannot be said that they might not have cared to look for it, because we are assured that they "had long wished for it," and therefore must have been strictly on the look out as they advanced southwards. And when the traveller Humboldt saw it "the first time" it was "strongly inclined," and therefore low down on the eastern horizon, and therefore previously invisible, simply because it had not yet risen.

Gacrux, the northernmost star in the Southern Cross asterism, is at declination -57° 06', therefore it will sometimes drop below the horizon, meaning the whole asterism is not visible at all times, if your latitude is north of about 33° S (neglecting refraction). OK so far. The Big Dipper asterism (brightest and most-recognizable part of the constellation Ursa Major - The Great Bear) is not circumpolar (which means at least part of it sets) south of about 41˚ N latitude because Alkaid, at the end of the "handle of the dipper" (or the bear's tail), is at declination +49° 18′. If you really mean the "Great Bear", it extends even further south and isn't visible at all times south of about 59° N latitude since its southernmost star, Alula Australis is at declination about +31°. So, no, you're mistaken again. The "Great Bear" is not "at all times visible from every point of the northern hemisphere". At this time of year, early in the evening from my home in the northern hemisphere, parts of the "Great Bear" are well below the horizon.

Actually, the Southern Cross is circumpolar ("at all times visible") for more of the southern hemisphere than the Big Dipper is for the northern. The entire "Bear" is circumpolar for even less of the northern hemisphere.

3rd.--The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

Is "the author" you, or are you quoting someone else? This doesn't read like your writing style.

4th--The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations; all statements to the contrary are doubtful, inconsistent with known facts, and therefore not admissible as evidence.

"No southern circumpolar constellations"? Really? Whoever reported this to you is, quite simply, wrong. If you really think you observed this yourself, then you either weren't paying attention or really do need a thorough medical checkup.

No one has to take my word for any of this. A lot can be witnessed for yourself (all of it, if you're willing to travel), and all of it can be corroborated from many reliable sources.

[Edit] Reply to 1st. "certainty" amended.

The author of above "successfully" refuted assertions is mr Rowbotham: This is the chapter from which i have extracted above excerpts: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm

As for my own examinations of "The Southern Cross (case)" you can also try to "successfully" analyze these words of mine:
http://www.energeticforum.com/264125-post357.html

So, how come that the Southern Cross makes half of an alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so (which is twice faster than the motion of the Cassiopeia and other northern (truely circumpolar) constellations)

The author of above "successfully" refuted assertions is mr Rowbotham: This is the chapter from which i have extracted above excerpts: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm

So why does all modern video and photography "successfully" refute Mr. Rowbotham's assertions?

As for my own examinations of "The Southern Cross (case)" you can also try to "successfully" analyze these words of mine:
http://www.energeticforum.com/264125-post357.html

So, how come that the Southern Cross makes half of an alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so (which is twice faster than the motion of the Cassiopeia and other northern (truely circumpolar) constellations)

Who's quotes are those in that link?  I'll guess yours since you provided no other source or names.  In that case, what are the sources your quotes are based on?

The author of above "successfully" refuted assertions is mr Rowbotham: This is the chapter from which i have extracted above excerpts: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za48.htm

As for my own examinations of "The Southern Cross (case)" you can also try to "successfully" analyze these words of mine:
http://www.energeticforum.com/264125-post357.html

Oh... Rowbotham. And you call me a con man.

So, how come that the Southern Cross makes half of an alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so (which is twice faster than the motion of the Cassiopeia and other northern (truely circumpolar) constellations)

Have you timed this yourself? If not, why do you think it's true?

You can instantly dismiss the claims of anybody who cites the now debunked "experiments" of Samuel Rowbotham from 150 years ago.  For them to do so—to be so bereft of modern scientific evidence—merely confirms that they've been backed into a corner with not a shred of real evidence to support their claims, whatever they be.

Why is it that no flat earther can cite any experiments suggesting a flat earth from, say, ten years ago, or even fifty years ago?  Is 150-year-old "science" really the best they can come up with?  Does that not characterise desperation?

Just as his flat earth peers continually do, cikljamas is grasping at straws.

So, now your main objection is that Rowbotham's (or someone else's) experiments are just too old, ha? Hahahahhahaha...
Well, these experiments are just a little bit more recent: http://www.energeticforum.com/266709-post615.html

So, now your main objection is that Rowbotham's (or someone else's) experiments are just too old, ha? Hahahahhahaha...
Well, these experiments are just a little bit more recent: http://www.energeticforum.com/266709-post615.html

Please explain angles of sun observed from many places on earth at different times of day.

Quote from: cikljamas on November 04, 2014, 09:49:45 AM

So, now your main objection is that Rowbotham's (or someone else's) experiments are just too old, ha? Hahahahhahaha...
Well, these experiments are just a little bit more recent: http://www.energeticforum.com/266709-post615.html

Please explain angles of sun observed from many places on earth at different times of day.

Please post the data from your experiments.  Thanks. 

1. It IS commonly taught that the tides are caused by lunar attraction. Sir Robert Ball tells us that :

"The moon attracts the solid body of the earth with greater intensity than it attracts the water at the other side which lies more distant from it. The earth is thus drawn away from the water, which accordingly exhibits a high tide as well on the side of the earth away from the moon as on that toward the moon. The low tides occupy the intermediate positions."

No one who has the use of all his faculties and who dares to use them, need be told that this flimsy apology for what the learned cannot account for, contradicts itself. How could this attraction take place without disintegrating the globe? Besides, as the law of gravitation is said to operate according to the amount of matter of which each body consists, the statements of astronomers that the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter and the earth 8,000 miles in diameter flatly contradict their own other statements about the moon causing tides. How can the smaller body attract the larger We are informed in "Sun, Moon, and Stars," pages 160 to 163, that :

"The earth, it is true, attracts the moon. So also the moon attracts the earth ; THOUGH THE FAR GREATER WEIGHT OF THE EARTH MAKES HER ATTRACTION TO BE FAR GREATER."

How anyone can accept the current theory in face of the above is somewhat puzzling. Sir R. Ball says the moon attracts the solid body of the earth ; but the work from which I have just quoted states that :

"Her attraction (the moon's) draws up the yielding waters of the ocean in a vast wave."

Both these assertions cannot be true. Which is ? I say neither. And the astronomers' own theory of attraction also answers "neither," when it is taken into consideration that the moon cannot attract the earth, being a much smaller body. But if the moon lifted up the waters, it is evident that near the land, the water would be drawn away and low, instead of high tide, caused. Again, the velocity and path of the moon are uniform, and it follows that if she exerted any influence on the earth, that influence could only be a uniform influence. But the tides are not uniform. At Port Natal the rise and fall is about six feet, while at Beira, about 600 miles up the coast, the rise and fall is 26 feet. This effectually settles the matter that the moon has no influence on the tides.

How then are tides caused? The learned being as far from the truth in this as in every matter which we have brought to the test of the hard logic of facts, what is the
truth of the matter ?

The Leicester Daily Post, of 25th August, 1892, says :

" M. Bouquet de la Grye, an eminent hydrographical Engineer, has after long yearsof study calculated the atmospheric expansions and depressions which coincide with spring and neap tides. There have been cases in which air was moved in waves of 133 yards high, and in places where the barometrical pressure was seven-tentns ot an inch, ot six and a half miles. Near the upper surface of the earth's atmosphere condensations and dilations of this magnitude are trequent. The human nervous system may be said to register these air waves. We are only aware that they do so by the discomfort which we feel. The earth also registers them and to its very centre. The incandescent and fluid matter under the earth's crust acts in concert with the air and sea at the full of the moon. In 1889 a German Scientist, Dr. Rebeur Pachwitz, thought he noticed at Wilhelmshaven and Potsdam earth oscillations corresponding with the course of the moon. He wrote to the observatory at Tenerife asking for observations to be ma.de there in December, 1890 and April, 1891, which would be propitious times for them. From these observations and others simultanously made in the sandy plains round Berlin, IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE Earth RISES AND FALLS LIKE THE OCEAN OR THE ATMOSPHERE. The movements, common to them all, may be likened to the chest in breathing. — Paris Correspondent Weekly Dispatch."

This is the answer to the question. Tides are caused by the gentle and gradual rise and fall of the earth on the bosom of the mighty deep. In inland lakes, there are no tides ; which also proves that the moon cannot attract either the earth or water to cause tides. But the fact that the basin of the lake is on the earth which rests on the waters of the deep, shows that no tides are possible, as the waters of the lakes together with the earth rise and fall, and thus the tides at the coast are caused ; while there are no tides on waters unconnected with the sea.


2. If, for example, the world be the globe of popular belief, it is impossible that there ever could have been a universal flood. For such a thing to have happened, it would be required to blot out the whole universe, to stop the revolution of the globe and to bring confusion and ruin to the whole of the "solar system."

http://www.energeticforum.com/255859-post9.html

The most important geological discovery in the history of the world that has been covered up and still being covered up: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">ARK on Mt. Ararat: WHY the media BLACKOUT on the real history of Ararat?

This

1. It IS commonly taught that the tides are caused by lunar attraction. Sir Robert Ball tells us that :

...

Before we move on to the high tide of misunderstanding, can you answer my question about the six hours of Crux, please?

[Edit to add] Here is the question, in case you missed it:

Quote from: cikljamas on November 03, 2014, 12:02:24 PM

So, how come that the Southern Cross makes half of an alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so (which is twice faster than the motion of the Cassiopeia and other northern (truely circumpolar) constellations)

Have you timed this yourself? If not, why do you think it's true?

One topic at a time, please. Focus!

Because this enormously important discovery proves that:

1. The Earth is flat

2. There was no f...ing moon-landings whatsoever....

3. The entire modern cosmology is a fairy tale at best

4. The Bible is a 100 % true - authentic Word of God

5. There is a huge conspiracy of world elites against the true Word of God and humanity

6. The theory of evolution of men is an utter LIE

7. The theory of evolution of cosmos is an utter LIE

8. The big bang theory is a fairy tale

9. The theory of relativity is a bull-s h i t (invented to cover up the fact that the Earth is at rest - Einstein even admitted it (between the lines))

10. The theory of gravitation is a bull-s h i t (invented with purpose to cover up the fact that the Earth is at rest (no orbital motion))

11. You currently live in a Truman reality show

12. Big Brother is your real enemy

13. Pope Francis is a mason and the worst antipope who has ever sited in St. Peters chair

IT IS TIME FOR WAKING UP, AND YES, I AM TALKING TO YOU PERSONALLY!!!

P.S. Alpha2Omega, focus on this!!! Use your talents in right direction! Time is limited!!! We should co-operate! It's about your ass too, believe it or not!

<Video about Noah's Ark and who knows what else>

P.S. Alpha2Omega, focus on this!!! Use your talents in right direction! Time is limited!!! We should co-operate! It's about your ass too, believe it or not!

You haven't answered the question about Crux yet!!! You're the one who brought it up.

In case you missed it originally and the last time I copied it:

Quote from: cikljamas on November 03, 2014, 12:02:24 PM

So, how come that the Southern Cross makes half of an alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so (which is twice faster than the motion of the Cassiopeia and other northern (truely circumpolar) constellations)

Have you timed this yourself? If not, why do you think it's true?

After that was the impossibility of tides being caused by the Moon.

Now something about Noah's Ark proving or disproving a bunch of stuff.

Stay Calm and Focus!!!

Once and for all: i do not answer to idiotic questions...it doesn't mean that you are an idiot...but since you are not an idiot and you still pose an idiotic questions, we cannot not to be quite amazed with the way of conducting yourself...

Once and for all: i do not answer to idiotic questions...it doesn't mean that you are an idiot...but since you are not an idiot and you still pose an idiotic questions, we cannot not to be quite amazed with the way of conducting yourself...

Dude! You asked a question. I need more information to answer it. I can guess what you think is happening and what actually is, but getting important information about this observation from the one who asked how it can be explained would be better than guessing, don't you think?

Here is your question (bolded) in context:

As for my own examinations of "The Southern Cross (case)" you can also try to "successfully" analyze these words of mine:
http://www.energeticforum.com/264125-post357.html

So, how come that the Southern Cross makes half of an alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so (which is twice faster than the motion of the Cassiopeia and other northern (truely circumpolar) constellations)

Before I can give an answer to your question I need more information. OK?

My question to you, phrased slightly differently, is:
Did you measure this six hours for Crux to travel halfway around its circumpolar path yourself? Yes or no?

Follow on, to save time since you seem to be in a panic:
Where was this observation made from (whether you made it yourself or someone else did)? It doesn't have to be exact; a country (and region if it's large) should be sufficient. If you don't know, you can say that.

So what are the answers?

If you're not interested in following up on this, I can only conclude that you or whoever claimed this is simply mistaken (again) about what he saw or thought he saw. Crux does not travel halfway around the pole in six hours. No evidence exists that suggests that it does. Right now there is only an unsubstantiated claim by an unknown person on the Internet.

If you're not interested in following up on this, then why did you ask the friggin' question in the first place?

This sentence..."Tonight (14/5/04), the Southern Cross will be tilted to the left in the early evening, straight up and down at around 9:45 pm and tilted over to the right by midnight."...you can find here : http://www.csiro.au/helix/sciencemail/activities/crux.html ... and here: http://blackheathscouts.westernwarriorsjudo.com/index.php/navigating

These sentences..."Because the Southern Cross is so low in the sky and close to the South Celestial Pole, its path in the sky is short. From the time it rises to the time it begins to set, it is only in the sky for around six hours, whereas objects that rise closer to due east and set due west take approximately 12 hours to traverse the sky. In other words, don't expect to see the Southern Cross in the sky all evening." .... you can find here: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Feb/24/ln/hawaii802240344.html

In this post you can find link to an amazing time-lapse video which proves that in just six hours the Crux changes it's position from being tilted to the left to the position in which the Crux is tilted over to the right : http://www.energeticforum.com/263712-post273.html

1. The Crux is not visible in the late spring evenings (late september, october, early november) north of 34 degree South!!!

2. Casiopeia (northern alleged counterpart constellation) is visible on any clear night of the year from most location in the northern "hemisphere"!!!

Satisfied?

This sentence..."Tonight (14/5/04), the Southern Cross will be tilted to the left in the early evening, straight up and down at around 9:45 pm and tilted over to the right by midnight."...you can find here : http://www.csiro.au/helix/sciencemail/activities/crux.html ... and here: http://blackheathscouts.westernwarriorsjudo.com/index.php/navigating

These sentences..."Because the Southern Cross is so low in the sky and close to the South Celestial Pole, its path in the sky is short. From the time it rises to the time it begins to set, it is only in the sky for around six hours, whereas objects that rise closer to due east and set due west take approximately 12 hours to traverse the sky. In other words, don't expect to see the Southern Cross in the sky all evening." .... you can find here: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Feb/24/ln/hawaii802240344.html

I'll take that as a "no", you didn't time it yourself, so you're taking someone else's word for it. No matter, though, since we now know where this was happening and six hours sounds about right.

The answer to the second question appears to be "Hawaii". I had guessed "from about 20° North latitude", so would have been close.

The planetarium program Stellarium* predicts on 14 May (guessing the "04" in "14/5/04" is the year 2004) the last star of the Southern Cross clears the horizon, with the cross leaning to the left, a bit before sunset from 20° N, culminates almost exactly 3 hours later (straight up and down), and sets 3 hours after that, leaning to the right, making the entire asterism visible for almost exactly six hours. Throw in some real-world atmospheric refraction and height above sea level, and you'll probably get that same six hours from a bit further north (like, say, Honolulu).

Now that this has been established, you need to know that the Southern Cross is not circumpolar at this latitude. It may be news to you, but in this context "circumpolar" does not mean "near the pole". It means "does not set" from a particular latitude. In fact, your own point below supports that Crux sets, and, thus, is not circumpolar, from Honolulu!!!

1. The Crux is not visible in the late spring evenings (late september, october, early november) north of 34 degree South!!!

It's above the horizon even less of the time as you go further north, too, reduced to about six hours per day by the time you reach 20° N or so. Exactly as you'd expect from a spherical earth!!! Whoever thought that its time above the horizon from Honolulu represented "half its circumpolar nightly circle" is wrong. It's only one-quarter of the circle; the rest of the circle is not visible because it's below the horizon.

In this post you can find link to an amazing time-lapse video which proves that in just six hours the Crux changes it's position from being tilted to the left to the position in which the Crux is tilted over to the right : http://www.energeticforum.com/263712-post273.html

Tilting to the left to tilting to the right has never been an issue; you're just watching it rotate around the south pole. It doesn't turn anywhere close to 180°, though, so we're looking at far less than half its daily rotation about the pole.

Note that the linked time lapse is from 28° North latitude, but from high altitude, so Acrux is above the horizon further north than you'd expect from sea level with no atmospheric refraction. How can you tell the time lapse shows it for six hours, though? I think it's probably less.

2. Casiopeia (northern alleged counterpart constellation) is visible on any clear night of the year from most location in the northern "hemisphere"!!!

Citation needed.

The familiar 'W' or "throne" asterism of "Cass" has almost exactly the same range of declinations in the northern hemisphere as the Cross of Crux has in the southern. Thus, they will both become circumpolar at about the same latitudes in their respective hemispheres. All of "Cass" is visible all night on any clear night of the year only from north of about 33° N.

Satisfied?

Very, thanks.  You?


* I was having some trouble with the stellarium.org website today. If it fails, the program can be downloaded from http://stellarium.en.softonic.com/, and probably elsewhere. It's an awesome program that lets you see what is in the sky and where it is, from any location and time. Set your location as Honolulu and the date to early May, speed up the time and watch Crux skim the southern horizon starting around sunset.

These sentences..."Because the Southern Cross is so low in the sky and close to the South Celestial Pole, its path in the sky is short. From the time it rises to the time it begins to set, it is only in the sky for around six hours, whereas objects that rise closer to due east and set due west take approximately 12 hours to traverse the sky. In other words, don't expect to see the Southern Cross in the sky all evening." .... you can find here: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2008/Feb/24/ln/hawaii802240344.html

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. The Honolulu Advertiser (now the Star-Advertiser) is a mainstream daily newspaper in a large American city. Is it OK to use "the media" for factual information now, or, since what they reported here, although accurate, didn't turn out to contradict conventional spherical-earth heliocentric models, they can't be trusted again?

Come now, you should know that the lamestream media is just a mouthpiece for the conspiracy. 

I am tired of heliocentric lies!

1. On the celestial sphere, Crux is exactly opposite the constellation Cassiopeia. (source : http://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-list/crux-constellation/)

2.  In the Northern hemisphere Cassiopeia never sets below the horizon, as a result it is visible all year in the night sky. (source : http://www.solarsystemquick.com/universe/cassiopeia-constellation.htm)

3. Some stars within the far northern constellations, such as Cassiopeia, Cepheus, Ursa Major, and Ursa Minor, roughly north of the Tropic of Cancer (+23½°), will be circumpolar stars that never rise or set. (source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_star)

4. The constellation is circumpolar south of 34 degrees S latitude and visible every night of the year, though it’s best viewed high overhead in the early evening from April through June.  During these months, south of the Tropic of Cancer (23.5 degrees N latitude), northern-hemisphere stargazers can glimpse the Southern Cross– just barely, above the southern horizon. - See more at: http://oneminuteastronomer.com/1976/legends-southern-cross/#sthash.ZmOW3e4S.dpuf

5. Cassiopeia is visible on any clear night of the year from most locations in the northern hemisphere. For amateur stargazers, September through March are the optimal months for spotting Cassiopeia. In the southern hemisphere, the constellation is visible from May to August at locations north of the Tropic of Capricorn (23.5 degrees south latitude). (source : http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/how-to-identify-the-constellation-of-cassiopeia-in-the-night-sky-2648/)

A) So, we can see Casiopeia all year long above the tropic of cancer (at least) which is 23,5 degree N, but north of 34 degree S Crux is not circumpolar constellation, how come?

B) In the southern "hemisphere" Casiopeia is visible from may to august at location north of 23,5 degree S, but in northern hemisphere Crux is visible from april to june (tropical regions), but from tropic of cancer only from may to june! Where this huge difference comes from?

C) "Tonight (14/5/04), the Southern Cross will be tilted to the left in the early evening, straight up and down at around 9:45 pm and tilted over to the right by midnight.". This is not half a circle you say? Of course it's not, since Crux is not circumpolar constellation at all!

Now, stop lying and come back to the Earth!

Explain us how the great deluge could have happened on the round Earth?

1. The Earth is flat

2. There was no f...ing moon-landings whatsoever....

3. The entire modern cosmology is a fairy tale at best

4. The Bible is a 100 % true - authentic Word of God

5. There is a huge conspiracy of world elites against the true Word of God and humanity

6. The theory of evolution of men is an utter LIE

7. The theory of evolution of cosmos is an utter LIE

8. The big bang theory is a fairy tale

9. The theory of relativity is a bull-s h i t (invented to cover up the fact that the Earth is at rest - Einstein even admitted it (between the lines))

10. The theory of gravitation is a bull-s h i t (invented with purpose to cover up the fact that the Earth is at rest (no orbital motion))

11. You currently live in a Truman reality show

12. Big Brother is your real enemy

13. Pope Francis is a mason and the worst antipope who has ever sited in St. Peters chair

IT IS TIME FOR WAKING UP, AND YES, I AM TALKING TO YOU PERSONALLY!!!

I'm thinking that by posting this ludicrous listing of fantasies, at the very least you've proven to everybody on these forums that you have absolutely zero knowledge of the earth sciences, astrophysics and geophysics, mathematics, biology, chemistry, mechanics, astronomy, meteorology, history etc.

You know; all the resources that educated, rational, enlightened, sane people draw upon to form accurate opinions of what's going on in our universe.  You appear to be living in some strange, distorted, and isolated world of your own making if you seriously believe even a couple of the delusional claims in your list.

Other than that?  I congratulate you for being possibly one of the most successful TROLLS on these forums.  Well done.  10/10.

Yes, i understand you, you participate in a Truman reality show from the very beginning of your life (as we all do), and it is not easy, by no means, to clear out your (or anyone's) mind from such a confusion which (heliocentrism + theory of evolution + international space programs + ufo hoax +  the rest of SF (hollywood) bull s h i t s) has been seeded into the minds of every innocent child who has had "a privilege" to be born in our modern "scientific" era of shameful, disgusting lies and deceptions.

LIE BRINGS FORTH DEATH! Just ask yourself which century was the bloodiest (BY FAR) in human history?

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/why-the-20th-century-was-the-bloodiest-of-all/



http://www.energeticforum.com/254609-post19.html MUST READ

However, there is a way out of this universally disseminated delirium of lunatics: just follow the proofs wherever they lead you...

Oh, i know, i ask too much of you, sorry... In that case: stay where you are and enjoy perverted reality, one and only (no matter how illusive) reality which your deluded mind is able to accept!

You have nothing to say on "the great deluge" fact which is the last nail in the heliocentric coffin ?

Of course you don't!

I love when crazies start their posting in a seemingly intelligent, if misinformed, manner, and once instructed on their mistaken information, they devolve into full on pant-on-head crazy.