If you carried out careful analysis of this argument...QuoteIf the Earth is immovable, a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with FET, if the Earth is movable a shape of the Earth MUST BE in accordance with RET.
Everything depends on whether the Earth is immovable or not!!!
My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1655872#msg1655872)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1669224#msg1669224)
...you couldn't miss to bring one and only possible conclusion : The Earth is at rest!
Only, there is one condition: You have to be honest a.k.a. brave, so to be able to allow yourself to follow evidence wherever they may lead you.
Let's see how and when you are going to fulfill this condition...
it would go across the sky one way then at around the normal sunset time it would reverse directions.
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?
Actually he is the only one lying, either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which. Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle, and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.
Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?
Actually he is the only one lying, either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which. Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle, and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.
Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.
But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)
Nice try, but I'm not taking the bait. You are trying to divert attention from your inability to comprehend simple spatial relationships as exemplified by your zigzag theory. ( And the sun is 93 million miles away )
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,
So he is saying all of the pictures from the Nordics, Iceland Russia Canada, Alaska and so forth are all wrong and everybody is lying?
Actually he is the only one lying, either through ignorance or malice, I can't say which. Simply put moving your hand in a circle, isn't the same as rotating, and moving in a circle, and the diameter of the earth is far too small compared with the distance to the sun.
Zigzag might make a good argument against the close small sun theory.
But the Sun IS close to the Earth (very close, INDEED)!!!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1675999#msg1675999)
Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : (http://)
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : (http://)
i didn't understand nothing so it's probably wrong = too complicated life is simple explanation of life are simple math=complicated=wrong.Measuring the Sun on the Flat Earth : (http://)
The Flat Earth & who sees the sun? : (http://)
You have to stop watching those BS youtube videos. Try to watch real educational videos on each topic, that way you'll be less likely to be fooled
(http://)
Modestman, of course it's wrong, see this :Nice sleight of hand. The author [Rowbotham, presumably] charges that corrections to the elevation angle measured for a celestial body are needed, and applied, but the phenomenon being measured in the partly-described experiment is mostly change in azimuth. He then simply declares, after an (IMO) intentionally confusing explanation of one of the corrections, that the experiment is invalid.
http://i.imgur.com/RwWFnbf.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/RwWFnbf.jpg)
http://i.imgur.com/QrSzn48.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/QrSzn48.jpg)
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
Perfect proof, of what I was saying about idiotic and incompetent youtube authors. But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
Perfect proof, of what I was saying about idiotic and incompetent youtube authors. But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:
(http://)
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.
Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
Perfect proof, of what I was saying about idiotic and incompetent youtube authors. But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:
(http://)
i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.
You are consistent, maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther, I've not seen you help their cause at all, you make them look as stupid as you are.
And your contribution is to make all the flat earthers looks like dumbass idiots who hate science, just because they can't read and it hurts to think.i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.
You are consistent, maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther, I've not seen you help their cause at all, you make them look as stupid as you are.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
Perfect proof, of what I was saying about idiotic and incompetent youtube authors. But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:
(http://)
I was looking for some stationary Earth proofs on youtube and came across your "zig-zag" explanation that although looked weird at first sight, after a little bit thinking became so obvious that I felt really bad for not noticing it before by myself.
Next thing I was here on this forum and registered just to say - thank you ... for opening my eyes and giving me (and probably the whole world if they only want to see) proof for something that always felt wrong ...
With hope that my english was not too confusing,
best regards and greetings from Serbia
Goran
i hope people will understand that you are nothing here but a salesman and you are tendentiousAnd your contribution is to make all the flat earthers looks like dumbass idiots who hate science, just because they can't read and it hurts to think.i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.
You are consistent, maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther, I've not seen you help their cause at all, you make them look as stupid as you are.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
Big word for a little brain, must have short circuited a braincell with that effort.i hope people will understand that you are nothing here but a salesman and you are tendentiousAnd your contribution is to make all the flat earthers looks like dumbass idiots who hate science, just because they can't read and it hurts to think.i have a lot of limits i am trying to find sources of information but the internet has nothing about flat earth so there are we in this forum and i am waiting for somebody to elaborate me.you are doing nothing but argueing not a single of research whether it possible the earth is flat you have no intention to think that the earth is flat you just came here to lecture.Don't encourage him,he is the enemy.
You are consistent, maybe you are a shill, pretending to be a flat earther, I've not seen you help their cause at all, you make them look as stupid as you are.
because of that i treat you like an enemy because you are not contributing at all just casting on us bullshit.
2. PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORDS WRITTEN WITH RED LETTERS :You're exactly right. We wouldn't expect this and we don't see it.
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,
but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, ALSO!!!
Would you please keep to a single topic in a post? More words in red. Pay attention! Next you move to some nonsense about bridges and stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with the earlier content in this post, and, thus "My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!" (topic.)
Focus! Focus!
2. PAY ATTENTION TO THE WORDS WRITTEN WITH RED LETTERS :You're exactly right. We wouldn't expect this and we don't see it.
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,Quotebut we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, ALSO!!!
You have never explained why this should be so. Remember to pay attention to the words written in red letters! Your repeated attempts at explaining this always try to ignore the rotation of the Earth. They fail because of this.
Would you please keep to a single topic in a post? More words in red. Pay attention! Next you move to some nonsense about bridges and stuff which has absolutely nothing to do with the earlier content in this post, and, thus "My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!!" (topic.)
Focus! Focus!
Rotation boils down to the lateral displacement, you can't deny that
because it's obvious.
Moreover, that (lateral displacement) is the same reason why you claim we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG even if the Earth rotated, since the Sun is so <redacted> far away.
Then i say this : if it were so, then you wouldn't be able to see what we see : a huge (180 degree) daily motion of the Sun across the sky.
Then you go again saying that we would be able to see it (even if the Sun were so far away) because lateral displacement is not the same as rotation.
Then i could argue like this : o.k., if lateral displacement is not the same as rotation then we have to see ZIGZAG in the sky no matter if the Sun is 92 million miles far away from us or if it is any other number (of miles) in question . But i won't say that, because i don't need to play with you the same kind of stupid games that you try to play with me all along.
To every sane man, it is perfectly clear that my ZIGZAG argument is 100 % reliable proof against the rotation of the Earth!
If you can stand that, deliver a quick hard blow to your own reflection in the mirror, and keep up doing so (a good job) as long as it takes for your stuborn brain to admit the undeniable truth : ZIGZAG argument has put this question (the rotation of the earth, yes or no?) beyond any possible doubt, once and for all times!
Punch yourself in the face, you deserve it!
Focus, focus!!! ;D
P.S. As for the bridges, they are perfectly in accordance with Eratosthenes measurements, only you are not so lucid to recognize obvious implications and connotations!
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.
But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.
No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!
Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:
When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!
Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle) for 24 hours continuously, in the moment of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.
This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)
So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!
Enjoy the truth!
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.
But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.
No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!
Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:
When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!
Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle) for 24 hours continuously, in the moment of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.
This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)
So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!
Enjoy the truth!
Interesting view. Difficult to visualize.
Is it possible to show this in a built 3-D model?
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.
But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.
No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!
Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:
When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!
Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle) for 24 hours continuously, in the moment of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.
This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)
So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!
Enjoy the truth!
Interesting view. Difficult to visualize.
Is it possible to show this in a built 3-D model?
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 09:06:17 AM by cikljamas »
QuoteQuote from: Rayzor on May 19, 2015, 10:08:40 AMQuoteQuote from: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 09:02:11 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
Perfect proof, of what I was saying about idiotic and incompetent youtube authors. But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:
(http://)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 03:53:09 AM by cikljamas »
I've already explained my ZIGZAG argument in many different ways, and there is no real need for offering any additional explanation as far as any sane person is concerned.
But, maybe somebody would like to see this kind of an explanation, just to be sure even more than 100 %, that there is no escape from the trueness and devastating effects (for RET) of this absolutely undeniable argument.
No matter to which exact cause you would like to assign (to give credit for) the Sun's huge "apparent" daily motion (in such a large arc) in the sky (apart from the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth), or how you would like to name it ("the rotation of the earth" or "Alpha is a liar" or "Mikey is an idiot" or whatever other name you could come up with... ), NOBODY CAN DENY THAT THERE IS THE SUN'S HUGE DAILY "APPARENT" MOTION IN THE SKY, as we witness it every day!!!
Now, since we've just excluded (theoretically) the Sun's own independent motion above the stationary Earth as a possible reason for the Sun's "apparent" huge daily motion in the sky in such a large arc, you don't have to worry any more, up until you read the next sentence:
When you reach the turning point position (6am/6pm) on a rotating globe, you CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF ROTATION with respect to the Sun (from Right to Left or from Left to Right), no doubts about that!
Now, since you are within the Arctic circle (that is to say within 24 degrees from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis), you can observe the Sun (which is 40 degrees out (south) of the edge of the Arctic circle) for 24 hours continuously, in the moment of reaching the turning point the Sun should (by necessity) stop, and start to ("apparently") travel in an opposite direction across the sky.
This same principle should be applied (during Northern Winter) to all celestial "bodies" which are more than 24 degrees declined from the vertical line of an alleged Earth's axis, that is to say, to all celestial "bodies" which verticals (perpendicular lines with respect to the position of the observer on the Earth) intersect latitudes southern of the line of Arctic edge (lower than 66 degrees Northern latitude.)
So, no ZIGZAG, no ROTATION of the Earth, whatsoever!
Enjoy the truth!
Interesting view. Difficult to visualize.
Is it possible to show this in a built 3-D model?
Post No #21 (previous page) :QuoteMy ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
« Last Edit: May 19, 2015, 09:06:17 AM by cikljamas »
Post No # 24 (previous page) :QuoteQuoteQuote from: Rayzor on May 19, 2015, 10:08:40 AMQuoteQuote from: cikljamas on May 19, 2015, 09:02:11 AM
My ZIGZAG argument has been already recognized by many men, as a 100% reliable and valid proof against the rotation of the Earth.
This is just one more instance : #t=13m38s (http://#t=13m38s)
Perfect proof, of what I was saying about idiotic and incompetent youtube authors. But in the grand scheme of things, at least there are no hollow spaceship moons and reptillian nazis.
Well, you are right to the certain extent, these guys make a lot of mistakes, because they don't study those things very carefully. Even Rory Cooper makes many mistakes, although i appreciate very much his effort in undertaking this youtube-project which represents BASICALLY-CORRECT video-animation of my ZIGZAG argument:
(http://)
« Last Edit: May 20, 2015, 03:53:09 AM by cikljamas »
ZIGZAG ARGUMENT - 100 % proof against "the rotation of the Earth" hypothesis (my own video) : (http://)
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
However, I have done something similar to what you are proposing, in this video:
ZIGZAG demonstration : (http://)
You need to make the experiment to scale. A not to scale experiment is worthless in this case as distances matter.The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
However, I have done something similar to what you are proposing, in this video:
ZIGZAG demonstration : (http://)
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?
Are you going to redo the experiment to scale?The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?
It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!
The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!
So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!
Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?
It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!
The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!
So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!
Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!
Are you going to redo the experiment to scale?
I did the calculation quickly.
For a 6 inch diameter light for the sun:
The camera should be 16 meters away and move back and forth 0.7 mm.(the equator's radius was used.)
Hope this helps.
Let us know when you post the video.
Please learn to read so you don't look like a fool.Are you going to redo the experiment to scale?
Once again, sokarul is asking someone to do something "to scale" without clarifying what that scale is. It is like telling someone to drive for a distance and then turn left, without specifying the distance.
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?
It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!
The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!
So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!
Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!
Kuddos for you not to listen to all those gravity freaks who believe that they know how the world works.
Could you please show me a picture of the eye in the ball. I'm thinking of doing the same experiment.
Cikl's shaky hand moving a camera around in a circle pointed at a light bulb in the same room shows nothing.The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
However, I have done something similar to what you are proposing, in this video:
ZIGZAG demonstration : (http://)
You have to visualize it, so this video is worthwhile watching.
Where exactly is the eye of the video camera? Do you have a picture of it or a video of the tilted ball rotating?
The second part of the video is still a 'point of view'. No proof. Observation is what we want, right?
I would suggest to build in a video camera in a tilted turning ball with a fixed bulb-light in the corner of the room.
Would that work?
It is not a "point of view", it is 100 % sure and irrefutable argument!!!
And you seriously think that you alone have made the greatest discovery in the history of mankind? Really?
It's not so great discovery, it's just a very simple method that can be very efficiently used for the purpose of dispelling any possible doubts in the mind of every average man in the world that there is still some chance that the Earth rotates. No, there is no chance for such stupid hypothesis (in the first place) to be true representation of what occurs in our reality, at least NOT ANY MORE!!!
The simplicity of this undeniable and irrefutable argument is one of the best characteristics of my ZIGZAG argument!!!
So, no need for big words, just look at the argument. Moreover, it is just one among many other arguments of the same kind. However, a trueness of ZIGZAG argument is really obvious at the first sight, that is (simplicity) what really constitutes the beauty of this argument!
Enjoy the truth, and don't be jealous on me, they won't give me a Nobel Prize, they will just hate me, but that is the true prise, when Satanists hate you, it just means that you are absolutely right!
Kuddos for you not to listen to all those gravity freaks who believe that they know how the world works.
Could you please show me a picture of the eye in the ball. I'm thinking of doing the same experiment.
Had you carefully read and comprehended what i wrote in post #40 (the first post at this very page) then you wouldn't have need any additional experiment in order to convince yourself that my ZIGZAG argument is absolutely plausible and reliable proof against the rotation of the earth!!!
Would a scale model show the same result?no
Is there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?yes
Would a scale model show the same result?noQuoteIs there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?yes
And? Why make assumptions about his answers?Would a scale model show the same result?noQuoteIs there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?yes
I'm not asking you.
And? Why make assumptions about his answers?Would a scale model show the same result?noQuoteIs there a video on youtube that clearly shows the movements of the midnight sun during 24 hours close to the North pole circle?yes
I'm not asking you.
You said yourself zigzag would not be seen on a round Earth with a sun 93million miles away.
The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).
Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.If you want to demonstrate this zigzag nonsense for a flat Earth, yes, move the light closer (not sure why you would want to do that though, since you claim Earth is flat and zigzag is not observed in reality)
I know what scares you!
The whole scientific community agrees that the Earth rotates, revolves around the Sun, that the Earth is tilted 23,5 degrees with respect to the ecliptic, the spatial orientation of Earth's "axis" is fixed with respect to something in a proximity of Polaris, one (366th) annual (sidereal) rotation of the Earth almost perfectly matches a period of 365 days (no matter for how many millions of miles they artificially enlarge (or shrink) Earth's orbit (they just increase (or decrease) Earth's orbital speed)), etc.,etc.,etc...
And now comes Cikljamas and says : that's all bullshit!
Not only that, Cikljamas offers you a very simple and undeniable, irrefutable argument which is able to scatter all heliocentric wet dreams once and for all.
Well, that's outrage[ou]s and unacceptable.
Shall we survey their (HC) objections to my ZIGZAG argument once more?
Their only objection is that we couldn't notice ZIGZAG (which REs claim that it (ZIGZAG) exists, (because they know it would be inevitable geometrical consequence of HC stupid theory, if it were true), only (according to them) we can't notice it because the Sun is so far away and his parallax for the observer on the Earth is so small).
What to answer to that?
Their objection is absolutely meaningless!!!
I've already pointed out this many times, so it is ridiculous that i have to repeat it so often,
but it seems that we have to parrot it (again and again) untill last idiot become able to grasp this utterly simple concept.
If the Sun's parallax (ZIGZAG) were so small, we wouldn't be able to observe such a large arc of Sun's daily path in the sky, also.Since the effects of parallax and rotation are independent, this is an erroneous claim, as has been patiently explained again and again. cikljamas apparently ignores this explanation, but refuses to explain why he ignores it.
That is why we don't need any additional experiment which would demonstrate the trueness of this argument, and which would convince us that validity of my ZIGZAG argument is absolutely undisputable.
So, before any sane and honest person tried to bring forth/pull out a "small parallax" objection (against my ZIGZAG argument), such person firstly should have to discard our/his/her daily experiences of Sun's motion in the sky in a large arc (from East to West), which lasts for many hours (sometimes for more than 16,5 hours (for instance at latitude, 51 degrees N - summer time (London)), and to accept that such daily experiences of ours are pure imagination, and nothing else but imagination.
When you see the Sun going from East to West, what is heliocentrist's answer concerning the possible cause of this phenomena?
They say it happens due to Earth's rotation FROM WEST to EAST!!!
THAT SETTLES THE MATTER!!!
Why? How?
Don't you see it, at the first glance?
If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?
The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).
That is why we don't need any additional demonstration.
Regarding their proposition of doing my ZIGZAG demonstration "to scale", in that case i should make a much larger wheel or come closer to the source of light (instead of vice versa), but since coming closer to the source of light wouldn't make a big difference, the only solution is to sit on a big carousel and observe some source of light which is very close to that big carousel.
That would be "to scale", having in mind the real/true ratio regarding the true dimension of the Sun vs the true dimension of the Earth, and regarding the real distance between the Sun and the Earth!!!
Once the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...
Five orders of magnitude, wow, i am trembling...hahaha...That's not five orders of magnitude. Five orders of magnitude would be 200,000 as how you write it or 200.000 or Americans.
So, it is not 0,002, it's 0,010, ha?
Alpha-liar,Wow! Just how important do you think you are? Seriously.
Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?
I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)Who? A being that doesn't exist?
Now, something about your stupid lies:See, there's what you're missing. If you stand fixed and facing outward on the carousel, facing away from the light source 20 km away. After about 1/4 turn of the carousel while you're still facing directly outward, the distant light source starts to come into your field of view (it was behind you at the start, remember?). For the next 1/4 turn, the light source moves across your field of vision until it's in the middle of it as you continue to stand facing outward. You didn't change your position relative to the carousel - you're still facing directly outward - but the rotation of the carousel is rotating you, too. For the next 1/4 turn, the light continues to move across your field of vision until it disappears out the opposite side it entered from.
If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?
The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.
Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.If we use the Sun to define our frame of reference, it is stationary by definition. The rotating Earth causes the apparent daily motion of the stationary (by definition) Sun across our sky. Whether the entire frame is stationary or not is irrelevant, as long as it isn't accelerating.
No, I don't know that's wrong. How is that wrong? Please explain after you've calmed down.QuoteOnce the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350)Yeah, I'm not quite sure the point of that link, either. It might be nice if, when you respond to something, you give a link back to whatever it is you're responding to.
Thanks Sokarul, for giving me a reason - an opportunity to link here one other post of mine : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660449#msg1660449)I'll change my name when you change your name to "pick and choosey". You ignored my last ousts but then respond to this one. Are you afraid to perform a proper experiment?
Sokarul, I can't help myself, also, but next picture is the best illustration of your personality:
(http://i.imgur.com/skam5kK.jpg)
You should change your name into "slimy scavenger", such name would suit you best!
What is really giant is your moral ugliness!
Alpha-liar,
Your job/mission is lying and deceiving, and your award will be eternal fire. If i were you i would repent and convert. One day, our Lord will ask you: "Do you remember how many times Cikljamas has warned you?" What will be your answer?
I didn't believe in You, that is why his warnings meant nothing to me! (Is this going to be your answer to Him?)
Now, something about your stupid lies:
If you rotated on a 20 meters diameter carousel, and the source of light were 20 km away from you, what would you see?
The source of light would be practically stationary, you would rotate but the effect of your rotation would be very, very small (unnoticeable), that is why very small hypothetical HC parallax has everything to do with the diminishing degrees of the hypothetical effect of the hypothetical rotation in such a bizarre hypothetical heliocentric scenario which is nothing else but a nonsense and an utter idiotism.
Our Sun is anything but a stationary Sun, that is your problem.QuoteOnce the Sun has passed due west of you, it's still following the same circle in the same direction (left to right as you are facing it), but it does start to slowly move in an easterly direction (you can't get more west than due west)...
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and you know it, and you will respond for your deliberate lies, and your excuses will be worthless, and your punishment will be severe!!!
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62346.msg1660350#msg1660350)
An experiment on scale like in a planetorium would be sufficent. With a slow rotating earth.It completes the circle. Easy. Same as these, just not as close to the pole:
The zigzag argument makes sense. How would you explain that below the artic circle the sun is rising in the east and setting in the west? How is the fixed sun going back the other side of the earth during the night? It has to move back to the east somehow?
Of course it makes sense, not only that, it is 100 % true, irrefutable, and undeniable argument against the rotation of the Earth, which scatters HC theory into thin air!All you need to do is get a ball and flashlight to show, or not show, the zig-zag. Set the ball/globe up correctly put the flashlight off in the distance and trace the path of the midnight sun. If you're right it will zig-zag...or if you're wrong it will trace a path exactly like the midnight sun videos.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63721.msg1691377#msg1691377)
A little dead thread resurrection, since stickypajamas is slinging his zigzag nonsense again.If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:
Enjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!
If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:;D ;D My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!! « Reply #66 on: May 23, 2015, 09:51:30 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691058#msg1691058) ;D ;DBut don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head! I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
...
PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's cursesEnjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!
I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...:D Maybe we should be more respectful to ChickenMess in future :P
If you need a little more humour in your life, reread this pile of total crap that only one of ChickenMess's expertise could write:;D ;D My ZIGZAG argument is undeniable proof against the rotation of the Earth!!! « Reply #66 on: May 23, 2015, 09:51:30 PM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63653.msg1691058#msg1691058) ;D ;DBut don't dare disagree with him or he will call hell-fire down on your head! I wonder where poor Alpha2omega is now!
...
PS It looks like alpha2omega surveyed cikljamas's cursesEnjoy yourselves, folks. I'm going to be on the road for a while and probably won't check in very often, if at all. See y'all in a few weeks!
I'm in New Mexico. It's hotter'n Hades here right now, so maybe there was something to that curse...
When I see this, I go what the hey; if this is what you think happens I can understand your confusion.
If we see the Sun going from East to West because the Earth rotates from West to East, what has to happen when the Earth changes it's direction of rotation with respect to the Sun at Arctic circle (where you can observe Midnight Sun phenomena (24 hours of continuous motion of the Sun above the horizon)?
The apparent motion of the Sun in the sky would cease for the moment (at 6 pm position), and then the Sun would start to move backwards, moving from West to East during this period of time (between 6pm and 6am), because the direction of Earth's rotation would be from East to West (with respect to the position of the Sun) during this period.(6pm-6am).
If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE)And how are you planning on determining what that perfectly straight line is, considering all the FEers will claim the actual straight line is curved?
the sun is going to stay at the very same spot at the display of our measuring instrument throughout the entire experiment since our parallax is so small, isn't that so HC clowns???Assuming the measuring instrument has insufficient resolution to detect the parallax, yes.
Would we yield above result (the sun would be perfectly at rest - no amount of lateral apparent displacement of the sun) if we carried out such an experiment in reality?Yes. We would.
Of course we wouldn't!Prove it.
ON TOP OF THAT :Yes, more ignorant crap.
Let's call it ZigZag model. Jane loves it!No. It isn't a model, it is an alleged consequence of a model.
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
We are interested to ensure a sun centred reference frame, one way or another!We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE)And how are you planning on determining what that perfectly straight line is, considering all the FEers will claim the actual straight line is curved?
For example, starting at the equator and travelling in a straight line at the tangential velocity of Earth (the point on the equator, including the orbit) at first you appear stationary, but you start curving upwards, gaining altitude and falling behind Earth.
For a sun centred reference frame, it is a straight line, but from Earth, it certainly looks like a curve.
Assuming the measuring instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, we could detect any amount of it, wouldn't we?the sun is going to stay at the very same spot at the display of our measuring instrument throughout the entire experiment since our parallax is so small, isn't that so HC clowns???Assuming the measuring instrument has insufficient resolution to detect the parallax, yes.
And we aren't the clowns here.
No. We wouldn't.Would we yield above result (the sun would be perfectly at rest - no amount of lateral apparent displacement of the sun) if we carried out such an experiment in reality?Yes. We would.
Go and try it.
I don't have to, i know what is the truth, that is to say : i know what would be the outcome of any experiment of that kind or of similar kind :)Of course we wouldn't!Prove it.
Remember, you need a straight line, so you need to compensate for not only the effects of Earth's curvature but also the effects of Earth's rotation.Increase the speed of an aircraft (up to mach 7), and decrease the duration of an experiment, and voila...
This means you can't even get a perfectly flat track to do it on, as the rotation of Earth will make that a curved path.
Do you have anything rational to provide?So that i could respond to a pile of stupidity which you have spouted out there?
Perhaps go back to your zig-zag of the moon and admit you fucked up big time?
This shows you understand that the rotation of Earth is much more decisive than other contributes, which means you know that 46% will only apply to some small fraction of the total motion of the moon.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whetherYes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whetherYes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.
Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what? When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere. This is would not happen. Did you even watch the video I posted? I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that. I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whetherYes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.
This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.
Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?
No, it doesn't!
So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!
If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.
So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,but we wouldn't notice a huge (180 degree) displacement of the Sun (from East to West) in the way it happens in our reality, also!!!** MikeyT crossed out the untruthful parts, cik almost made a fully truthful statement here
Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what? When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere. This is would not happen. Did you even watch the video I posted? I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that. I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whetherYes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.
This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.
Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?
No, it doesn't!
So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!
If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.
So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
I left a bit, well the bits that had a shred of content that was close to what I asked, yet you did not answer it... AGAIN.
Apparent change in the direction of the sun in RELATION to what? When you say across the sky you insinuate that the sun would go backwards in relation to the horizon or the atmosphere. This is would not happen. Did you even watch the video I posted? I watched one of yours wwith the house and sun rays, that is not at all even close to what you would see, it doesn't work like that. I can all caps too STOP WITH THE IDIOTIC STRAW MAN ROUTINE.
I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :
***** REMOVED pompass blathering that had nothing to do with my question ****
2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!
Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?
Now, the question :
What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?
Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!
Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!
In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.
While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!
**** REMOVED unnecessary insulting behavior to make himself feel better, also had nothing to do with my question *****
So please explain, ZIG ZAG in RELATION to WHAT?
When are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whetherYes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!! Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earth, zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.If we were to carry out this kind of experiment we could very easily prove that the sun is very close to the earth :No we wouldn't. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is very far away from the sun.
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.
This is pure stupidity!
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.
Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?
No, it doesn't!
So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!
If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.
So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.
My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument!No it isn't, and yes there is.
IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!Wait...
If the Earth rotated and if the Sun were 92 000 000 miles away, we wouldn't notice ZIGZAG phenomena from ANYWHERE on the Earth,Are you saying it would 'zigzag' noticeably or not? Yes or no, please make up your mind.
All of you dumfucksDon't be a sore loser. Also, you misspelled 'dumb'.
Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly.You need to ask a person who is honest.
God, lets try to dumb this down a bit more.
What would the Sun move against. I gave you an example, you could just say yes that example is correct or no it is not.
Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to answer a question honestly. I am just trying to get your argument broken down to where we could honestly discuss it. Right now it isn't. I and everyone else is making assumptions about what you are talking about with the ZigZag stuff.
Imagine we are at your Arctic circle location you use in your earlier explanations.
So keeping a mountain on the horizon in my view for the entire day. Do you think I will I see the Sun apparently go left to right and then right to left (a zig zag movement) if I am on a globe with the Sun 93 million miles away.
Easy to answer, you will have a chance to explain your answer, just give me a short and sweet answer. Yes the above is correct or no it is not.
If not, then follow up with something as simple as that to describe what you think will be seen. Like I said, we sill get into explanations later. Just getting the foundation setup for the discussion. And I do want a discussion, we spend enough time insulting each other in other threads. We can do that there.
In relation to the vertical line in the middle of our camera lens (in order to avoid possible "misleading" effects (assuming that the sun is 150 000 000 km away) we have to obscure everything we see on the horizon, that is to say : any kind of "orientation points" that are placed on the earth) :
So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?
Tycho Brahe, Kepler, and others, rejected the Copernican theory, principally eon account of the failure to detect displacement or parallax of the fixed stars. Dr. Bradley declared that what many had called "parallax," was merely "aberration." But "Dr. Brinkley, in 1810, from his observations with a very fine circle in the Royal Observatory of Dublin, thought he had detected a parallax of 1? in the bright star Lyra (corresponding to an annual displacement of 2?). This, however, proved to be illusory; and it was not till the year 1839, that Mr. Henderson, having returned from filling the situation of astronomer royal to the Cape of Good Hope, and discussing as series of observations made there with a large "mural circle," of the bright star, a Centauri, was enabled to announce as a positive fact the existence of a measurable parallax for that star, a result since fully confirmed with a very trifling correction by the observations of his successor, Sir T. Maclear. The parallax thus assigned a Centauri, is so very nearly a whole second in amount (0?.98), that we may speak of it as such. It corresponds to a distance from the sun of 18,918,000,000,000 British statute miles.
Sir John Herschel says:--
"The observations require to be made with the very best instruments, with the minutest attention to everything which can affect their precision, and with the most rigorous application of an innumerable host of 'corrections,' some large, some small, but of which the smallest, neglected or erroneously applied, would be quite sufficient to overlay and conceal from view the minute quantity we are in search of. To give some idea of the delicacies which have to be attended to in this inquiry, it will suffice to mention that the stability not only of the instruments used and the masonry which supports them, but of the very rock itself on which it is founded, is found to be subject to annual fluctuations capable of seriously affecting the result."
Dr. Lardner, in his "Museum of Science," page 179, makes use of the following words
"Nothing in the whole range of astronomical research has more baffled the efforts of observers than this question of the parallax. * * * Now, since, in the determination of the exact uranographical position of a star, there are a multitude of disturbing effects to be taken into account and eliminated, such as precession, nutation, aberration, refraction, and others, besides the proper motion of the star; and since, besides the errors of observation, the quantities of these are subject to more or less uncertainty, it will astonish no one to be told that they may en-tail upon the final result of the calculation, an error of 1?; and if they do, it is vain to expect to discover such a residual phenomenon as parallax, the entire amount of which is less than one second."
The complication, uncertainty, and unsatisfactory state of the question of annual parallax, and therefore of the earth's motion in an orbit round the sun, as indicated by the several paragraphs above quoted, are at once and for ever annihilated by the simple fact, experimentally demonstrable, that upon a base line of only a single yard, there may be found a parallax, as certain and as great, if not greater, than that which astronomers pretend to find with the diameter of the earth's supposed orbit of many millions of miles as a base line. To place the whole matter, complicated, uncertain, and unsatisfactory as it is, in a concentrated form, it is only necessary to state as an absolute truth the result of actual experiment, that, a given fixed star will, when observed from the two ends of a base line of not more than three feet, give a parallax equal to that which it is said is observed only from the two extremities of the earth's orbit, a distance or base line, of one hundred and eighty millions of miles! So far, then, from the earth having passed in six months over the vast space of nearly two hundred millions of miles, the combined observations of all the astronomers of the whole civilized world have only resulted in the discovery of such elements, or such an amount of annual parallax, or sidereal displacement, as an actual change of position of a few feet will produce. It is useless to say, in explanation, that this very minute displacement, is owing to the almost infinite distance of the fixed stars; because the very same stars show an equal degree of parallax from a very minute base line.
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
Modern astronomers have lengthened the sun's distance by nearly a hundred millions of miles, which has necessarily increased the earth's supposed orbit more than 300 000 000 of MILES!!! But this extreme alteration is neither acknowledged nor permitted to detract from the great name of Kepler, lest it might also reflect upon the "science" of astronomy; for in this exact "science" the alteration of MILLIONS of MILES is "a mere detail!"
With that cleared up, are you going to add that information to any of your youtube videos on the subject? Don't want any misleading videos do you?
Very close sun = very obvious ZIGZAG motion of the sun.
Very distant sun = ZIGZAG motion would be hardly detected by naked eyes (it would be impossible to detect it with naked eyes - to be quite sincere), but even then, it would be possible to detect it with special instruments.
That's easy. You really should learn more about photography.
(http://i.imgur.com/4cQVajW.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dgYAXWc.jpg)
"I challenge you to take a long exposure photograph while moving, and get a sharp image like this."
**** Lots of meaningless copy pasta and nonanswers.****So you clearly contradict yourself many times in that post alone, but I got rid of some of it.
Or do i have to repeat something that it seems that you still don't understand, after all these years (i would rather say that you just pretend that you don't understand it), which is this :
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.
Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?
No, it doesn't!
So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!
If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.
So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!
Yes we would. The lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion indicates Earth is at rest (no rotational motion of the earth), which is the essence of zig-zag argument!!!That is what you are trying to make the escence of your zig-zag argument. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't.
Once we prove that the sun is very close to the earthBut you can't. The zig-zag argument proves it is very distant.
zig-zag argument becomes even more interesting because the lack of a noticeable zig-zag motion becomes verifiable even with naked eyes.Which would just disprove the sun being close. It can't show Earth isn't rotating.
And if you do, you get the same results regardless of if Earth is moving or not.We are interested to ensure a sun centred reference frame, one way or another!We have to fly EASTBOUND with an aircraft in a PERFECTLY straight line (SO THAT WE CAN CANCEL OUT ANY POSSIBLE EFFECT (TO THE RESULT OF OUR MEASURING) OF EARTH'S CURVATURE)And how are you planning on determining what that perfectly straight line is, considering all the FEers will claim the actual straight line is curved?
For example, starting at the equator and travelling in a straight line at the tangential velocity of Earth (the point on the equator, including the orbit) at first you appear stationary, but you start curving upwards, gaining altitude and falling behind Earth.
For a sun centred reference frame, it is a straight line, but from Earth, it certainly looks like a curve.
Assuming the measuring instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, we could detect any amount of it, wouldn't we?Yes, if your instrument has sufficient resolution to detect the parallax, you could detect it, but only the amount the instrument is capable of detecting.
Then how come we are able to put forward rational arguments to completely refute your nonsense and you are just capable of spouting the same refuted crap while ignoring our arguments?
Yes, you are the clowns here. :)
No. We wouldn't.No. You are the one claiming it would happen, you go and try it and provide evidence of it, making sure you tell us how you managed to set up your straight path.
Go and try it.
I don't have to, i know what is the truth, that is to say : i know what would be the outcome of any experiment of that kind or of similar kind :)No. You do. You are making a baseless claim as part of your argument.
No experiment has ever been performed with such excruciating persistence and meticulous precision, and in every conceivable manner, than that of trying to detect and measure the motion of the Earth. Yet they have all consistently and continually yielded a velocity for the Earth of exactly ZERO mph.No. They haven't.
The toil of thousands of exasperated researchers, in the extremely varied experiments of ... Michelson-Morley interferometry, ... and the famous 'Airy's Failure' experiment, all conclusively failed to show any rotational or translational movement for the earth, whatsoever."Except Airy's failure required motion of Earth relative to the aether to begin with, which Michelson Morley would have detected, regardless of if it was Earth moving or the aether.
No one has measured the Earth’s speed even in the modern time with a developed technology.Sure we have.
The "Earth’s rotation" is a technical notation refers to a fake mechanism that only found in the fairytale of heliocentrism.No. Earth's rotation was measured long ago. All the way back in the 1900s. No modern technology required.
Mach 7 relative to what? What course is it following? One which follows the surface of Earth, or one which appears to curve away from it?Remember, you need a straight line, so you need to compensate for not only the effects of Earth's curvature but also the effects of Earth's rotation.Increase the speed of an aircraft (up to mach 7), and decrease the duration of an experiment, and voila...
This means you can't even get a perfectly flat track to do it on, as the rotation of Earth will make that a curved path.
So that i could respond to a pile of stupidity which you have spouted out there?No, so that you can respond to the rational arguments I provided which completely disproved your stupid crap.
Shall we recall to mind one wonderful example of your ingeniously stupid logic presented in that thread :You mean that wonderful example of me pointing out your stupidity.QuoteThis shows you understand that the rotation of Earth is much more decisive than other contributes, which means you know that 46% will only apply to some small fraction of the total motion of the moon.
No. It isn't pure stupidity.QuoteWhen are you going to learn that it makes no difference to what we would see whetherThis is pure stupidity!
the sun is stationary and the earth rotates anti-clockwise once per day (relative to the sun) or
the earth is stationary and and the sun orbits clockwise once per day, not that this makes any sense.
Even Alpha2Omega admitted many times that if there were rotation of the earth then there WOULD be ZIG-ZAG motion of the sun, only we wouldn't be able to notice it with the naked eyes, since the parallax would be so small (given the alleged 150 000 000 km distance between the earth and the sun).
If the earth rotates on it's axis any particular spot on the Arctic circle (during Northern Summer solstice) moves half a day in one direction in relation to the sun, and another half a day in an opposite direction in relation to the sun.The important part is not the absolute motion, it is the relative motion, and more specifically, the apparent rotational motion.
Does this happen if there is no rotation of the earth?
So, if the sun is so far away, there would be a diurnal parallax (due to the rotation of the earth), only it wouldn't be noticeable with naked eyes, but it would be noticeable with special instruments, and THERE WOULD BE CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN FOR THE OBSERVER ON THE ARCTIC CIRCLE!!!You get the same apparent motion.
If the earth is at rest, then the sun circles around us and THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN, BECAUSE THERE IS NO APPARENT DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE SUN in the first place, SINCE IN THIS CASE THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND US, AND IT'S MOTION IS REAL (NOT APPARENT), AND IT GOES IN ONE SINGLE DIRECTION 24/7.
So, if the sun was so far away the only problem would be how to find the best way of measuring sun's small parallax, the problem would not be problematizing (call into question) whether such parallax (ZIGZAG (apparent) motion of the sun) exists or not!!!That is right, the problem is not calling into question if the parallax exists or not, it is just measuring the parallax to determine the distance. But that parallax exists regardless of which is moving.
I already answered to your stupid objection (see No. 2 - So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios") :And you failed to do so honestly.
That the sun turns around and above us is an absolute truth!If it was you would be able to defend it rationally rather than dismiss arguments and continue to assert the same refuted nonsense.
I repeat : AN ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!! My ZIGZAG argument is the final proof in favor of this ABSOLUTE FACT! There is no way around this irrefutable argument! Many have tried to refute it with different objections but everything is in vain. Some of these objections are even principally right but it doesn't make any difference since the proponents of these objections miss the point in one way or another.No. Several people have not only tried to refute it but succeeded.
1. So called "same order of sequences" objection is wrong when we apply this objection in the right context. It means this : If we were centered at the north pole then this objection would be valid, because in such case we wouldn't be able to verify whether the sun circles around us, or we turn around ourselves. But we are not centered at the north pole (in the centre of the supposed earth's axis), and we move laterally (with respect to the sun) for two hours (11AM-1PM and 11PM-1AM), every POLAR day (in the Arctic circle), so that we don't have to turn our cameras at all (during these two hours).And here you go again ignoring the rotational component of the motion.
2. So called "turning camera to the right in both scenarios" objection is correct, but it doesn't concern the core of my ZIGZAG argument which is this : IF THE EARTH WERE SPINNING ON IT'S AXIS WE WOULD EASILY (EVEN WITH THE NAKED EYES) NOTICE ZIGZAG MOTION OF THE SUN, THAT IS TO SAY : THE SUN'S APPARENT MOTION WOULD CHANGE IT'S DIRECTION (THE SUN WOULD APPARENTLY TRAVEL FROM LEFT TO RIGHT AROUND NOON, AND FROM RIGHT TO LEFT AROUND MIDNIGHT)!!!No we wouldn't.
Just imagine the earth stops to rotate CCW at 1 PM and start to move in an opposite direction CW, what kind of an effect (in a sense of the apparent motion of the sun) would that produce? The direction of sun's apparent motion would (of course) suddenly be shifted, wouldn't it? Instead of seeing the sun as going from left to right we would all of the sudden see the sun as going from right to the left, wouldn't we?Yes, that is true. But the rotation of Earth doesn't magically change.
What is the difference between such hypothetical situation (The earth stops at 1 PM and sets the apparent motion of the sun in an opposite direction) and the situation which occurs every POLAR day between 11 PM and 1 AM (WHEN THE OBSERVER AT ARCTIC CIRCLE MOVES IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION (IN RELATION TO THE SUN) WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN 11 AM AND 1 PM?The difference is in your hypothetical situation, Earth is rotating at 0.25 degrees per minute in one direction then stops and rotates 0.25 degrees in the other direction, while in reality, Earth continues to rotate in the same direction. This lateral, translational motion you are discussing is the tiny, non-observable (at least by the naked eye) parallax.
Lastly : The oldest objection to ZIGZAG argument is this : If the sun were much closer to the earth there would be no problem to notice the change in the direction of sun's apparent motion! Only the sun is so fucking far away so that we are not able to notice such phenomena with naked eyes (although it happens - even educated heliocentrists admit that it happens (but we only can't notice it with naked eyes))!!!Again, it is not an apparent change in direction, it is an apparent change in speed, or a change in direction from an Earth-rotating reference frame (i.e. turning the camera to compensate for the rotation of Earth).
Well, the answer is this : If the sun were really 150 000 000 km away from the earth then we wouldn't be able to notice ANY DEGREE (ANY AMOUNT) of sun's apparent translation in the sky while we travel on the spinning earth sideways (LATERALLY) in relation to the sun!This objection makes no sense.
In order to produce any amount of sun's apparent translation in the sky an observer on the earth has to change an angle of his position (on the earth) with respect to the stationary sun, and the only way how we (on the spinning earth) can change our angle in relation to the stationary sun is if the earth (on which we stand) TURNS AWAY or TOWARDS the stationary sun.Earth is always turning. So we are always turning towards or away from the stationary sun.
While we move sideways we DON'T TURN NEITHER AWAY NOR TOWARDS the stationary sun!
I love how the ball earth fags are now changing their numbers on altitude to see a curve....First it was 35.000 feet,then 80.000 feet,then 100.000 feet and now it's 250 miles up haha...U dumbfucks are pathetic..How about you try staying on topic and admit defeat or mount a rational defence?
Horizon line from this altitude is perfectly flatThe horizon is always flat (barring irregularities of Earth). That is because it is the intersection of a plane with the sphere of Earth. It has the same dip angle all around.
Only these 333 miles have been calculated according to ROUND EARTH horizon calculator, not according to FLAT EARTH calculator, so we can see MUCH more than 333 km away when weather conditions are favorableYes, for a flat Earth there should be no horizon except the edge of Earth.
It means that at least during the period of ONE HALF OF AN HOUR you are moving practically (for all intents and purposes) LATERALLY in relation to the sun.NO YOU ARE NOT!
Answer me honestly : if the earth were the spinning ball wouldn't you be able to notice that the "apparent" motion of the sun (half an hour around the MIDNIGHT) occurs in an opposite direction in comparison with the direction of the "apparent" motion of the sun which you would observe half an hour around the NOON from the same spinning ball???No, you wouldn't. That is because you are still turning 7.5 degrees in the same direction, causing the same apparent motion of the sun.
So, in relation to what do we see (in the video above) everything within our FOV apparently go towards RIGHT (when i move my camera laterally to the LEFT), and vice versa?You have already provided this video and I have already pointed out the problems with it. You aren't just translating the camera, you are rotating it as well.
Damn it Jack, don't scare him off. He may have the balls to answer the questions.I'd prefer a tactical nuclear weapon.
Always Brick... err Jack?, bringing hand grenades to melees. Silly guy.
(http://media2.giphy.com/media/lhikHeY5zyE7K/giphy.gif)
I have not read the entire thread, but I can tell you that it would be quite hard to measure the parallax of the sun. To measure the parallax of i.e. alpha centauri you investigate its movement throughout the year with respect to background stars. Unfortunately when you observe the sun, background stars are impossible to detect, so the parallax would be hard to measure. Not saying it would be impossible, but there are definitely some difficulties.Reading this thread would be rather pointless for it. You would want to read his BS zig-zag threads.
Basically the parallax he is talking about is correcting for Earth's average rotation of 0.25 degrees per minute (matching a solar day), and noticing that the sun doesn't remain in the exact same spot throughout the day due to you not being at the centre of Earth's rotation, while ignoring the more complex parts to it like the eccentricity of the orbit or the tilt.
You just explained what we are talking about (HC "ZIGZAG" (due to the non-existing rotation of the globe) DIURNAL parallax) while we are looking for non-existing peer-review article which would have to deal with non-existing diurnal parallax of the sun. Bravo Jack, you are evolving...:) Now, explain to us how would you measure "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax" (whatever it could be :)) ??? Or should we wait for your smart friend Rabinoz to explain to us what is the true meaning of "GEOCENTRIC DIURNAL parallax"??? :)
Nice job Jack, thanks! Wouldn't it be good way to determine the true distance to the sun if latitudinal lines were perfect circles? However, they are not perfect circles, so we lose one of our precious orientation points :They don't need to be perfect circles.
But, since the moon is much closer (according to HC bullshit theory) to the earth you can apply my ZIGZAG argument with much higher efficiency to "The ZIGZAG of The Full Moon" case and prove to us that there is 46 % difference between DAILY (during one certain arctic polar night within 24 hours period of time) RELATIVE speeds of The Full Moon, and there you go : once you have proven 46 % difference in DAILY speed of The Full Moon, you would prove an existence of ZIGZAG phenomena, that is to say you would prove that Moon's real motion really occurs in an opposite direction from everyone who ever lived seen it go, and thus HC theory acquires FIRST (in the entire history of fruitless attempts of promulgation of the veracity of HC bullshit theory) EXPERIMENTAL (and even SOLID one) PROOF. Jack, don't you want to become famous?Are you competely incapable of understanding anything?
In order to spare your efforts, all you have to do is to carefully watch this video :Your video has already been refuted.
Why the video above provides 100 % reliable method of verification of validity of my ZIGZAG argument? Because of this :No, not because of that. There is nothing you can do to save your zig-zag BS. It is dead in the water. It has been completely refuted.
GOING TO ADMIT DEFEAT THIS TIME???Why would I admit something that never happened?
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?Well, the idea would be for you to pretend I am stupid so you can ignore my arguments.
I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433That wasn't an explanation. It was a load of bullshit which I refuted already.
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
HOW WOULD IT BE IF HC THEORY WERE TRUE :No it wouldn't be.
In Midnight scenario :
- Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
- Real motion of the Full Moon is ALSO towards East
- Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards West
In Noon scenario :
- Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
- Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
- Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards East
---- Within GC theory there would be no difference (let alone 46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there wouldn't be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.And this has been pointed out to be pure bullshit.
HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :Exactly the same as above.
---- Within HC theory there would be difference (46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there would be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.Again, only linear speeds. This is only a small amount. This results in an angular motion of -0.032 degrees or -0.048 degrees. This amounts to an actual observed apparent motion of 1.202 degrees or 1.218 degrees. Thus the difference is actually 1.3%.
CONCLUSION :And once again a conclusion full of BS.
1. By establishing 46 % between two relative speeds of Moon's motion we would affirm ZIGZAG phenomena a.k.a. change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.
2. By affirming ZIGZAG phenomena we would prove that the Moon really travels in an opposite direction of the direction of Moon's motion in which everyone who ever lived seen it go.
3. By affirming that the real direction of Moon's motion occurs in an opposite direction of it's apparent direction of motion we would FINALLY provide (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HC DECEPTION OF HUMAN KIND) at least ONE experimental proof in favor of fraudulent HC theory!
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.
That was even shown up above.
I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)Why? Why not go through what I have written and either accept it or point out specifically what was wrong?
Nothing is shown up above. Your diagram is one another example how skilled (in mathematics) idiots like you can use mathematics to prove whatever they want to prove, however every decent experiment would prove that your dazzling mathematical acrobatics boil down to NOTHING!!!No, shown above is the fact that your argument is pure bullshit, that you would expect the exact same result for a rotating Earth as a stationary Earth.
In first part of your diagram (HC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between three parallel lines, and in the second part of your diagram (GC model) you are comparing angles which are positioned between one parallel (green) line and one perpendicular (blue) line which goes through the center of the spherical model of the earth, and you think you have done something meaningful?No, I'm not.
You have done nothing, as usual. In HC model with the 150 000 000 distant sun there would be 0,004 degrees parallax due to ZIGZAG motion of the rotating earth, but in GC model there would be 180 degrees geocentric "parallax" due to sun's translation along half of it's entire daily orbit around the earth, and you think you can compare these two scenarios in such manner that at the end of the day we get the same result?Yes, I can compare these 2 results.
THERE WOULD BE NO ZIGZAG PHENOMENA ON STATIONARY EARTH, AND ALTHOUGH AN ABSENCE OF ZIGZAG PHENOMENA COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE SUN IS INFINITELY FAR AWAY (IN THEORY, AND ONLY IN THEORY) IT COULD ALSO PROVE THAT THE EARTH IS STATIONARY AND THAT THE SUN CIRCLES AROUND THE STATIONARY EARTH.BULLSHIT!
So, you dug your own grave, because THERE ISN'T ZIGZAG phenomena in GC model, and you can frame it and display it on the wall right next to the certificate of your total insanity!No, you are the one digging your own grave.
Jack, what is the point of proving that you are much stupider than you really are?
I already explained this to you several times, last time here : https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71225.msg1932433#msg1932433
However, since it seems that your delusional disorder is incurable i doubt that you will realize what is the true nature of your illness even after reading next elaboration :
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :
HOW WOULD IT BE IF HC THEORY WERE TRUE :
In Midnight scenario :
- Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
- Real motion of the Full Moon is ALSO towards East
- Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards West
In Noon scenario :
- Observer (on a spinning earth) travels towards East
- Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
- Apparent motion of the Full Moon is towards East
---- Within GC theory there would be no difference (let alone 46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there wouldn't be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.
HOW WOULD IT BE IF GEOCENTRICITY WERE TRUE :
In Midnight scenario :
- Observer is at rest
- Real motion of the Full Moon is towards West
- Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards West
In Noon scenario :
- Observer is at rest
- Real motion of the Full Moon is towards East
- Apparent motion of the Full Moon is also towards East
---- Within HC theory there would be difference (46 %) between relative speeds of the Fool Moon comparing Midnight and Noon scenario, because there would be change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.
CONCLUSION :
1. By establishing 46 % between two relative speeds of Moon's motion we would affirm ZIGZAG phenomena a.k.a. change in direction of motion of an observer on the earth relative to the REAL direction of motion of the Full Moon.
2. By affirming ZIGZAG phenomena we would prove that the Moon really travels in an opposite direction of the direction of Moon's motion in which everyone who ever lived seen it go.
3. By affirming that the real direction of Moon's motion occurs in an opposite direction of it's apparent direction of motion we would FINALLY provide (FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HC DECEPTION OF HUMAN KIND) at least ONE experimental proof in favor of fraudulent HC theory!
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.
That was even shown up above.
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.
I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.
I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)
JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.
Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.
As you know Jack, i was too generous when i said that within HC Noon scenario apparent motion of the moon would be towards West!!! It wouldn't be towards West, it would be towards East since THE DIRECTION OF MOTION OF THE OBSERVER ON A SPINNING EARTH WOULD BE MUCH MORE DECISIVE THAN THE THE DIRECTION OF REAL MOTION OF THE MOON :You mean like I pointed out?
No shitty videos, EXPLAIN IT HERE!!!
I would really like to here Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)Again, why would you need his opinion? Just so he can agree with me and say you are an idiot?
Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?Basically the exact same one as for the rotating Earth frame of reference.
In HC model ZIGZAG motion exists but it is not anything of that sort (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial object due to changed direction of rotational motion of the observer on the earth relative to the observing celestial object), it is just change in apparent speed (angular velocity) of celestial object in the sky?Yes, that is correct. The direction of rotation remains constant. All you have it a change in apparent angular velocity of the object in the sky, just like you do for the GC model, it is just the origin of that difference which is different, the result is the same.
So, in my video (above) you are not able to notice what is going on?Like I said, no shitty videos. Explain it here, provide the math.
When i move my camera to the RIGHT everything within FOV of the camera lens goes to the LEFT, and vice versa, but you are not able to notice this, isn't that so?Yes, that is what will happen if you just TRANSLATE your camera to the left.
And you can't see something that you won't see it because you are deliberately blind, what you see (in your delusional, deliberate blindness) instead is absolutely minute change in apparent speed of motion of observed environment, isn't that so?That appears to be describing you, where you repeatedly refuse to see Earth's rotation and the effect of that rotation.
CONGRATULATIONS, YOU ARE THE BIGGEST MORON IN THE WORLD!!!Nope, that would be you. Spouting a bunch of dishonest crap and describing exactly what you are doing.
In GC model ZIGZAG motion ALSO existsWell thanks for finally admitting it.
that motion is nothing else but changed apparent (angular) speed of the sun, moon, stars etc WITHIN ONE SINGLE POLAR DAY/NIGHTYes, just like I had been saying.
although no one has ever registered such change in apparent (angular) speeds of these objectsSo is this now the part where I claim this difference doesn't exist and thus HC must be right, where I demand you provide valid citations of this change and claim HC will be right until you do?
although in GC model there is no place for ZIGZAG motion about which we were talking all these years (changed apparent direction of motion of celestial objects which is applicable only within HC model)?That is because there is no place for that in any model which is trying to describe reality. In fact, I don't think there is a place for that in any model at all which is just focusing on the rotation of Earth with a "fixed" celestial body like the sun.
How come that angular velocity of the moon isn't 400 times greater than angular velocity of the sun?Good job, you answered your own question.
HC answer : magic word ROTATION, or better to say : super magic phrase CCW ROTATION
New question :No. Not a new question. The exact same question.
How come that angular velocity of the sun isn't 275 200 times greater than angular velocity of Alpha Centauri?
Well, you can stick your magic word ROTATION to your ass, because it is all utter bullshit! What you can see in these photos (watch my video (above) again if you need) is the result of motion of my camera to the RIGHT - everything goes to the LEFT, and vice versa. If an object is 3 times farther away from some other object than it's angular velocity will be 3 times lesser than angular velocity of 3 times closer object.Yes, we can see the result of your TRANSLATION to the left or right.
All you have to do is to ensure fixed spatial orientation of your camera, like this :Which then appeals to completely different arguments for or against Earth's rotation.
Why above method is 100 % reliable? Because of this :You mean because of a horribly imperfect gyro which needs a self-righting mechanism, which cannot detect small changes in angle?
JackBlack, muddying the water (as well as twisting my words) won't help!Nope. Not muddying the waters. You do enough of that already. Why would I make it worse?
1. These 0,04 degrees per hour is still 46 % of the difference between two alleged relative motions of the moon which don't exist. Had these two different DAILY speeds existed we would have known about them, until this day.No.
2. So, if changed direction of earth's motion (Noon time) doesn't matter then how come that we talk about alleged 46 % of the difference between two allegedly different DAILY relative speeds of the moon, in the first place?So many errors I hardly no where to begin.
3. Show me ONE SINGLE peer review article or ANY KIND of article ever published anywhere, which corroborates the existence of such phenomena!No. It is entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand.
4. Our motion is much more decisive than moon's alleged eastward motion, that is why the moon supposedly appears to move westward. The amount of displacement of moon's "apparent" westward (CW) motion : 2,5 diameters of moon's apparent angular diameter (or 1,25 degrees/5min.). IF YOU CHANGED THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ALLEGED SPIN YOU WILL CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF MOON'S APPARENT MOTION.Yes, if you changed the direction of Earth's spin but kept everything else the same you will change the direction of the moon's apparent motion. You would also change its magnitude. Ignoring the issue of the solar day changing, the moon's motion in 5 minutes would go from an average of 1.21 degrees to -1.29 degrees.
You can muddy the water by calling on circular motion and by doing that you can even achieve your ultimate goal (which is : to confuse other people), but to make this thing absolutely simple i restricted our hypothetical measurement to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight (which measurement would have to take place within 24 hours of one single polar Arctic day).Again, I AM NOT CALLING ON CIRCULAR MOTION!!!!!
Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move 1,25 degrees (which is 2,5 apparent moon's diameters).No. Within these 5 minutes the moon is going to move roughly 1.21 degrees, when measure along the celestial equator.
Only this displacement wouldn't be in the same direction at Noon (vs at Midnight) if the earth turned on it's axis, as simple as that.That all depends upon how you measure it.
Why?No. Do you know why?
Because the same decisive factor (alleged rotation of the earth) would be responsible not only for non-existing opposite outcome regarding 46 % alleged difference in two different relative DAILY moon's motion but it would be also responsible for one other (much more serious) opposite outcome = an apparent displacement of moon's angular diameter would occur in an opposite direction than it would occur at Noon (in relation to the result of our observation which would take place at Midnight).
What is the significance of restricting our measurement periods to 5 minutes around Noon and around Midnight?It means we can treat the translational components as a straight line, making it much simpler to calculate the apparent motion.
Avoiding "circular motion" confusion!!!You are the only one appealing to circular motion.
I repeat :Repeating the strawman wont magically make you right. You are the only one appealing to a strawman.
While 4km distant moon (in our scaled down model) moved 3 m to the LEFT we moved (on our merry go round) 0,5 meter to the LEFT (also), and expecting result of our 0,5 m long motion should be apparent translation of our moon to the RIGHT for 2,5 apparent moon's diameters. While we are traveling these 0,5 m long trip we have to surmount 0,68mm bulge (which is less than 1 fucking mm which is less than 25th part of one fucking inch), and such lateral motion you are still ready to call "circular motion" (due to the fact that we have to overcome less than a whole 25th part of one fucking inch by moving along 0,5 meters (out of 157 m of total circumference) long path of our 50m (in diameter) big merry go round)?
In this video you can see lateral and rotational translationYes and you make it impossible to tell the difference between them with your pathetic shaky hands.
however rotational translation you can disregard since this particular rotational translation happens around the center of the fixed axis (as if we were centered at the north pole), but you can't disregard our lateral translation because you couldn't say the difference between this lateral translation and rotational motion along 0,5 m while turning CCW on our 50 m (in diameter) merry go round which represents our Arctic circle...NO! You cannot disregard the rotation. That is because a rotation of -1.25 degrees will result in an apparent motion of all objects by 1.25 degrees.
So, there is no doubt that the final result would be an apparent motion of the moon to the west (in noon HC scenario), that is to say : in the same direction in which the moon travels within HC scenario at noon as observed from the Arctic circle during appropriate Polar Night when the moon is visible 24 hours a day...No, there is no doubt that the rotation will be the most significant effect and thus for an observer on the artic circle the moon will appear to move roughly 1.25 degree to the right regardless of if it is mid day or mid night. The apparent movement due to their translation will amount to roughly 0.008 degrees.
this would be the result on the basis of what has been recorded in my experiment :Your experiment is horribly flawed and without control.
Antialias=Off
Antialias_Threshold=0.1
Antialias_Depth=2
Input_File_Name="[INSERT NAME OF POV FILE HERE]"
Initial_Frame=1
Final_Frame=360
Initial_Clock=0
Final_Clock=1
Cyclic_Animation=on
Pause_when_Done=off#version 3.7;
global_settings { assumed_gamma 1.0 }
#declare r=6.4;
#declare R=80;
#declare Sr=tan(radians(0.5))*R;
#declare Slat=25;
#declare Olat=70;
#declare Slrad=radians(Slat);
#declare Sx=R*cos(Slrad);
#declare Sy=R*sin(Slrad);
#declare Olrad=radians(Olat);
#declare cx=(r+0.000002)*cos(Olrad);
#declare cy=(r+0.000002)*sin(Olrad);
#declare theta=clock*360;
#declare trad=radians(theta);
#declare st=sin(trad);
#declare ct=cos(trad);
//Camera
camera{ angle 20
right x*image_width/image_height
location <0 , cy , cx>
look_at <Sx*st , Sy , Sx*ct+cx>
}
//Lights
light_source{ (R-Sr*10)/R*<Sx*st,Sy,Sx*ct>
color rgb<1,1,1>
}
//Sun
sphere{ <Sx*st,Sy,Sx*ct>, Sr
texture { pigment{ rgb<1,1,0> }
finish { diffuse 0.9
phong 1}
}
}
// Earth:
sphere{ <0,0,0>, r
texture { pigment{ rgb<0,1,0> }
}
}
For the large FOV, the 20 in the camera block was changed to 90, and Sy (also in the camera block) was changed to Sy*0.1#version 3.7;
global_settings { assumed_gamma 1.0 }
#declare r=6.4;
#declare R=80;
#declare Sr=tan(radians(0.5))*R;
#declare Slat=25;
#declare Olat=70;
#declare Slrad=radians(Slat);
#declare Sx=R*cos(Slrad);
#declare Sy=R*sin(Slrad);
#declare Olrad=radians(Olat);
#declare cx=(r+0.000002)*cos(Olrad);
#declare cy=(r+0.000002)*sin(Olrad);
#declare theta=clock*360;
#declare trad=radians(theta);
#declare st=sin(trad);
#declare ct=cos(trad);
//Camera
camera{ angle 20
right x*image_width/image_height
location <-cx*st , cy , cx*ct>
look_at <-cx*st , Sy , Sx+cx*ct>
}
//Lights
light_source{ (R-Sr*10)/R*<0,Sy,Sx>
color rgb<1,1,1>
}
//Sun
sphere{ <0,Sy,Sx>, Sr
texture { pigment{ rgb<1,1,0> }
finish { diffuse 0.9
phong 1}
}
}
// Earth:
sphere{ <0,0,0>, r
texture { pigment{ rgb<0,1,0> }
}
}
Jack, let's consider one solar eclipse situation :How about you focus on the current argument first, either admitting you were wrong or providing an argument to counter it?
1. Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.But the moon does move, and so does Earth (but I will ignore the orbital motion of Earth to keep the reference frames constant).
What happens?Yes, the shadow will remain at the same location, with Earth turning below it, meaning it would move to the west, as the sun and moon appear to move to the west together. This also works for the GC model.
As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
TO THE WEST means in this particular situation TO THE RIGHT (it's NOON and we are facing the sun - north is behind our back)!!!
2. Now we put the moon in motionThat is for us, not the sun. The angular speed of the moon relative to the sun (which would determine the motion of the shadow) is significantly different.
Since it's motion contributes - 0,008 degrees/min
0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?No, that isn't so. But if it was, don't worry, the same would apply for the GC model.
3. Now imagine that we are somwhere in the Arctic circle, it's MIDNIGHT and solar eclipse occurs...No, I just call it CCW rotation. Nothing holy about it.
Sun, moon, earth are aligned and the moon doesn't move.
You can call it "holy CCW rotation", but this time we move in counter direction with respect to the moon (comparing classical "noon" scenarios).
What happens?Yes, that is right. It is the same this time because the shadow starts where you are, not off in the distance.
As the earth rotates to the east shadow of the moon travels to the west, isn't that so?
Now the moon travels in an opposite direction of our motion since we go to the RIGHT (to the EAST), and the moon goes to the LEFT (to the WEST), which means that this time the moon's motion contributes + 3 % (instead of - 3 %), and shadow of the moon should go even faster to the WEST, isn't that so?No it isn't for the same reasons as above. But again, this applies equally to the GC model.
You know why?No, I know why, because you completely misrepresent the model yet again.
Because the earth is stationary, that is why!
0,04 degrees/5min (out of 1,25 degrees) which is about - 3 %, it means that the motion of the moon to the east can't be the reason for changing (all of a sudden) the direction of motion of moon's shadow on the earth (to the east), since it's - 3 % contribution isn't greater than + 97 % contribution (regarding the same effect = the shadow goes to the west) of earth's rotation to the east, isn't that so?No, that isn't so. But if it was, don't worry, the same would apply for the GC model.
Jack, show me one peer-review article (just one) which claims that midnight solar eclipse lasts 6 % shorter than noon solar eclipse (under the same circumstances), solely due to earth's rotation in counter direction in relation to the alleged direction of moon's motion!!! (We shall - for the moment - neglect major role which "rotation in counter direction" plays in all this...)No. Like I said, deal with your zig-zag BS before moving on.
As for the core of ZIGZAG argument, it is only the question of the obviousness of this non-existing phenomena which (obviousness) depends of the distances between the earth and celestial objects.You are yet to show it is non-existent. But yes, it just depends upon the ratio of distances.
Claiming that ZIGZAG motion somehow comes down to the differences in apparent speeds of celestial objects is utter nonsense because in GC model all celestial objects move (apart from retrograde motions) in one single general direction which means that there is no change regarding the direction of their motion.And in HC theory, due to the decisive nature of Earth's rotation, being much greater in magnitude than the angular velocity of the moon and much greater in magnitude than the effect of being off centre, there is no change regarding the direction of motion.
So, when you are trying to reduce non-existing ZIGZAG motion to some minute differences which come as a consequence of minute differences in the distances of the observer on the earth in relation to the celestial objects, it akin to calling on retrograde motion as a proof for the existence of non-existing ZIGZAG motion which is very clearly defined phenomena (WHICH EXCLUSIVE CAUSE IS ALLEGED CHANGE OF THE DIRECTION OF EARTH'S ROTATIONAL MOTION IN RELATION TO THE CELESTIAL OBJECTS) which obviously doesn't exist.This sentence makes almost no sense.
Can you be a little more shaky while moving the camera? Perhaps pointing it around the room and up and down while moving it back and forth so that there is no question about it no longer being aimed along a parallel line of sight between positions.
Regarding ZIGZAG of The Full Moon case :Which was already fully dealt with and I had shown that you get the same result regardless of if it is Earth rotating (with a different speed than it does in reality) with a stationary moon, Earth rotating with an orbiting moon, or Earth stationary with a circling moon.
The same zig-zag exists.
I would really like to [hear] Alpha2Omega's opinion on this :)
JackBlack is correct. The geometry is the same regardless of the frame of reference.
Don't take my word for it, though. If you think you found an error, point it out.
Can you explain to us what exact "zigzag" are you referring to within GC frame of reference?
Jack, i explained everything in my posts #124 and #126, go and read them again if you need.I have read them and I have refuted them.
Now, let's imagine this situation : solar eclipse is going to happen exactly at noonNo, let's not. Let's deal with your zig-zag failure before moving on.
This means if you rotate the camera relative to Earth in one (to counter Earth's rotation), then you need to do the same for the other (to counter the average motion of the sun).Nope. Not mine that is misleading, yours.
Why this words are misleading? Because when we rotate camera relative to Earth (to counter Earth's rotation), in the same time we counter the average motion of the sun, also! Why? Because the sun is stationary within HC theory, is it not?
So, 2,5 minutes before noon our camera is starting to strictly focusing to the center of the sun, which means that our camera is turned about 0,65 degrees to the left (from the imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth), right at noon our camera is perfectly aligned with imaginary vertical line which goes through the center of the earth (and still centered to the center of the sun), 2,5 minutes after noon our camera is turned 0,65 degrees to the right from our imaginary vertical line (and still centered to the center of the sun).No it isn't.
Since the moon is allegedly 400 times closer to the earth than the sun, then the effect of our LATERAL motion will have to be somewhere close to this difference (400 times), also. What this means is this : For the same amount of our LATERAL translation the apparent translation of the moon (in counter direction of our LATERAL motion) would be proportionally (400 times) GREATER than the apparent translation of the sun (in the same direction). We only need to reduce this number (400) for 3 % (due to moon's alleged motion towards east)...No, the result due to the translation will be roughly 400 times greater for the moon. You don't try and adjust it by 3%. You would have to adjust it for the motion of the moon in its orbit, 0.04 degrees.
Since the moon and the sun would be alignedStop trying to change it to the eclipse. Deal with your zig-zag BS first.
there is no such disproportiotional APPARENT motion of these celestial objects, because their motions are REAL, not APPARENT!!!You are aware real motion gives rise to apparent motion?
ONCE AGAIN :Repeating the same refuted BS won't magically make it true.
LATERAL MOTION VS ROTATIONAL MOTION :Yes, good job, you failed to move the camera laterally and instead rotated it significantly, making your result meaningless.
However, this is the reason why we can't ensure REAL fixed spatial orientation of our camera by using above method :We don't need to.
Why directional gyros a.k.a. heading indicators are 100 % reliable instruments? Because of this :No, they aren't 100% reliable instruments, no instrument is.